Why is it that people always assume tickets are given to generate revenue for the organization that issues the citation?
I thought CHP specifically didn't receive revenue as a function of tickets? I thought their funding was from others sources including vehicle registration.
Part of what annoys me about these political threads...even when they have some slightly tangible relation to motorcyclists....is they still tend to spout unsubstantiated crap littered with assumptions.
I don't even necessarily agree with the campaign, but you have a beef....why don't people take it up with their elected representative that enacted the policy?
And if somebody thinks ticket money from a CHP citation goes back to them....show me the proof. I found easily
one source that says it doesn't.
I'm just sayin'.
I'm sure not saying that revenue generated from citations goes back to the department doing the citation. But my example on I-80, at a 6 lane wide and straight section of the road, taking up as many as 7 patrol units seems more likely devoted to shooting ducks in a barrel (with LIDAR) to issue citations that do generate revenue. Seems there are more resources devoted in that one duck shooting location than make sense in light of the alternative of putting the same number of units over a much greater part of the highway. And this is a REGULAR operation, not the occasional operation apparently intended to show presence and encourage safer driving.
As to constituents addressing complaints to elected representatives, I think I'll decline to take this thread that deep into the political arena. But you are talking about revenue in a revenue strapped state and time.
Unfortunately, in my business, I have occasion to deal with government with some frequency, esp. with their regulations. Politics IS an issue -- if not always, then nearly always. And while I doubt that it's the officers coming up with this new enforcement scheme, I'd not be surprised to find some political link by someone reasonably high up (with ambitions) seeking to kiss some political heinie in an effort to please the next higher up heinie and move his own career in that direction. Seems it works that way a LOT in what I get to see.
If what motorgod mentions were simply to remediate harmful modifications, then why wouldn't it continue to be treated as a correctable violation? With stuff like aftermarket exhaust systems, there's a DMV check procedure all set up for this. But is it just coincidence that DMV expenditures for those certifications would apparently be reduced, fines increased and points increased? It also seems like some of the main contributors of funds (for LIDAR units, etc.), like insurance companies, might just benefit as well ('spose they contribute campaign funds, too?
1). Fines would be greater, traffic school revenues would be increased, and DMV certification cost for the big repairs would go down. Lotsa good political chow there to chew and distribute. I've been involved in community planning programs pretty heavily in the past pro bono, and the number one thing I came away with (even in much less difficult financial times) was how very much the budget (revenues and expenditures) affected every part of anything being considered.
You asked, Iggy, and that's my honest thoughts -- that revenue is the larger part of the motivation passing programs like this down to the rank and file who must execute them.
FJR and motorcycle content: Both my FJR and my XX have aftermarket 4-2-1 full systems. Both bikes are 49 states models and the systems reduced weight and increased power; the FJR had cats and is now cooler standing at a stop in the summer with less heat radiating up. I still have both OEM systems, and intend one day to put them back on (and whether it is a correctable citation or not wouldn't likely affect that decision or timing
2) -- right now, I'm saving those expensive systems from age and wear. Taking a look at the statutes, it appears that anyone running aftermarket running lights, esp. if high intensity, is also a good target. Glad I never installed the HIDs on the XX, I guess.
Per VC 24004, after getting the ticket, just about all you get to do is drive it home or to a garage to fix it. Wonder what that means for a resident of another state touring into California with illegal aftermarket goodies who gets cited on day 1 of the 3 days he planned on being here before heading home?
1 There's your political "speech" against which a mere letter from a concerned constituent is somewhat disadvantaged.
2 EDIT to ADD: Taking a closer look at VC 24004, maybe it WOULD affect my decision (at least to the extent I was ever inclined to reinstall the aftermarket systems). It appears that under the scheme motorgod described, then under section 24004, it's not going to matter if you fixed it and then reinstalled the offending aftermarket stuff. Looks like you'd be in trouble with the same vehicle sporting a part that constitutes the same violation you got tagged for the first time. In other words, unlike a DMV required inspection where you could take the pipes off, get it inspected and then reinstall them, this scheme would seem to prevent that. So, maybe there is an enforcement component that is not all revenue generation.
