Support NeoGAF

[fluffydelusions]

SARAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — When Aaron Cutchon was laid off from his job at an auto body shop, he could no longer afford to pay for two traffic tickets he got for driving in a carpool lane.

His license was suspended, and he had to stop attending classes at a Napa junior college where he was working toward an associate's degree.

New legislation in California supported by Gov. Jerry Brown would eliminate such a dilemma by forbidding courts from taking licenses from people just because they can't pay their fines.

State Sen. Robert Hertzberg introduced a bill this week that would ban the practice. Brown and Hertzberg say the current policy disproportionately targets low-income Californians and can send people into a cycle of job losses and more poverty.

"What we've learned is it ruins people's lives," said Hertzberg, a Democrat from Van Nuys. "The privilege of driving should not be connected with the size of your wallet."

Cutchon, 35, said his two tickets have snowballed from roughly $900 to about $2,000 because of added fines and fees. He found a new job at a warehouse but said he doesn't make enough to pay off the tickets and can't get a higher-paying job because he doesn't have a license. The money he does make goes toward rent and taking care of his three children, said Cutchon, who lives in Cordelia, an area that overlaps the Bay Area city of Fairfield.

"I'm kind of stuck, in a sense, with this job," Cutchon said.

Theresa Zhen, an attorney at the East Bay Community Law Center in Berkeley, said she often sees clients who are limited to low-paying jobs because of suspended licenses.

"People's lives are unraveled by one traffic ticket," Zhen said.

The issue garnered national attention after the U.S. Department of Justice found similar laws in Ferguson, Missouri, burdened poor residents with "crippling" debt, according to a 2015 report.

In California, about 613,000 people had suspended driver's licenses for unpaid traffic tickets or missing related court appearances as of August 2015, the most recent number the department could provide, DMV spokesman Artemio Armenta said.

In his state budget proposal this month, Brown called for ending the practice, saying "there does not appear to be a strong connection" between the license suspensions and collecting unpaid fines.

"Often, the primary consequence of a driver's license suspension is the inability to legally drive to work or take one's children to school," the Democratic governor wrote.

Hertzberg said his new bill, SB185, prevents courts from suspending someone's license simply because they can't afford to pay. He said he agreed to drop a similar proposal last year after the Department of Finance asked for more time to study the idea.

Opponents have argued removing the penalty would eliminate a tool to help the state collect traffic fines. The California State Association of Counties and the California Police Chiefs Association declined to comment on the governor's proposal, although they opposed Hertzberg's previous plan, which was part of early versions of the 2016 bill SB881.

SB881 "eliminates any incentive for individuals to pay outstanding debt for traffic violations they received and failed to pay," the California Association of Counties wrote in a June letter to Hertzberg. The group noted that those affected would still have "burdensome court-ordered debt that they cannot afford to pay."

Supporters say there are other, more effective ways to collect fines, including putting people on payment plans and garnishing their wages.

The state's finance agency does not have an estimate for how much the governor's proposal might cost because license suspension is one of many collection methods and courts have not shown license suspensions lead to more collections.

Hertzberg's new bill comes more than a year after California started an amnesty program to help low-income people pay traffic tickets by reducing fines for those who are too poor to pay them and allowing some residents to have their licenses reinstated. A report on its first nine months found more than 175,000 accounts have been resolved and courts have collected more than $18 million through the amnesty program, which is scheduled to end in March.

Hertzberg said his proposed law would help people whose licenses or permits have been suspended because they can't afford to pay, but it won't let dangerous drivers off the hook.

"If you're a bad driver, you still lose your license," Hertzberg said. "But if you're a poor driver and you can't afford to pay, you don't lose your license."

http://bigstory.ap.org/9409b5dbd22c...n=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

 

[Keikaku]

Good. The use of fines in these sorts of situations is essentially a further punishment for being poor.

This is yet another one of those situations where I'm proud to be Californian.

 

[kiunchbb]

Plus it will be the interest of the state to let those people find jobs so they can eventually pay for the ticket.

 

[Wuthering_Heights]

So the first ticket he got for driving in a carpool lane wasn't enough to convince him to stop doing it, he did it again?

 

[quickwhips]

So the first ticket he got for driving in a carpool lane wasn't enough to convince him to stop doing it, he did it again?

I don't think people should lose their license for a traffic infraction that doesn't endanger others.

 

[entremet]

Of course it does. The fact that automobiles are so necessary in this country hurts the poor in general.

 

[Klotera]

Part of the problem is that tickets are used as a revenue stream for cities. Otherwise, a perfectly reasonable solution would be attending safe driving classes. Say 16 hours of safe driving class (with a reasonable amount of time to complete to account for those with inflexible schedules). Those who don't want to do it can still pay the fine.

 

[Kill3r7]

Of course it does. The fact that automobiles are so necessary in this country hurts the poor in general.

Ditto. We have not invest in public transportation in god knows how long.

The more ironic issue here is that these folks cannot afford to pay their fines. So they need to be given a break but how can they be expected to afford to pay for car insurance, car maintenance and gas.

 

[ezrarh]

Of course it does. The fact that automobiles are so necessary in this country hurts the poor in general.

This.

Also, cities need this for their revenue streams because our built environment, especially in many parts of California aren't financially productive. As a result, they need to nickel and dime the poor to pay for services.

 

[Cyframe]

We do need to remedy these debt spirals.

 

[geomon]

This would be god send in FL. Even better, make it illegal for the police to mandate ticket quotas.

 

[raidenandsolid]

This would be god send in FL. Even better, make it illegal for the police to mandate ticket quotas.

Police will still find ways to meet unofficial "quotas".

 

[akileese]

So the first ticket he got for driving in a carpool lane wasn't enough to convince him to stop doing it, he did it again?

I'm not going to say he shouldn't have learned his lesson the first time, but losing your license over an infraction that doesn't involve endangerment is ridiculous. Suspended licenses should be reserved for drunk driving, reckless driving, etc.

 

[MiniBossBattle]

I am fine with that. He goofs then goofs again, make him pay the fine without taking his license although I am not sure if he would goof again and again. What boggles my mind is how many uninsured cars there are on the road, especially CA. Want to reduce traffic, hit and runs, and emissions, get those cars off the road.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Fines should be proportional to income. A fine like this will hurt a poor person disproportionately hard, while a rich person doesn't give a fuck.

 

[SDCowboy]

Maybe I missed it, but does it completely throw out the tickets, or just make it so you can still get a license?

 

[jay]

Generally, "____ disproportionately harms the poor" is a true statement.

 

[Giolon]

While I'm sympathetic to the problem they are trying to solve this leaves me with the question how do you effectively enforce traffic laws then if there are no longer any teeth behind violating them? How would they ever collect on fines from anyone? There has to be some actual penalty.

 

[SDCowboy]

Fines should be proportional to income. A fine like this will hurt a poor person disproportionately hard, while a rich person doesn't give a fuck.

I agree with this. Ticket should be proportional to income for the reasons you mentioned.

They shouldn't just get tossed out, though. Being poor or unemployed should suddenly make it OK to break traffic laws.

 

[titiklabingapat]

While I'm sympathetic to the problem they are trying to solve this leaves me with the question how do you effectively enforce traffic laws then if there are no longer any teeth behind violating them? How would they ever collect on fines from anyone? There has to be some actual penalty.

Income-based fines. A person making $500,000 should be fined $12,500 for the same infraction that someone who is making $20,000 and was fined $500.

 

[Miletius]

Maybe I missed it, but does it completely throw out the tickets, or just make it so you can still get a license?

It makes it so that you still get the ticket, but they can't take away your driver's license as a punitive measure for non-payment. They can also reduce your fine in exchange for some sort of guaranteed payment, such as a payment plan.

The reasoning is that taking away your license almost always amounts to more fines and puts you down a rabbit hole of state debt. Most people don't choose to not pay their fines and drive -- driving is the only way they can afford to pay their fines because that's how they get to places where they can earn money.

 

[SDCowboy]

It makes it so that you still get the ticket, but they can't take away your driver's license as a punitive measure for non-payment. They can also reduce your fine in exchange for some sort of guaranteed payment, such as a payment plan.

Ok, that I'm totally fine with.

 

[dottme]

I think this is also showing how bad public transportation is in California.
If the person as no way to reach his jobs because he doesn't have a car, there is an issue. There is way too much dependencies on the car in the US.

 

[theWB27]

I will never stop convincing my gf that we need to make it to Cali when we graduate.

Anything that requires payment with a penalty that takes away your ability to do so is a trap.

 

[B_Spooky13]

It's pretty bad in some states. In S.C. if you don't even have insurance on your car they will take your license plate then suspened your license. And they start charging you i believe $50 a week that your license is suspended cause of this.

My girl and I went through this. We were going to be short on cash for a couple months so we let her insurance lapse but it was fine cause we had a second car with insurance on it. 2 weeks after our insurance lapse a state trooper showed up put a sticker on our car and took our plate. Sticker said we had like a week or two to get insurance that we couldn't afford. So they suspended her license.

Not including paying for insurance.. For the plate and reinstate her license was a little over 200$

 

[EGM1966]

Not sure how to take something that seems sensible right now. Keep looking god the catch.

 

[Miletius]

I think this is also showing how bad public transportation is in California.
If the person as no way to reach his jobs because he doesn't have a car, there is an issue. There is way too much dependencies on the car in the US.

True, but California is a huge state. Many people live far away from their work. Better public transportation would be great, but this is about what we can do now to help people out.

 

[Nivash]

Fines should be proportional to income. A fine like this will hurt a poor person disproportionately hard, while a rich person doesn't give a fuck.

Yes, this. It's pretty common in Scandinavia. It can create extreme cases, obviously - like the Nokia CEO that got fined $103,000 for doing 45 in a 30 zone - which admittedly can sound downright unfair. Burt proportional fines are actually more fair, and more keeping in line with everyone being equal before the law.

 

[ZackieChan]

It's pretty bad in some states. In S.C. if you don't even have insurance on your car they will take your license plate then suspened your license. And they start charging you i believe $50 a week that your license is suspended cause of this.

My girl and I went through this. We were going to be short on cash for a couple months so we let her insurance lapse but it was fine cause we had a second car with insurance on it. 2 weeks after our insurance lapse a state trooper showed up put a sticker on our car and took our plate. Sticker said we had like a week or two to get insurance that we couldn't afford. So they suspended her license.

Not including paying for insurance.. For the plate and reinstate her license was a little over 200$

So you had insurance or you didn't? If you're driving without insurance, you can get fucked. No sympathy for you that you had to pay $200.

I'm of two minds on this. I suppose the penalties could be rolled back to not losing your license, but damn if I'm unsympathetic, especially to a two time offender for the same violation.

 

[iavi]

I've known people stuck in this exact limbo. Really expensive tickets, license taken due to nonpayment on tickets with now added insane fees, then can't pay tickets cause barely able to get to work.

This is a good thing.

 

[smurfx]

I don't think people should lose their license for a traffic infraction that doesn't endanger others.

they should still pay a penalty. i'm fine with community service though.

 

[sangreal]

john oliver had a bit on this

they are mad you don't pay your fine so they take your license so you cant work to get money to pay the fine

 

[DrBo42]

I don't think people should lose their license for a traffic infraction that doesn't endanger others.

Carpool violations don't always go that way. As a motorcycle rider that's allowed in the carpool lane in California, drivers will cross into the carpool lane to escape gridlock and almost kill me weekly.

Outside of that sort of thing I agree.

 

[adamsappel]

Fines should be proportional to income. A fine like this will hurt a poor person disproportionately hard, while a rich person doesn't give a fuck.

There are plenty of people who drive alone in the HOV lanes on the DC Beltway and consider the occasional ticket as worth it to avoid the heavy traffic.

 

[Doctoglethorpe]

California been killin it recently. Bastion of sanity.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

Brown can you please run in 2020?

 

[Aiustis]

Naah everyone already goes too easy on drivers. Drivers are already the worst.

 

[Laekon]

So what is there to stop this moron from from just continuing to break the law? He got caught twice, which is really hard to do, so he must have been doing this all the time.

 

[B_Spooky13]

So you had insurance or you didn't? If you're driving without insurance, you can get fucked. No sympathy for you that you had to pay $200.

I'm of two minds on this. I suppose the penalties could be rolled back to not losing your license, but damn if I'm unsympathetic, especially to a two time offender for the same violation.

We didn't have insurance on one car that we weren't driving since we had another car with insurance on it. We figured just let that car go for a bit so we could get a better footing money wise. And while the car was sitting there not being driven.. State troopers took the plates and suspended her license.

In S.C. all registered vehicles must have insurance on it.. Doesn't matter if it's not being driven.

 

[Eye for an Eye]

So you had insurance or you didn't? If you're driving without insurance, you can get fucked. No sympathy for you that you had to pay $200.

I'm of two minds on this. I suppose the penalties could be rolled back to not losing your license, but damn if I'm unsympathetic, especially to a two time offender for the same violation.

They wanted to take one car out of commission for a while to save money. They didn't want to drive the car with no insurance, just stop using the car and they still got penalized for doing something they weren't doing.

I have two vehicles, and if I register one as non op, I can take the insurance off of it. I've thought about it a few times, but I still drive the car occasionally. If I sell it and someone wants to test drive it, I still need insurance for it to be on the road. It gets used maybe 2-3 months out of the year but I still maintain insurance all year.

 

[Manmademan]

Brown can you please run in 2020?

Brown is 78 years old.

 

[titiklabingapat]

We didn't have insurance on one car that we weren't driving since we had another car with insurance on it. We figured just let that car go for a bit so we could get a better footing money wise. And while the car was sitting there not being driven.. State troopers took the plates and suspended her license.

In S.C. all registered vehicles must have insurance on it.. Doesn't matter if it's not being driven.

That's fucked up.

 

[Lucky Forward]

In S.C. all registered vehicles must have insurance on it.. Doesn't matter if it's not being driven.

That's the way it is in Maryland, New York, and probably a lot of other states. If the insurance is cancelled, you're required to turn in the plates.

 

[Ogodei]

This would be god send in FL. Even better, make it illegal for the police to mandate ticket quotas.

The key on that front is to legislate that ticket/other fine revenue is placed in a statewide pool and doled out to municipalities based on their population. Same thing should be done for property taxes and school districts.

 

[B_Spooky13]

That's the way it is in Maryland, New York, and probably a lot of other states. If the insurance is cancelled, you're required to turn in the plates.

Yeah but taking her license too? That seems overkill

 

[Gallbaro]

Tickets should be a flat tax on income.

They are meant to discourage illegal behavior and $100 from a poor person will have a much larger effect than $100 from a wealthy person.