It makes no sense that money police collects goes directly towards funding any government department. It should go into a tax refund pool.
As far as I can tell this is extremely easy to implement. And utterly removes any mal-incentives.
Having a inbuilt social good for breaking the law might make people more willing to do so as they can justify their illegal action as a contribution to public good.
A mitigating thing is monthly SS insurance benefits max out.
Aside from that, the fines go to the jurisdiction that charged you, which can then be used for whatever the jurisdiction wants; road repairs, school improvements, landscaping, administration, etc. etc. So if you were charged with a provincial fine, the money would go to the province, if you were charged with a regional fine, the money would go to the region.
In a way, that's a "tax-refund" pool, isn't it? We don't need to spend as much tax money on these things because the fines partially fund them.
A $50 5-over ticket comes with a $100 surcharge that goes to the anti-DUI education fund, $100 toward the brain injury fund, $100 toward the reckless drivers victims fund, etc etc. All these fines get directed at various nonprofits that do things like run the mandatory classes people have to to take after getting a DUI or your 3rd speeding ticket or whatever. Of course those classes cost hundreds of dollars to attend. I don't think anyone is quite sure where the money goes. Of course this is all done with good intentions but the practical effect is that it just increases the fraction of the population who's one traffic offense away from sliding into poverty.
Awhile ago there was an article posted here about the breakdown of fines for a simple speeding ticket in CA and it was pretty disgusting the amount of fines that one has to pay in addition to the ticket itself and it all goes toward stuff that should probably be funded via the general budget or not at all. Maybe someone can find the article.
There are rural areas greatly underserved by law enforcement due to low pop densities, so there has to be something which accounts fir that.
They had a part-time mayor/police officer. When he wasn't running the town, he was bringing in revenue by sitting in his car outside the courthouse waiting for a "speeder" to "blow through" his 15 mph zone and pay him the $75 ticket.
Since I didn't live there, I'm not sure if calling 9-1-1 called this cop/mayor directly, or if it went to my town's dispatch.
Some people will refuse to buy them for years. People will be buying cheap used cards for years, and those will be normal cars for quite a long time. Dollars to doughnuts the sensors and cameras and whatnot on a lot of autonomous cars will fail before the car itself does, rendering them back to manual. And again the used car market isn't going away.
There might be plenty of manual drivers in fifty years.
I don't think self driving cars will even have a steering wheel. It would probably be cheaper to buy a new car than to convert a self driving car back to manual operation.
- Autonomous cars will massively reduce income from speeding fines
- Electric cars will reduce the incoming tax revenue from buying fuel (in Australia this is a large component that also goes into funding the maintenance of the roads)
- Solar power reducing overall household spend on power, which is potentially another large source of tax revenue
The last two things keeps more money in the pockets of consumers, which will therefore probably get spent on other things, so could be closer to a zero-sum game than it looks.
Until some kind of rule change comes in to create new government revenue streams, it's the early adopters getting the benefits so far (for example, Australia is considering additional taxes on electric cars to make up for the 'road maintenance' component the government won't be getting due to their not buying fuel. No word on incentives for "clean air" or "reduced emissions" benefits though...).
They could also use some sort of algorithm that looks at each driver's record. If you have a history of speeding, they can just go ahead and asses extra fees for you since the algorithm extrapolated you would have had more tickets anyways. If you have a clean record, then the algo will go ahead and decide you're "due" for a ticket, and charge you accordingly. Why not, insurance companies do it.
Most policing is subjective.
The State of Montana had this until the late 1990's, when the Fed's finally forced Montana into having a speed limit again by threatening to pull all Federal highway funding.
Other fun facts are that you could get a driving license at 14 years old (or a "ranch driving license" at 12 in some semi-rare cases), there was no seatbelt law, no motorcycle helmet law, and no law against drinking and driving[0].
[0] There was a law against being drunk while driving, but not a law against drinking while driving. This lead to the classic canard: "How far is it from Butte to Helena?" "Oh about four beers."
however, i'd challenge the idea that solving more crimes is necessarily a better use of our tax dollars.
cars are the number one killer of people in america that police can directly affect. so why wouldn't we want more enforcement of traffic rules (which is where most of those fines come from), to reduce traffic fatalities? (we need to know which rules best reduce fatalities of course, but that's a given)
suicides are also high on that list. community policing techniques can help there.
and don't get me wrong, homicide investigations are important, for both prevention and justice, but homicides shouldn't dictate spending on, and the attention of, our police force.
at the bottom of the list are mass shootings (basically a rounding error of yearly gun deaths), yet police forces spend disproportionate amounts of money on (reacting to) mass shootings (assault weapons, active shooter gear, tanks, etc.).
I think automotive industry innovation can do more to bring the fatalities down than any practical amount of policing. Also, I'm tired of the low standards for actual driving ability in America, combined with the lazy speed enforcement approach by cops. My life has very, very rarely been threatened by a speeder, but it has regularly been threatened (particularly when I'm cycling or walking) by negligent or outright incompetent drivers.
but i'm with you about distracted and incompetent driving. let's better enforce unsafe driving laws, like blowing through stop signs or careening across 4 lanes to exit the freeway at the last minute (both of which i see all the time). and let's incorporate simulators in driving tests that put people in a variety of potential accident scenarios that they must successfully maneuver. or something even better. but something real, not this safety theater we have now.
>something real, not this safety theater we have now.
Exactly.
I don't really care if you eat a hamburger while driving an overloaded truck with a manual transmission and manual steering so long as it doesn't result in you blowing stop signs or cutting me off trying to make your exit.
Existing improvements have barely entered the market. Consider what is probably the single greatest innovation since ABS: automatic emergency braking. Having watched quite a number of dashcam videos on YouTube, it is amazing how many people just plough into others, either not braking at all, or not braking at anywhere near the limit of their car.
Here's a great example of automotive innovation saving the day: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9X-5fKzmy38
Incidentally, this is the same reason I find those clickbait articles about "what would a self-driving car do if faced with hitting a school bus or running off a cliff". The correct answer is "brake to the full potential of the car and aim straight", since reducing kinetic energy should be the primary focus!
You responsibility is to direct where the vehicle goes.
I would love to see this as standard on all vehicles.