oops_i_od'd
2008-07-02, 03:07
Over 2 million drivers licenses were revoked by the State of California last year. Mostly resulting from unpaid tickets.
Generally it plays out like this:
A citation for a traffic violation such as speeding in California which requires the violator to pay $250. Six months will pass and, for whatever reason, the driver hasn't paid the ticket and so, the driver's license is revoked by the State. Inevitably, one day that driver will be stopped again, but this time the driver is driving without a license. The driver is now cited for the traffic violation for which they were stopped; is given a court date for the misdemeanor offense of driving without a license; and the vehicle the driver was driving is impounded for 30 days. At which time the driver will have to pay all towing and storage fees (more than $1,000) to the towing company in order to get it out. If the driver is unable to get the car out after six months, the towing company may sell the vehicle and keep the proceeds..
In the common event the driver fails to appear in court on the given date, a warrant will be issued for the arrest of the driver. End of story.
The Nanny State of California has been dysfunctional for the better part of two decades now. Mainly because of laws precisely like this one.
Let's examine the case above and see where the State fucks up.
In this case, the principle amount owed to the State is $250 from the driver. So after that amount goes unpaid the State will invest $50 to revoke the driver's license. I say invest because the state will charge the driver $85 at the DMV to have the license reinstated. But if the drive hasn't shown the ability to pay $250, it's a gamble to assume the driver will readily pay $315.
To maintain relevance (socially and economically) in the State California, driving is absolutely necessary. So by revoking someones drivers license the State cannot reasonably expect the driver not to drive his or her car if they can't pay the new amount. The State is basically daring them not to pay because it'll only be a matter of time until the driver will be caught driving without their license.
And when this happens, the State takes away the vehicle, crippling the driver economically, for 30 days, and then expects the driver to pay over $1,000 to a private entity just to get the car out, but also expects him or her in court to face the charge of driving without a license, a misdemeanor offense. Which often he or she will fail to appear, which then a bench warrant will be issued and eventually served, at which time the person will be taken into custody, jailed for a couple of days, released and given yet another court date. It's fucking never-ending! And the fucking brilliant part of it is that the State has now spent and will lose about $1,500 in the process of trying to collect $250.
Suspending somebodies driver license because they haven't paid a ticket is absurd. Suspending a drivers license should be necessary: for people to dangerous to be on the road. Why not just impound the car until he pays for the ticket? It seems like that would be more than enough action to get the money owed. Why burden county courts, law enforcement, the driver, and the tax payer with suspending the driver's license?
Generally it plays out like this:
A citation for a traffic violation such as speeding in California which requires the violator to pay $250. Six months will pass and, for whatever reason, the driver hasn't paid the ticket and so, the driver's license is revoked by the State. Inevitably, one day that driver will be stopped again, but this time the driver is driving without a license. The driver is now cited for the traffic violation for which they were stopped; is given a court date for the misdemeanor offense of driving without a license; and the vehicle the driver was driving is impounded for 30 days. At which time the driver will have to pay all towing and storage fees (more than $1,000) to the towing company in order to get it out. If the driver is unable to get the car out after six months, the towing company may sell the vehicle and keep the proceeds..
In the common event the driver fails to appear in court on the given date, a warrant will be issued for the arrest of the driver. End of story.
The Nanny State of California has been dysfunctional for the better part of two decades now. Mainly because of laws precisely like this one.
Let's examine the case above and see where the State fucks up.
In this case, the principle amount owed to the State is $250 from the driver. So after that amount goes unpaid the State will invest $50 to revoke the driver's license. I say invest because the state will charge the driver $85 at the DMV to have the license reinstated. But if the drive hasn't shown the ability to pay $250, it's a gamble to assume the driver will readily pay $315.
To maintain relevance (socially and economically) in the State California, driving is absolutely necessary. So by revoking someones drivers license the State cannot reasonably expect the driver not to drive his or her car if they can't pay the new amount. The State is basically daring them not to pay because it'll only be a matter of time until the driver will be caught driving without their license.
And when this happens, the State takes away the vehicle, crippling the driver economically, for 30 days, and then expects the driver to pay over $1,000 to a private entity just to get the car out, but also expects him or her in court to face the charge of driving without a license, a misdemeanor offense. Which often he or she will fail to appear, which then a bench warrant will be issued and eventually served, at which time the person will be taken into custody, jailed for a couple of days, released and given yet another court date. It's fucking never-ending! And the fucking brilliant part of it is that the State has now spent and will lose about $1,500 in the process of trying to collect $250.
Suspending somebodies driver license because they haven't paid a ticket is absurd. Suspending a drivers license should be necessary: for people to dangerous to be on the road. Why not just impound the car until he pays for the ticket? It seems like that would be more than enough action to get the money owed. Why burden county courts, law enforcement, the driver, and the tax payer with suspending the driver's license?