check your six ! - CALIFORNIA traffic fines up for 2010

Pete Munroe · #1 (**permalink**) 02-03-2010, 10:16 PM

A few of the 2010 California traffic fines that got my attention. (*) Apparently, most of these are increases in the fines...considering California is a now a VERY revenue hungry (ie:broke) state...could be some new legal zeal to enforce a few of these.

----------CALIFORNIA Traffic Tickets Fines (Effective 01/06/2010)

*** VC 16028(A) - $796 - Failure to provide evidence of financial responsibility (insurance)

*** VC 21453(A) - $436 - Failure to stop at a red signal.

VC 22350/VC 22349 - $214 - Unsafe Speed, 1 to 15 miles over the limit.
VC 22350/VC 22349 - $328 - Unsafe Speed, 16 to 25 miles over the limit.

VC 22450 - $214 - Failure to stop at a stop sign.

*** VC 22454(A) - $616 - Passing a school bus with flashing red signals. !!

VC 23123(A) - $148 - Drive using wireless phone not hands free, First offense
VC 23123(A) - $256 - Drive using wireless phone not hands free, For each subsequent offense.

*** VC 22500(I) - $976 - Parking in a bus loading area. !!!!!

***VC 22507.8 - $976 - Violation of disabled parking provisions, first offense.
***VC 22507.8 - $1876 - Violation of disabled parking provisions, second offense.

VC 27150(A and B) - $178 - Adequate muffler required

VC 27315(D and E) - $148 - Mandatory use of seat belts.
VC 27360(A and B) - $436 - Mandatory use of child passenger restraints

VC 27400 - $178 - Headsets/Earplugs (?) over both ears.

VC 5200 - $178 - display of license plates

Pete

tkb289 · #2 (**permalink**) 02-03-2010, 10:25 PM

Pete,

Looks like the last one ...

VC 5200 - $178 - display of license plates

Will get a lot of folks ... (no front plate) ... yikes !

Dangerous Doug · #3 (**permalink**) 02-03-2010, 10:36 PM

VC 5200 Might be a good time to take a lesson from the hot rod guys: a pneumatic or spring-loaded front license plate so that while you are not in motion, the plate stands upright in your front intake, then folds down at speed.

DD

bobcowan · #4 (**permalink**) 02-03-2010, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dangerous Doug

VC 5200 Might be a good time to take a lesson from the hot rod guys: a pneumatic or spring-loaded front license plate so that while you are not in motion, the plate stands upright in your front intake, then folds down at speed.

DD

I'd be willing to bet that is specifically illegal in the code somewhere.

Got the Bug · #5 (**permalink**) 02-03-2010, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkb289

Pete,

Looks like the last one ...

VC 5200 - $178 - display of license plates

Will get a lot of folks ... (no front plate) ... yikes !

I have no idea how current this is or if anyone is actually pushing this initiative, but I found this online petition to eradicate the front license plate in California.

http://www.petitiononline.com/caplate/petition.html

Pete Munroe · #6 (**permalink**) 02-03-2010, 11:11 PM

Think the regulation about license plates (plural) has been around for years, however, I am wondering if there will be a surge in enforcement this year for that and other reg's.

So, JUST TO BE ON THE SAFE SIDE...from here on out...I resolve for 2010...

"...to stop rolling through stop signs ($214) as I pass a school bus ($616) on my way to park in a handicapped space, again, ($1876) while talking on my cell phone, again, ($256) and not hearing the police siren, two earplugs in, ($178), and......HONEST officer! I just took OFF my seat belt, AND the kids seat belt, ($148, $436)...well, er, 'cause I was LOOKING...er...for my PROOF of INSURANCE ($796)...I KNOW its here somewhere...what? the FRONT LICENSE PLATE??? I guess it just fell off ($178)...must have been the vibration from the exhaust system noise...loose headers probably....($178).

WHOA ! Good thing I was only going 25 over the speed limit ($328). This could have been expensive..."

Drive carefully.

Rick Parker · #7 (**permalink**) 02-03-2010, 11:41 PM

That's good Pete!

Gunner · #8 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 12:27 AM

Source for this?

berzerko · #9 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 05:45 AM

here in ny which is just as scraped for funds they are issuing new plates at a cost of $25 per reg veh. neting NYS something like $125 mil

I recentlly got pulled over in my beater going into manhattan for a tinted window violation which got me $330 in fines. the best part is that I got 2 tickets one for the driver side one for the passanger. I thought about fighting it but it is an appearance ticket up in harlem which would cost me more than the violation and the city knows that.

there was a time not so long ago that to to get pulled over for a traffic violation in the city of NY you basiclly needed to shoot a gun out the window of the moving car but the times they are a changing

Bobby

Woodz428 · #10 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 06:23 AM

There is a movement here to get rid of front plates too. Both sides are arguing in the name of $$. The "keepers" seem to be primarily LEO types, indicating some interest in collecting fines. I live 45 minutes from Indiana which has had the rear plate since I was in High School( probably never had a front one), Indiana traffic comes and goes through all the time. That's not counting other single plate states that use the 2 Interstates that intersect by me. It seems like a way to "interest" an officer watching traffic to follow a suspect vehicle until they determine that it is a state that has no front plate. I guess with all other crime now extinct, they can go after the real issue...missing front plates

. With the exception of the rising number of unsolved murders. But those only protect the public and do little to keep the coffers of the "gods" full.
The most interesting thing I saw on that list of fines is that running a redlight is higher than a stop sign. That seems to be geared directly at revenue. Stop signs are always STOP. Whereas lights, as has been illustrated in regards to the camera lights, can vary and one could easily be ticketed for running a stop light when it was more a product of light timing and traffic flow. Running a Stoplight is far more blatant,IMHO. Although I have a bias against both, since the only accidents I have ever been in were a direct result of the other driver doing one or the other.

Ron61 · #11 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodz428

There is a movement here to get rid of front plates too. Both sides are arguing in the name of $$. The "keepers" seem to be primarily LEO types, indicating some interest in collecting fines. I live 45 minutes from Indiana and they have only had the rear plate since I was in High School( probably never had a front one), Indiana traffic comes and goes through all the time. That's not counting other single plate states that use the 2 Interstates that intersect buy me. It seems like a way to "interest" an officer watching traffic to follow a suspect vehicle until theydetermine that it is a state that has no front plate. I guess with all other crime now extinct, they can go after the real issue...missing front plates

.
The most interesting thing I saw on that list of fines is that running a redlight is higher than a stop sign. That seems to be geared directly at revenue. Stop signs are always STOP. Whereas lights, as has been illustrated in regards to the camera lights, can vary and one could easily be ticketed for running a stop light when it was more a product of light timing and traffic flow. Running a Stoplight is far more blatant,IMHO. Although I have a bias against both, since the only accidents I have ever been in were a direct result of the other driver doing one or the other.

I agree with you, but maybe the red light fines would be higher because they normally have them at busier intersections and a lot of stop signs are on the lightly traveled roads and streets.

Ron

*13* · #12 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 07:06 AM

VC 23123(A) - $148 - Drive using wireless phone not hands free, First offense
VC 23123(A) - $256 - Drive using wireless phone not hands free, For each subsequent offense.

Studies have proven for years that driving while talking on your cell phone can be the equivalent to driving while intoxicated. I have yet to see it enforced & have even seen Cops with a cell phone to their ear. This law is stupid, if not enforced.
All in all it amazes me how laid back the Police are here in SoCal, about traffic violations. Being from the NW, it almost seems you'ld have to ram a police car to get a ticket here.

Ron61 · #13 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 07:29 AM

No one around here pays any attention to that cell phone law either. It seems that almost every vehicle I see going down the highway the driver has a cell phone in his or her ear. And I have yet to hear of one person up here getting a ticket for that. Except the ones that have wrecks and they kind of throw the cell phone into the mix.

Ron

Got the Bug · #14 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 07:40 AM

Study says that cell phone laws don't reduce crashes. Pretty obvious, since no one follows the law.

Study: Laws against handheld cell phones don't reduce crashes
http://www.dailydemocrat.com/ci_14323598?source=rss

"The study compared data from surrounding states without bans on cell phone use. It found that the frequency of collision claims in California before and after its hands-free law passed were no different from those in Nevada, Arizona and Oregon, which don't have cell phone laws."

Ron61 · #15 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 07:54 AM

Doug,

Up here right near the CHP station and on other overpasses they have those digital signs that they can put where the highway may be blocked and such on. For two weeks until someone wrote to the paper about it, they had them saying Please Phone In Any Driver Who You Suspect of Being Drunk. So in effect they were telling people to break one law to report anyone they thought mat be driving under the influence. After the letter to the paper asking if that was because the DUIs brought more money in the signs were changed to the seat belt Click It Or ticket thing.

Ron

*13* · #16 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 08:09 AM

That study was complete BS. How can you do a study on two different groups of action when there is only one group. NO ONE has stopped using Cell Phones!

RedBarchetta · #17 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete Munroe

VC 22350/VC 22349 - $214 - Unsafe Speed, 1 to 15 miles over the limit.
VC 22350/VC 22349 - $328 - Unsafe Speed, 16 to 25 miles over the limit.

VC 27150(A and B) - $178 - Adequate muffler required

VC 27400 - $178 - Earplugs (?) over both ears.

VC 5200 - $178 - display of license plates

I am so screwed.

This morning's commute alone ('02 Z06) should have cost me $506 (16+mph over and no front plate).

-Dean

rodneym · #18 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 11:55 AM

VC 27150(A and B) - $178 - Adequate muffler required ???

I looked it up on the DMV site (don't know if there's more to it on a more official venue) but that's all it says....adequate.

Sounds a bit subjective to me.

rodneym

bobcowan · #19 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Got the Bug

Study says that cell phone laws don't reduce crashes. Pretty obvious, since no one follows the law.

A poorly designed study that reports the wrong data, and therefore brings the wrong conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodneym

VC 27150(A and B) - $178 - Adequate muffler required ???

I looked it up on the DMV site (don't know if there's more to it on a more official venue) but that's all it says....adequate.

Sounds a bit subjective to me.

rodneym

It's 100% subjective. Ask anybody who owns a Harley about this one.

rodneym · #20 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 02:45 PM

Yikes, a cop with a bad attitude.
That's what brought down the whole CA registration nightmare.

"That's not a REAL 65 Ford!"