CHP shenannigans (sp)

[exskibum]

I have no problem with my son getting the ticket for the windows adjacent to the driver being tinted. I warned him it would happen and it did.

:rofl: Sounds like more of the sort of thing that ages a youngster -- Dad's IQ just went up a couple more points? Maybe?

My issue is the new task force policy to make the citation non-correctable. In the past most, if not all equipment violations, are correctable. You fix the problem, find a cop, he signs off that the correction was made. You pay a small processing fee, usually less than $50.00, turn-in the signed off ticket and go on your merry way. The citation never shows on your driving record and life is good.With this new policy, the same mechanical violation is made non-correctable. The fine is much higher, in my son's case it was $280.00. The difference now is that this violation will show on his driving record. It is not a point violation so his insurance should not be affected.

So now, lets say he gets stopped for any other violaton and he did not remove the window tinting. The cop runs his license and sees the prior violation for tinted windows. The cop can now cite him for 24004 CVC. This code essentially says that he must drive his vehicle straight home and not put it back on the road until the correction is made. The fine is substantially higher, over double the $280.00 fine.

Yeah, I knew where you were coming from, and thanks for the explanation of the process.

My issue is the reasoning behind the new policy. I can't find any. Why the change? Why is grant money being spent on this when teachers are being laid off? Why is this just being pushed by a specially assembled task force? I know CHP is not funded from traffic tickets and local jurisdictions see only a fraction of traffic court fines. But I do know where a large portion of the fine goes, and that is to the States general fund.

To play devil's advocate here: on further consideration (per my second footnote in post above), it occurs to me that there is one legitimate policy reason behind this method, but except for that, I agree with your thoughts. That policy reason is that with the 24004 route vis-a vis relying upon fix it tickets or DMV inspections (smog, noise, that are being discussed and pushed through the legislature), you can't just fix it or show up to the DMV inspection with the OEM parts and then go back to the garage and reinstall the aftermarket stuff. Obviously, a lot of folks would just get the vehicle inspected (scheduled DMV registration inspection or fix it ticket) and then reinstall the straight pipes. With 24004, you can't do that . . . at least, not without getting a substantial fine for being stopped for the same violation again.

So, my advice to all of you who have after-market exhaust, is I hope you kept your stock exhaust. Because 24004 says you can't put your bike back on the road until the corrections are made.

Yep -- that is my one transgression (err, 2 transgressions), since I have aftermarket 4-2-1 systems on the XX and FJR. Both nearly pristine OEM systems are tucked away safely in a closet off my garage. In the case of the FJR OEM system, its cats are being saved from use to make sure that they remain fresh and effective at scrubbing the exhaust. I expect those things will be pretty spendy to replace if we get MC smog checks and they need to be replaced . . . esp., once they're back in demand to avoid a 24004 citation. (While California will be the place for 49 staters to shop for used Muzzy and Holeshot full systems at a discount.)

 

[eg23232]

I'm always amazed when people get upset about the police officers (GASP) enforcing laws!!! It's just humorous to me how people feel that the only laws that should be enforced are ones that benefit themselves. God forbid you get a ticket for not having working lights on your license plate. Man that pisses you off!!! Unless you're the guy who couldn't identify the car in a hit and run cause the lights were out and you couldn't see the license plate. Then it makes sense. I don't see it as them as "shenannagins". I see it as enforcing laws. If it's against the law, don't do it. Not too hard of a concept, except if the law inconvenies you. Forget about those people the law was made to help and protect. It makes MY life more dificult. Sigh. Lovely world we live in.

What he said.

 

[exskibum]

I'm always amazed when people get upset about the police officers (GASP) enforcing laws!!! It's just humorous to me how people feel that the only laws that should be enforced are ones that benefit themselves. God forbid you get a ticket for not having working lights on your license plate. Man that pisses you off!!! Unless you're the guy who couldn't identify the car in a hit and run cause the lights were out and you couldn't see the license plate. Then it makes sense. I don't see it as them as "shenannagins". I see it as enforcing laws. If it's against the law, don't do it. Not too hard of a concept, except if the law inconvenies you. Forget about those people the law was made to help and protect. It makes MY life more dificult. Sigh. Lovely world we live in.

What he said.

Thank you both for the preachin' to us unwashed. That was the sole point of the "discussion" in these two posts, wasn't it?

Rather than get into a political go 'round, I'll only mention that laws are different from state to state, enacted for different (sometimes politically expedient) reasons, and a desirable result requires the prudent exercise of discretion in their enforcement (how much and how exercised are critical issues in making it all work). All are a part of our system of laws, where it's recognized that human nature makes it nearly impossible to legislate bright line rules that keep socially acceptable behavior on one side of the line and socially unacceptable behavior on the other all the time. A discussion of such things (as here, where it affects MC riders) is a part of our representative system for affecting change or the fine tuning of those laws and their enforcement. As Iggy mentioned: writing your representative is the accepted means of taking the product of thought and discussion to the folks who have power to change things.

As a personal aside -- both my affected bikes were fully legal, including aftermarket exhaust system, when I lived in Nevada less than 3 years ago ('03 XX and '05 FJR -- both purchased while living there). Bringing them across the line when I moved back to California changed that, though the statutory prohibitions have long been unenforced, and when enforced, they've been fix-it tickets. Since I've been busted for speeding (my sole traffic violations in almost 40 years), I don't think I should be preaching (glass houses and all) about obeying and not criticizing the law.

Easier to just be so holy without considering whether the policy of the law and its enforcement is desirable or not, I suppose.

 

[dcarver]

Prevent recurrence is exactly the reason I authored then implemented this law. If you don't like it, stay off my roads and highways. It's that simple. You noisy arsed stoplight brapping Harley riders are the first. Holeshot'ed FJR's are next. I'm especially keen on busting all you long distance riders for impaired riding due to sleep deprivation and for using HID lights. Fear me, I rule. :****: It IS Friday, right?

 

[exskibum]

Prevent recurrence is exactly the reason I authored then implemented this law. If you don't like it, stay off my roads and highways. It's that simple. You noisy arsed stoplight brapping Harley riders are the first. Holeshot'ed FJR's are next. I'm especially keen on busting all you long distance riders for impaired riding due to sleep deprivation and for using HID lights. Fear me, I rule. :****: It IS Friday, right?

F'ing brilliant, Don! Perfect examples there about why there is discretion in enforcement.

The LD rider who only turns on the mega-candlepower when alone in the dark is a different issue than the ****** with a road rage problem who wants to blind someone with them. Stop sign revving Harley riders trying to piss off the old folks in the sidewalk cafe are a different case than the guy (on whatever kind of bike) who tries to keep the dB of his pipes down where it'll affect others (reason I have the quiet core in my Muzzy, BTW). Same thing for the guy busted at 7 over getting a warning (if he doesn't give the cop an attitude), while the rider doing 25 over usually gets a performance award.

Or are you saying that there's NO tolerance in your kingdom? :huh: If so, then the next time I catch you at 57 in a 55, I'm gonna give the ole citizen's arrest a try in turnin' your Friday smart-*** in.

 

[Silver Penguin]

Prevent recurrence is exactly the reason I authored then implemented this law. If you don't like it, stay off my roads and highways. It's that simple. You noisy arsed stoplight brapping Harley riders are the first. Holeshot'ed FJR's are next. I'm especially keen on busting all you long distance riders for impaired riding due to sleep deprivation and for using HID lights. Fear me, I rule. :****: It IS Friday, right?

LOL! How about implementing a mandatory dress code to supplement the helmet law (full-face, of course). Then we could work on limiting ride length and frequency, as proposed by the charter of the CBA. Yes, its Friday!

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

Perfect examples there about why there is discretion in enforcement.

Some would say: that, right there, is the problem -- discretionary/inconsistant enforcement.

Let those charged with enforcement enforce the laws -- not judge at the roadside. If you can't operate your FJR within the exisiting laws? -- your options are: pay-up, sucker; tell it to the judge; hire a lawyer and let him T-I-T-T-J; or, as 'Iggy' says, work to get the laws changed.

 

[exskibum]

Perfect examples there about why there is discretion in enforcement.

Some would say: that, right there, is the problem -- discretionary/inconsistant enforcement.

Let those charged with enforcement enforce the laws -- not judge at the roadside. If you can't operate your FJR within the exisiting laws? -- your options are: pay-up, sucker; tell it to the judge; hire a lawyer and let him T-I-T-T-J; or, as 'Iggy' says, work to get the laws changed.

Understood. But anyone who has had to deal with jurisprudential issues for any length of time realizes that there is really almost NO way to draw bright line rules that always result in the socially desired purpose of the legislation. Humans are too ingenious if the law is too lax, and it traps too many that are relative innocents if it's too strict. So, the imperfect default is on PRUDENT exercise of reasonable discretion. Unfortunately, like most humans, not all LEOs are perfect at getting that right every time, either. Same with judges, who are the next level of discretionary exercise. Both catch a lot of flak for not being perfect, but it is their ability to reasonably exercise their discretion that may be the most valuable skill they bring to the job. Too bad they don't get much appreciation for all the times they get it right, though.

Don cites a perfect example with the HID driving lights. Consider the legislative purpose. Without research, I'd guess that it is to prevent the blinding of other traffic by their use. The undesirable side of the coin is illustrated by a moonless night ride over Hwy. 36 between Red Bluff and Fortuna. Without the high intensity lights, the hazards of 140 miles of a VERY twisty technical rural road with forest rats, coyotes and big dropoffs make it far more dangerous than with those lights. So what do you do if you're writing the law to address the asshats using these things to blind oncoming traffic? Do you really want to endanger riders on roads like 36? The default is usually that you need to have a statute to cite the asshats for violating (or they get away with no disincentive to blinding others for antisocial reasons again). But you leave it to the reasonable discretion of the officer to decline to cite the LD rider who is acting responsibly and safely in his use of his statutorily prohibited lights.

Are there abuses in selective enforcement? Of course. But how are you going to stop that without creating worse problems? We're all humans, and that right there is the source of the problem. IMO, the best rule ever was set down long ago, and even if it would fix most socially created problems, it doesn't seem to be sufficiently well recognized or respected: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

If you don't believe me about how hard drafting laws is, just try drafting a fair rule that addresses a vexing problem sometime, and you'll see that writing it to fix what you want, while not catching those beyond the bad actors is VERY difficult without the discretionary safety valve. I have to do it all the time just in writing contracts, and that sort of thing is almost never bulletproof and takes a long time with lots of qualifiers, some of which are impractical to implement or afford. And people wonder why I'm so verbose!?!

 

[Toecutter]

OY! I quoted the original post over to our local riders forum, and one of the local cops comes up with this gem:

What is your issue with LEO's? It seems to me you have some type of dislike towards any type of enforcement when it comes to traffic related offenses. What do you suggest local law enforcement agencies do about traffic and other violations, just allow it to happen and not take any enforcement? Additionally, you take a quote off of another forum, but have you researched this rumor and found out any facts about it or whether or not it is true?
Most of the violations regarding equipment is not a moving violation they are normally correctable offenses so why would it be a point on your driving record?

I am sure I am opening a can of worms with you and you will post some lengthly, grammatically correct novel so let me have it I deserve it.

Oh, what in the hell does OP stand for. I have never heard of that, not that is doesn't exist. And, what do you mean "muni jurisdiction"?

Why bother?

 

[MojaveFJR]

This campaign goes on quite frequently, usually at the start of a riding season.

Couple of yrs ago a CHP tried to cite me because my rear turns signals were weren't stock and didn't say DOT on them. Walked over to his bike and I asked him to show me where his states they are DOT. Yeah, smartazz comment but got me out of a ticket.

Seperate incident, another attempted to cite me for a modified exhaust. I asked how it was modified, he told me because that is not the pipe that came on the bike. SO? I intern cited the law which specifically states, "INTENTIONALLY MODIFIEDS ANY EXHAUST to make louder by removing baffling, drilling holes, etc..."

Know your laws, it pays and don't be afraid to fight back. These guys pray on people not knowing the law. I just got out of trepass ticket too because Jr didn't know the laws. He had no case, and failed to appear. He even tried to intimidate me by telling me he was giving me a break by no confiscating my bike. HA!

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/vc.htm

There is the California vehicle code. Only requirements on lights is that they be a certain color, visible fm 300' and be seperated by a certain distance.

Check it out, print them out, carry them with you.

Don't let them bully you. If you have to, GO TO COURT.

You will notice they are not pulling over these tuners for this crap.

 

[Sportster]

I have enjoyed all sides of the conversation. I am intrigued by the revenue potential by the below suggested scenario (possibly a low number, based on above postings):

But the larger point is 10% is a totally different ballgame than 100%. At say $12 a ticket cut....it's not nearly the incentive to do it just for revenue.

If LEO's wrote 30 tickets in a 24 hr period, that would be $360.00 to the community. In turn over 5 days a week would be $1,800.00 to the community, and $7200.00 Monthly to the community.

What would $7200 of additional Monthly revenue pay for in a cash strapped community?

Thanks for the mind challenge.

Sportster

 

[Ignacio]

I have enjoyed all sides of the conversation. I am intrigued by the revenue potential by the below suggested scenario (possibly a low number, based on above postings):

But the larger point is 10% is a totally different ballgame than 100%. At say $12 a ticket cut....it's not nearly the incentive to do it just for revenue.

If LEO's wrote 30 tickets in a 24 hr period, that would be $360.00 to the community. In turn over 5 days a week would be $1,800.00 to the community, and $7200.00 Monthly to the community.

What would $7200 of additional Monthly revenue pay for in a cash strapped community?

Thanks for the mind challenge.

Sportster

Sigh. I hate to hijaak a CA CHP thread with WA local issues. Maybe I'll split this topic.

These are estimates from my jurisdiction. They may not be exact, but they're in the ballpark.

A cop assigned to traffic duty in a local jurisdiction (medium sized cities will typically have 1-3 of them) will typically write about 15 tickets in an 8 hour shift. Combine salary, benefits, car, and overhead and you're talking about $300 in expense. Compare to $180 in revenue locally (assuming it is all given back to the police department budget) and you're only losing $120 per shift. At 21 shifts a month...that's about $2520 per month lost.

Such a money loser that there are even Federal grants you can get to help narrow the gap! Say buy one car or motorcycle if you commit to a 2 year program with multiple officers. After that period you have to retain the officers and the vehicle is worn out.

Traffic enforcement in Washington is a net loser financially to local jurisdictions. They do it principally because of a perceived need, surveys, citizen complaints, a sense of duty to public safety....maybe letters to the editor or other reasons. I've never seen any jurisdiction in WA do traffic enforcement to make money. And I do happen to have some specific experience in city operation. ;

Red light and speed cameras? Totally different calculus.

If the OP wants...I'll move this off-topic discussion to another thread.

 

[reecebike]

Spoke like A true councilman!!!

 

[rickysnickers]

Only requirements on lights is that they be a certain color, visible fm 300' and be seperated by a certain distance.

You may want to look at the Vehicle Code a little closer. The minimum distance is 500' on brakelamps, except for vehicles before 1-1-79 then it's 300'. Headlamps are 1000'. Also lighting equipment has to up to par as per the Code, and if it's already been tested per the national code, then it's ok, read DOT approved. But, as you said know you laws, because "junior" might be out for you......

Rick

26101. No person shall sell or offer for sale for use upon or as part of the equipment of a vehicle, nor shall any person use upon a vehicle, any device that is intended to modify the original design or performance of any lighting equipment, safety glazing material, or other device, unless the modifying device meets the provisions of Section 26104. This section does not apply to a taillamp or stop lamp in use on or prior to December 1, 1935, or to lamps installed on authorized emergency vehicles.

Amended Sec. 26, Ch. 945, Stats. 1997. Effective January 1, 1998.

26103. (a) The department may adopt and enforce regulations establishing standards and specifications for lighting equipment listed in Section 375 and for safety belts, safety glazing material, safety helmets, sirens, tire traction devices, bunk stakes, and synthetic binders. The standards and specifications may include installation and aiming requirements.

( B) If there exists a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard adopted pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) covering the same aspect of performance of a device, the provisions of that standard shall prevail over provisions of this code or regulations adopted pursuant to this code. Lamps, devices, and equipment certified by the manufacturer to meet applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards as original equipment on new vehicles and the identical replacements for those items need not be certified to the department.

26104. (a) Every manufacturer who sells, offers for sale, or manufactures for use upon a vehicle devices subject to requirements established by the department shall, before the device is offered for sale, have laboratory test data showing compliance with such requirements. Tests may be conducted by the manufacturer.

( B) The department may at any time request from the manufacturer a copy of the test data showing proof of compliance of any device with the requirements established by the department and additional evidence that due care was exercised in maintaining compliance during production. If the manufacturer fails to provide such proof of compliance within 30 days of notice from the department, the department may prohibit the sale of the device in this state until acceptable proof of compliance is received by the department.

Amended Ch. 399, Stats. 1980. Effective July 11, 1980.

 

[OldMotor]

I have recently become aware of a new disturbing program initiated by our friends at CHP (California Highway Patrol). It seems that CHP has formed a new task force dedicated to enforcing MECHANICAL violations. The program utilizes officers from multiple offices to saturate a specific area. The officers will cite ANY mechanical violation ie... no front plate, tinted windows, most fender eliminator kits (due to no license plate lights), flush mounted turn signals, modified exhaust (motorcycle and car)....you get the hint. Anyway, the citations are not made correctable. Good, you think, now I don't need to fix my exhaust! But wait! This causes a higher fine AND the citation now shows up on your driving record. Here's the kicker...if you get stopped again for the same violation, you are now cited for 24004 CVC--UNLAWFUL OPERATION, after notification by peace officer. This results in a MEGA-FINE. The CHP has sent officers to 40 hr schools to learn all about these violations. It is unknown when or where this task force will hit. My son got caught for tinted windows....$280.00 fine.Just food for thought....

This started several years ago in Sacramento County and some other areas have also started the program. Most counties (not all) will still make the violation a correctable one even if the officer did not. the 24004 V.C violation has been on the books for a long time and is nothing new. I guess the easiest way to avoid this, is to keep your stuff legal.

 

[n1acguy]

I don't care if the local jurisdiction only gets a small percentage of the fine or not, it's not like the rest of it disappears. These large fines, like double the fine in construction zones are deterents, no doubt, and yes they are in the interest of safety, but to say they aren't revenue generating is wrong. There is plenty of incentive to write tickets to generate revenue. When the CHP writes a ticket, the revenues are obviously split between agencys, but everybody involved gets a little out of it, some more than others.

When a cop writes a ticket for a rolling stop because the car is just barely rolling, is this a safety issue. I gotta call that one a revenue generating operation regardless of who gets what percentage of the fine.

FWIW I knew several CHP officers back in the 80s and had a very good friend on the force. While there is not an official quota for ticket writing, they know that if a patrol officer is not writing on the average of 6 tickets per day, he is not doing his job. Trouble with this is that some of them would not be out on patrol all day (long breaks, etc) and would need a couple of quick tickets at the end of their shift. This is how people end up getting cited for stuff they normally wouldn't get bothered for. That being said, most officers are fair.

I always wear my seatbelt and have never had a seat belt violation, but the fact that you can get stopped and fined for that, is just too much government IMO.

 

[happyPuppy]

What about Oakland PD using aftermarket ( and illegal) pipes on their HD's? They said it was safer ( The Loud pipe thing) Anyone believe that the CHP will cite OPD? I never heard what happened , but it was causing a huge outrage.

 

[painman]

Noted from an inside source, 30 year veteran CHP'er riding friend, sorry couldn't resist, says they are on the move to cite all and any violation as the great state of Cali-fornia is going bust and the state is in a panic mode. Just incase you haven't been watching the news. And they are not done yet. What with all the new controls going around it doesn't look like it will get better soon. And remember our great state always has set the trends for other states unfortuneatly some not so good. California is broke and America is leaning that way. Iggy is right, we have to work on our representives to keep our freedom especially when it comes to our bikes and how we ride. PM. <><

 

[CRMH Eagle]

Is it my opinion or the truth that you rarely see a leo pull a driver over for blocking other drivers in the passing lane, music booming so loud your eyes vibrate in your head, or someone driving 25mph in a 60mph on a single-lane road with 20 cars backed up behind it?

 

[Geezer]

Is it my opinion or the truth that you rarely see a leo pull a driver over for blocking other drivers in the passing lane, music booming so loud your eyes vibrate in your head, or someone driving 25mph in a 60mph on a single-lane road with 20 cars backed up behind it?

Not too many states where it is illegal to drive in the left lane. NJ is one, and it is rarely enforced. I have seen people pulled over for obstructing traffic when their speed is extremely below the speed limit and they stick to the left. Normally that indicates an impaired driver. I also see people who immediately drive across two or three lanes to get to the left as soon as they enter the freeway. I never figured that one out. :angry: