NJ Traffic Ticket Prices:

[Ninjahedge]

Lifted from a mail forwarded to me today:

Driving Ticket fine increase in NJ:


Starting on August 15th, the price of a ticket for violation of NJ Law39:3-29 (failure to show your driver's license, registration, or insurance card at the time you are stopped) is going from $44.00 to $173.00. Please make sure your vehicles have the proper documents in them. If you jump in the car to run to the store and forget your wallet with your license in it and you are stopped.... Oh well... you just spent $173. And the fine for not having all three documents is $519!!!

Forward to people in NJ, and let them know of this change. And be careful, the fine for hand held cell phone use while driving will be going up to $180.00.

[Ninjahedge]

What I am wondering is why, if they have the technology to do so now, you have to bring your registration and proof of insurance with you anymore.



If they have your name, your license and license plate number, they can look up the registration and insurance right no their little machine in the car (Unless, of course, the bureaucracy of the local/state governments has not made this possible yet).



If i can cal up my insurance company no the phone and they can look up all the data in a minute or two, why the hell should I be fined if i do not have that slip of paper in my car?



They are getting really stupid enforcing laws that don't really apply to todays society/market.

[z22]

Technology does not help generating income in this case. The fines do.

[Ninjahedge]

I realize that.

It is a shame that traffic tickets are included IN the budget, even though they will not tell you as much.

They should never be considered part of the budget. Just like Sick Days should never be considered to be leftover at the end of the year by company accountants (they are dissapearing from many companies with the questionable "benefit" of fewer vacation days added for the sick/personal removed).

If you have a card, even an old one, it will tell yuo all the information you need to do a lookup to make sure everything is OK. They do not need to do more of this crap.

[Bob]

Governor Corzine is out of his head for proposing to even consider a 55 MPH speed limit. What a downright stupid idea! All this will do is clog the courts, disrupt the flow of traffic, generate money for the State of New Jersey (and the lawyers, and the State Police), and generally bring all of us back to the bad old days of Prohibition II. The limit is 65. It's the correct limit for New Jersey and it needs to stay RIGHT WHERE IT IS.

[lofter1]

Yeah but eveybody goes 75+ ...

Lower it to 55 and people will drive 65

[Bob]

I don't buy that. I guess, by that reasoning, everybody would be doing 110 MPH if the speed limit were 100.

If you want to drive 55, get in the right lane and drive 55. But let me drive legally in the faster lane, and keep your sneaky cops, corrupt courts, and greedy insurance companies OFF MY BACK.

[newjersey]

If you want to drive 55, get in the right lane and drive 55. But let me drive legally in the faster lane, and keep your sneaky cops, corrupt courts, and greedy insurance companies OFF MY BACK.

Doesn't look feasible at all for me to have different speed for each lane it will make exits very dangerous

New Jersey Traffic Ticket price fine for not having all three documents is $519!!!

They should mention something about forgetting them home, many time you go out in rush and forget to take them .. in this case going to court shout weave the fine.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge

Lifted from a mail forwarded to me today:

Snopes debunks this myth.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/traffic/speeding.asp

[Ninjahedge]

Kevin, read my OP.

It has nothing to do with a ticket blitz, but of (as far as I can tell) an increase in the $$ charged for each offense.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge

Kevin, read my OP.

It has nothing to do with a ticket blitz, but of (as far as I can tell) an increase in the $$ charged for each offense.

Regardless, you're citing unreliable information. For example:

New Jersey Statutes Annotated Currentness
Title 39. Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulation
Subtitle 1. Motor Vehicle and Traffic Laws
Chapter 3. Motor Vehicles
Article 2. Registration and Licensing (Refs & Annos)

39:3-29. License, registration certificate and insurance identification card; possession; exhibit upon request; violations; fine; defense

The driver's license, the registration certificate of a motor vehicle and an insurance identification card shall be in the possession of the driver or operator at all times when he is in charge of a motor vehicle on the highways of this State.

***

Any person violating this section shall be subject to a fine of $150, except that if the person is a driver or operator of an omnibus, as defined pursuant to R.S.39:1-1, the amount of the fine shall be $250. Of the amount of any such fine collected pursuant to this paragraph, $25 shall be deposited in the Uninsured Motorist Prevention Fund established by section 2 of P.L.1983, c. 141 (C.39:6B-3) .

If a person charged with a violation of this section can exhibit his driver's license, insurance identification card and registration certificate, which were valid on the day he was charged, to the judge of the municipal court before whom he is summoned to answer to the charge, such judge may dismiss the charge. However, the judge may impose court costs.

It doesn't matter if the subject matter of your argument is the ticket blitz or the imaginary cost of a ticket in NJ going from $44 to $173, the email you're citing is incorrect.

I'm not sure where the $173 number comes from - the fine has been $150 since 2003, when the statute was amended by the NEW JERSEY 2003 SESSION LAW SERVICE Two Hundred Tenth Legislature, Second Annual Session to read:

Any person violating this section shall be subject to a fine not exceeding $100.00 of $150, of which $25 shall be deposited in the Uninsured Motorist Prevention Fund established by section 2 of P.L.1983, c. 141 (C.39:6B-3).

(note that the underlined/italicized text is struckthrough in the original citation)

The $100 fine had been on the books since at least 1983. Note that the $25 goes into the The Uninsured Motorist Prevention Fund. I'm not sure whether that satisfies your argument or not regarding where the money is going, but since the change in the fine schedule coincided with the insurance legislation, I believe it's safe to assume that it was meant to update 1) the rise in inflation since Dec. 23, 1983, and 2) cover the costs off the new legislation for uninsured motorists.

But assuming that the information in the email was correct, you're arguing about legislation that took place five years ago, and 20 years prior to that, not this summer.

[Ninjahedge]

Then next time post your SECOND MESSAGE first!

The Snopes seems to have the more bloated version of the spammage (Blitz+Ticket $$).

Manners man!

[Ninjahedge]

Oh, BTW, it has gotten some traffic (pun not intended).

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...%24173%2e00+NJ

Seems like this one just trimmed some of the more obvious fallacies (Like the blitz) to make it more palatable.

The strange thing being, $150 is not that far from $173.... I wonder where they came up with that #?

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Ninjahedge

Then next time post your SECOND MESSAGE first!

The Snopes seems to have the more bloated version of the spammage (Blitz+Ticket $$).

Manners man!

One of my biggest pet peeves is when my inbox fills up with unsubstantiated rumors - they even got our current president elected and re-elected! Discussions on reputable message forums just serve to perpetuate these emails, so when I see them on forums I frequent, I get agitated.

Oh, BTW, it has gotten some traffic (pun not intended).

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...%24173%2e00+NJ

Seems like this one just trimmed some of the more obvious fallacies (Like the blitz) to make it more palatable.

The strange thing being, $150 is not that far from $173.... I wonder where they came up with that #?

I noticed in some research that even official documents cited that fee. It could be the cost of the ticket plus other fees, or it could be that whomever published those documents was taken in by the email as well. The legislative history (and intent) is well documented in Westlaw. As far as I can tell, it's not a revenue grab (increasing the fine from $100 to 150 with $25 going to an uninsured motorist fund).

However, one of the big arguments going around that you guys haven't addressed is the installation, and eventual removal of the red-light cameras. Supposedly, they're working so well in many jurisdictions (I think in California and Maryland?) that the municipalities are removing them because they're reducing revenue. People know to stop at the lights now, and the cameras (and agencies that mail the tickets out) are no longer profitable.

That, to me, is a real issue.

[Ninjahedge]

That is seriously bad.

But, I think we may be missing the real intent. Maybe they are removing them at the lights that they are installed at because people now know which lights have them....

So, although I do not doubt for a second that revenue is one reason for swapping them, what is the use of keeping a cop parked on a road that no-one speeds on?

I think they have to either find a less expensive system, or a way to switch them around easily in less than 24 hours and catch people when they are not expecting it.