Author Topic: What is the REAL cost of a moving violation (traffic ticket)? (Read 3831 times)

Neil Obstat · « **on:** March 30, 2014, 09:10:25 PM »

.

I heard a report on the radio today, on the Ric Edelman show, where he gave some startling statistics. What does it really cost when you get a citation for illegal lane change, straddling lanes, turning left without using a turn signal, failing to come to a complete stop at a stop sign -- you know, very low-level items?

Your auto insurance will increase about 20%, and it goes on for two or more years, because you get a point on your driving record. If you pay $1,000 a year for auto insurance, you can figure 20% more is $400, and then add 400 for next year, 400 for the following year, as long as it remains, so that's going to be $1,200 plus or minus, over the next several years, and that doesn't include the cost of the ticket itself. Edelman said "$25 or $50" but I think it's more like $80 and up, in California. For most tickets they add a "penalty assessment" to the fine, which more than doubles it. That's peculiar to California, though, I hope.

For more serious offenses, the rate is higher. He said a Reckless Driving conviction will cost you a 73% increase and a DUI will cost 89%. So, for a $1,000 policy the Reckless conviction will be $1,700 (+/-) more for insurance the first few years, which adds up to perhaps $5,000 for insurance alone. If you get an attorney for the Reckless, it will be $500 to $1,000 for an hour or two of his time. They like really high retainers for Reckless Driving cases. A DUI will almost double your insurance. I heard elsewhere that the court costs and attorney fees in CA for a DUI used to be about $10,000, but now they're up to $18,000. Then you can add to that the insurance increase, if your license isn't revoked, which would be $6 k for increased insurance premiums, for a total of $24,000 for one drunk driving conviction.

I was in traffic court about 15 years ago, when the case right in front of me was a man who had taken a flight from New York just for his court appearance. He had been on holiday in CA when he got a ticket, and his court date was 6 weeks into the future, so he went home to NY and returned in 6 weeks just for this stupid ticket, then turned around and went back to NY right after he walked out of the courthouse. The judge seemed to think that was perfectly reasonable, and gave him good credit for his diligence.

So don't get a DUI when you're out of state. You'll have to add a few hundred more (minimum) to the $24 k bill for airplane tickets. And your lawyer will probably be out of town for you, too, unless you want to pay for his plane tickets as well.

.

crossbro · « **Reply #1 on:** March 31, 2014, 01:22:03 AM »

There is also another aspect of the cost.

The more people who get tickets in your area will cause your own insurance to increase whether you get a ticket or not.

You have probably heard of these monitors that insurance agencies are offering customers to put on their cars so they can earn safe driving discounts ?

I am sure that in the future those monitors will become mandatory. In fact, that industry will probably lobby at state and federal levels to make it into law that your car get a monitor so they can increase your rates whether you get a ticket or not.

ggreg · « **Reply #2 on:** March 31, 2014, 04:32:10 AM »

Why should any Catholic or any person with a sense of morality get a DUI?

Drinking and driving is GROSSLY irresponsible and immoral. When you get behind a 1 ton piece of metal and pilot it at up to 70-80mph, you should have all of your faculties about you. If you kill or maim someone, they have to suffer much more than the loss of $24k.

$24,000 seems to me to be an appropriate punishment if people are going to learn not to do it again. I represents the cost of an average new car.

If I am driving I will either not drink at all or limit myself to a small glass of wine or beer for a SINGLE toast. It's simple enough. If you drink or plan to drink, then don't drive any car.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** March 31, 2014, 08:04:28 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

Why should any Catholic or any person with a sense of morality get a DUI?

Drinking and driving is GROSSLY irresponsible and immoral. When you get behind a 1 ton piece of metal and pilot it at up to 70-80mph, you should have all of your faculties about you. If you kill or maim someone, they have to suffer much more than the loss of $24k.

$24,000 seems to me to be an appropriate punishment if people are going to learn not to do it again. I represents the cost of an average new car.

If I am driving I will either not drink at all or limit myself to a small glass of wine or beer for a SINGLE toast. It's simple enough. If you drink or plan to drink, then don't drive any car.

Even most modern-day pagans understand the difference between getting drunk, and getting drunk and then driving a car.

Catholics shouldn't be getting drunk -- if they really have that vice, they should give up alcohol or really hit the fasting/abstaining this Lent because they obviously need it.

Drunkenness, as a vice, has two "best friends": gluttony and fornication. Where there is drunkenness, the other two are close by. And Our Lady said that more people go to Hell from sins of the flesh than for any other reason.

Dolores · « **Reply #4 on:** March 31, 2014, 12:10:33 PM »

Obey the traffic laws and you won't get any moving violations, and you won't have to worry about this.

Of all the things the government does, I think one of the least objectionable is enforcing traffic laws. There is nothing immoral about such laws, they are not overly burdensome or complex, and they exist for the safety of drivers and passengers.

Ambrose · « **Reply #5 on:** March 31, 2014, 12:58:27 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

Obey the traffic laws and you won't get any moving violations, and you won't have to worry about this.

Of all the things the government does, I think one of the least objectionable is enforcing traffic laws. There is nothing immoral about such laws, they are not overly burdensome or complex, and they exist for the safety of drivers and passengers.

I agree with you here, tickets for offenses are generally reasonable. The objection I have is that the insurance companies cash in on this and drive and punish you again for years.

Dolores · « **Reply #6 on:** March 31, 2014, 01:34:00 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Dolores
Obey the traffic laws and you won't get any moving violations, and you won't have to worry about this.

Of all the things the government does, I think one of the least objectionable is enforcing traffic laws. There is nothing immoral about such laws, they are not overly burdensome or complex, and they exist for the safety of drivers and passengers.

I agree with you here, tickets for offenses are generally reasonable. The objection I have is that the insurance companies cash in on this and drive and punish you again for years.

Generally speaking, the insurance companies are just relying on statistics when they determine premiums. They plug in things like your age, sex, location, and driving record to determine the odds of you being in an at-fault accident, and set your premiums accordingly.

Ambrose · « **Reply #7 on:** March 31, 2014, 02:32:00 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Dolores
Obey the traffic laws and you won't get any moving violations, and you won't have to worry about this.

Of all the things the government does, I think one of the least objectionable is enforcing traffic laws. There is nothing immoral about such laws, they are not overly burdensome or complex, and they exist for the safety of drivers and passengers.

I agree with you here, tickets for offenses are generally reasonable. The objection I have is that the insurance companies cash in on this and drive and punish you again for years.

Generally speaking, the insurance companies are just relying on statistics when they determine premiums. They plug in things like your age, sex, location, and driving record to determine the odds of you being in an at-fault accident, and set your premiums accordingly.

I understand. The problem is this:

1. In almost every state you are mandated by law to carry insurance.
2. A moving violation is not an accident, and does not cost the insurance company anything.
3. Insurance companies are private entities and your dealing with them is a business transaction.
4. Since the government forces you to engage in this transaction, they are in effect punishing you twice for the same infraction.

When an insurance company places surcharges on your insurance for something that did not cost them anything, and you are forced to pay them by law, it is in effect a double penalty for the same offense.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** March 31, 2014, 03:31:22 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: ggreg
Why should any Catholic or any person with a sense of morality get a DUI?

That's a reasonable question. No Catholic should be drinking that much in the first place. What you do AFTER drinking to much is not the first problem, because it's a mortal sin to drink that much to begin with. I wasn't condoning excessive drinking, but I thought a few numbers here would maybe increase the awareness of how expensive it can be -- even if you don't have any "accident." Not getting in a wreck while under the influence of drugs or alcohol is really kind of an 'accident' in itself, because once you go past that line where your judgment is impaired, it's more like dumb luck that you would not get hurt or not injure someone else or damage some property.

Quote

Quote
Drinking and driving is GROSSLY irresponsible and immoral. When you get behind a 1 ton piece of metal and pilot it at up to 70-80mph, you should have all of your faculties about you. If you kill or maim someone, they have to suffer much more than the loss of $24k.

All of this is true, ggreg. I am simply amazed to find otherwise intelligent people, some even trad Catholics, who equate the ability to get just as close as possible to the brink of drunkenness is some kind of achievement or proof of their virtues. They think it's some kind of sporting event to show off that their reactions are still fast (playing games like having someone drop a swizzle stick between your fingers to see if you can catch it by pinching your fingers together before the end of the stick falls past) or even dare to get into their car and drive off when they're not even WALKING straight on the way to the car.

Quote

Quote
$24,000 seems to me to be an appropriate punishment if people are going to learn not to do it again. It represents the cost of an average new car.

BTW that's 24 k that's not tax deductible.

Quote

Quote
If I am driving I will either not drink at all or limit myself to a small glass of wine or beer for a SINGLE toast. It's simple enough. If you drink or plan to drink, then don't drive any car.

Have you ever demanded the car keys of a friend when he (or she) gets to that point where their movements and speech are getting affected? Because telling them they need to stop is perhaps not a clear enough marker, but having to give up their car keys might be enough.

Quote

Even most modern-day pagans understand the difference between getting drunk, and getting drunk and then driving a car.

The problem with the "getting drunk" part is, once you're at that point, you cannot trust yourself to make wise judgments anymore, so the decision to not drive because it's dangerous can easily be a decision that you can no longer make. And getting into the driver's seat and turning the ignition key (or whatever it is that starts the vehicle) is a matter of habit. When habitual actions take over, that's the result.

Quote

Catholics shouldn't be getting drunk -- if they really have that vice, they should give up alcohol or really hit the fasting/abstaining this Lent because they obviously need it.

Habitual drunkenness, like any addiction, is in the same category of sin as the sin of Sodom: it causes you to become subject, and willingly so, to a PHYSICAL dependency on a material substance to achieve a state of artificial euphoria or to satisfy a craving. The addiction becomes your false god and your desire to serve it becomes your reason for living.

Anyone who habitually drinks but cannot give it up for 6 weeks, or during Lent, has a very serious addiction.

Quote

Drunkenness, as a vice, has two "best friends": gluttony and fornication. Where there is drunkenness, the other two are close by. And Our Lady said that more people go to Hell from sins of the flesh than for any other reason.

Drunkenness as a vice,
has two "best friends" :

gluttony & fornication.

Put that on an index card and hand it to a friend. That's a shocker.

Have business cards printed up, with just that sentence on it, to pass out to people.

Don't be surprised sometimes, if they literally pass out.

BTW: I think it should be:
Our Lady said that more people go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.

.

Dolores · « **Reply #9 on:** April 01, 2014, 08:07:09 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote from: Dolores
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Dolores
Obey the traffic laws and you won't get any moving violations, and you won't have to worry about this.

Of all the things the government does, I think one of the least objectionable is enforcing traffic laws. There is nothing immoral about such laws, they are not overly burdensome or complex, and they exist for the safety of drivers and passengers.

I agree with you here, tickets for offenses are generally reasonable. The objection I have is that the insurance companies cash in on this and drive and punish you again for years.

Generally speaking, the insurance companies are just relying on statistics when they determine premiums. They plug in things like your age, sex, location, and driving record to determine the odds of you being in an at-fault accident, and set your premiums accordingly.

I understand. The problem is this:

1. In almost every state you are mandated by law to carry insurance.
2. A moving violation is not an accident, and does not cost the insurance company anything.
3. Insurance companies are private entities and your dealing with them is a business transaction.
4. Since the government forces you to engage in this transaction, they are in effect punishing you twice for the same infraction.

When an insurance company places surcharges on your insurance for something that did not cost them anything, and you are forced to pay them by law, it is in effect a double penalty for the same offense.

1. True. But you are only required to carry liability insurance, i.e., payment for others in the event you are at fault. The required component of car insurance is for the protection of other drivers, not yourself.

2. True again, however, it increases the probability that the insurance company will have to eventually pay out for an at-fault accident. While it's true that you individually may never have an at-fault accident, insurance companies set rates in the aggregate.

3. True. And if one is costing you too much, there is a plethora of others to choose from.

4. The government is only forcing you to deal with them if you wish to continue driving. You could avoid the whole thing and start taking a bus if it is really a problem. Or, you could shop around and see if another company will charge you less.

Even if it is a "double penalty," I don't see any injustice in that per se. If someone vandalized another's property, and their sentence was to pay restitution and do several hours of community service, would you object because it is a "double penalty"? Of course not. Or, if we look at a more serious offense, do you find any injustice in sɛҳuąƖ offenders have to go to jail, and once released, be permanently placed a sex offender registry? Is this not also a "double penalty," according to your definition?

Again, simply obeying a morally neutral traffic law would avoid this whole problem.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #10 on:** April 01, 2014, 09:17:00 AM »

Quote from: Dolores

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Dolores
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Dolores
Obey the traffic laws and you won't get any moving violations, and you won't have to worry about this.

Of all the things the government does, I think one of the least objectionable is enforcing traffic laws. There is nothing immoral about such laws, they are not overly burdensome or complex, and they exist for the safety of drivers and passengers.

I agree with you here, tickets for offenses are generally reasonable. The objection I have is that the insurance companies cash in on this and drive and punish you again for years.

Generally speaking, the insurance companies are just relying on statistics when they determine premiums. They plug in things like your age, sex, location, and driving record to determine the odds of you being in an at-fault accident, and set your premiums accordingly.

I understand. The problem is this:

1. In almost every state you are mandated by law to carry insurance.
2. A moving violation is not an accident, and does not cost the insurance company anything.
3. Insurance companies are private entities and your dealing with them is a business transaction.
4. Since the government forces you to engage in this transaction, they are in effect punishing you twice for the same infraction.

When an insurance company places surcharges on your insurance for something that did not cost them anything, and you are forced to pay them by law, it is in effect a double penalty for the same offense.

1. True. But you are only required to carry liability insurance, i.e., payment for others in the event you are at fault. The required component of car insurance is for the protection of other drivers, not yourself.

2. True again, however, it increases the probability that the insurance company will have to eventually pay out for an at-fault accident. While it's true that you individually may never have an at-fault accident, insurance companies set rates in the aggregate.

3. True. And if one is costing you too much, there is a plethora of others to choose from.

4. The government is only forcing you to deal with them if you wish to continue driving. You could avoid the whole thing and start taking a bus if it is really a problem. Or, you could shop around and see if another company will charge you less.

Even if it is a "double penalty," I don't see any injustice in that per se. If someone vandalized another's property, and their sentence was to pay restitution and do several hours of community service, would you object because it is a "double penalty"? Of course not. Or, if we look at a more serious offense, do you find any injustice in sɛҳuąƖ offenders have to go to jail, and once released, be permanently placed a sex offender registry? Is this not also a "double penalty," according to your definition?

Again, simply obeying a morally neutral traffic law would avoid this whole problem.

Wow. Talk about adjusting to dysfunction! and even acting as an apologist for such a disgustingly un Catholic system.
We have GOT to stop making excuses and/or chastising others who criticize injustice and usury under this ʝʊdɛօ masonic gov't.

Dolores · « **Reply #11 on:** April 01, 2014, 01:40:20 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote from: Dolores
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Dolores
Quote from: Ambrose
Quote from: Dolores
Obey the traffic laws and you won't get any moving violations, and you won't have to worry about this.

Of all the things the government does, I think one of the least objectionable is enforcing traffic laws. There is nothing immoral about such laws, they are not overly burdensome or complex, and they exist for the safety of drivers and passengers.

I agree with you here, tickets for offenses are generally reasonable. The objection I have is that the insurance companies cash in on this and drive and punish you again for years.
We have GOT to stop making excuses and/or chastising others

Generally speaking, the insurance companies are just relying on statistics when they determine premiums. They plug in things like your age, sex, location, and driving record to determine the odds of you being in an at-fault accident, and set your premiums accordingly.

I understand. The problem is this:

1. In almost every state you are mandated by law to carry insurance.
2. A moving violation is not an accident, and does not cost the insurance company anything.
3. Insurance companies are private entities and your dealing with them is a business transaction.
4. Since the government forces you to engage in this transaction, they are in effect punishing you twice for the same infraction.

When an insurance company places surcharges on your insurance for something that did not cost them anything, and you are forced to pay them by law, it is in effect a double penalty for the same offense.

1. True. But you are only required to carry liability insurance, i.e., payment for others in the event you are at fault. The required component of car insurance is for the protection of other drivers, not yourself.

2. True again, however, it increases the probability that the insurance company will have to eventually pay out for an at-fault accident. While it's true that you individually may never have an at-fault accident, insurance companies set rates in the aggregate.

3. True. And if one is costing you too much, there is a plethora of others to choose from.

4. The government is only forcing you to deal with them if you wish to continue driving. You could avoid the whole thing and start taking a bus if it is really a problem. Or, you could shop around and see if another company will charge you less.

Even if it is a "double penalty," I don't see any injustice in that per se. If someone vandalized another's property, and their sentence was to pay restitution and do several hours of community service, would you object because it is a "double penalty"? Of course not. Or, if we look at a more serious offense, do you find any injustice in sɛҳuąƖ offenders have to go to jail, and once released, be permanently placed a sex offender registry? Is this not also a "double penalty," according to your definition?

Again, simply obeying a morally neutral traffic law would avoid this whole problem.

Wow. Talk about adjusting to dysfunction! and even acting as an apologist for such a disgustingly un Catholic system. who criticize injustice and usury under this ʝʊdɛօ masonic gov't.

Unless you actually make an argument, instead of just a sweeping conclusion, your response is worthless.

What about traffic laws, or the penalties for violating them, is un-Catholic or unjust? Why is an insurer's decision to base premiums on aggregate statistics un-Catholic or unjust?

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #12 on:** April 01, 2014, 07:33:40 PM »

I reject your premises. All your arguments are based upon the dysfunctional structure of a corpocracy run by evil men. You are defending partial truths. Study the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ - don't defend an unjust system and condemn those who are injured by the injustice.

Dolores · « **Reply #13 on:** April 02, 2014, 08:23:41 AM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

I reject your premises. All your arguments are based upon the dysfunctional structure of a corpocracy run by evil men. You are defending partial truths. Study the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ - don't defend an unjust system and condemn those who are injured by the injustice.

You are the one making the assertion that traffic laws and/or insurance premiums based on aggregate statistics are unjust, yet you have provided nothing to support this assertion.

The fact that you don't like something doesn't make it evil.

crossbro · « **Reply #14 on:** April 02, 2014, 08:35:37 AM »

I think some of the issues I have with traffic violations affecting insurance rates are the following:

1) The nature of a ticket- most people simply pay the bond and never go to court. This is a bonus the system has over you, you go to court and you lose pay or you have to travel because you received the ticket out of state.

What business does an insurance company have for zinging a customer under such circuмstances ?

2) Warnings. Written traffic warnings also are used as an excuse by insurance companies for raising price. You have absolutely no ability to fight a warning do you ?