Interesting info about traffic tickets

I don't think you should have any problem passing your interview with your tickets. My IO spent less than 30 seconds going over my tickets, basically telling me that they ask to make sure that people report DUIs and other serious violations.

As a bit of social commentary, I don't know to what extent enhancing a state's revenues results in their issuing tickets for seatbelt violations. However, I do think (as a tax-payer) that the government has a right to impose seat belt requirements given that there is a higher chance of injury and death in those who don't wear them vs. those who do. The ones that die at the scene of the accident or shortly afterwards aren't so much a problem (they don't cost society very much)- the problem is those that linger- requiring extended medical care or end up as vegetables in a nursing home. Fact is, many of those eventually max out their insurance (if they have any) or run through their savings and end up being supported by taxpayers (you and me) when they start drawing from medicaid and/or social security.

Good luck though with your application.
 
It is very interesting to read the different view points on this thread and also on similar threads. I see most people have views influenced by the type of country they immigrated from. Immigrants from places where compliance with the law is important/authoratarian, may readily agree to US laws curbing freedom. Those from liberal democracies where even death penalth does not exist, will react differently. That said, over a period of time, immigrants views come closer to the main stream American view - moving in to either the democratic camp or the republican camp. Even within the US, people in the NE and West will have very different view points compared with say in the south.

Just my 2c to this thread.
 
fvan said:
I don't think you should have any problem passing your interview with your tickets. My IO spent less than 30 seconds going over my tickets, basically telling me that they ask to make sure that people report DUIs and other serious violations.

As a bit of social commentary, I don't know to what extent enhancing a state's revenues results in their issuing tickets for seatbelt violations. However, I do think (as a tax-payer) that the government has a right to impose seat belt requirements given that there is a higher chance of injury and death in those who don't wear them vs. those who do. The ones that die at the scene of the accident or shortly afterwards aren't so much a problem (they don't cost society very much)- the problem is those that linger- requiring extended medical care or end up as vegetables in a nursing home. Fact is, many of those eventually max out their insurance (if they have any) or run through their savings and end up being supported by taxpayers (you and me) when they start drawing from medicaid and/or social security.

Good luck though with your application.
Click to expand...

A seat belt ticket in New York State is $90, $50 of which is the state surcharge (which demonstrates how lucrative the seat belt checkpoints are). Also, there are about 1.5 million welfare recepients in New York. I doubt that the seat belt law has anything to do with curbing disabilities resulting from auto accident injuries, which cost the government considerably less money than what is set aside for welfare/medicaid. Besides, it was even admitted by several legislators that the primary objective of the seat belt law is to generate revenue.
 
brb2 said:
It is very interesting to read the different view points on this thread and also on similar threads. I see most people have views influenced by the type of country they immigrated from. Immigrants from places where compliance with the law is important/authoratarian, may readily agree to US laws curbing freedom. Those from liberal democracies where even death penalth does not exist, will react differently. That said, over a period of time, immigrants views come closer to the main stream American view - moving in to either the democratic camp or the republican camp. Even within the US, people in the NE and West will have very different view points compared with say in the south.

Just my 2c to this thread.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%. I was 11 years old when my family moved here from Russia. As we all know, Russia is about as authoritarian as it gets. Being that I was a kid, I didn't get a chance to establish a political viewpoint influenced by the Russian way of life. I consider myself to be a law-abiding person, and laws are absolutely necessary, but I don't believe that the government should dictate what I should be wearing while operating my own personal vehicle. Whether or not an individual chooses to wear a seat belt should be left up to that individual to decide, not the government. There's a good reason why the sodomy laws were struck down, as the type of "bedroom activities" a person chooses to engage in is their own private business, not the government's.
 
Do you buckle up your kids?

Just a curious question, none of my business but, do you buckle up your kids when they ride with you in the car?
Vorpal said:
A seat belt is not the be all end all in car safety. I choose not to wear a seat belt for comfort reasons, and so I wouldn't get trapped in case of a bad crash. Then again, that's just me.
Click to expand...
 
Vorpal said:
A seat belt is not the be all end all in car safety.
Click to expand...
I know it's not. It works in combination with the other safety devices and dashboard construction of the car, which assume the driver will be squarely held in the front seat. Don't wear the seat belt, and you'll need the helmet and body armor to have a good chance of surviving a serious crash.[/QUOTE]
 
Vorpal said:
I consider myself to be a law-abiding person, and laws are absolutely necessary, but I don't believe that the government should dictate what I should be wearing while operating my own personal vehicle. Whether or not an individual chooses to wear a seat belt should be left up to that individual to decide, not the government.
Click to expand...
If you have a large property with private roads, speed limits and seat belt laws don't apply. You are the owner of the private roads, you set your own rules or lack thereof. But when you are on shared property (government roads), you follow the rules the set of owners have collectively set.

Not wearing seat belts drives up insurance rates for everybody. But I don't like the idea of the seat belt laws being a revenue generator for the government. What they should do is (1) report the lack of seat belt wearing to your insurance company, and let them raise your premium as they see fit to cover the added risk and (2) if it is proven that you were not wearing set belts and somebody else crashes into you, they don't have to pay for your injuries unless they were also deliberately violating the law like driving drunk. That way, the personal risk you take does not impose high costs on others.
 
Jackolantern said:
If you have a large property with private roads, speed limits and seat belt laws don't apply. You are the owner of the private roads, you set your own rules or lack thereof. But when you are on shared property (government roads), you follow the rules the set of owners have collectively set.

Not wearing seat belts drives up insurance rates for everybody. But I don't like the idea of the seat belt laws being a revenue generator for the government. What they should do is (1) report the lack of seat belt wearing to your insurance company, and let them raise your premium as they see fit to cover the added risk and (2) if it is proven that you were not wearing set belts and somebody else crashes into you, they don't have to pay for your injuries unless they were also deliberately violating the law like driving drunk. That way, the personal risk you take does not impose high costs on others.
Click to expand...

Actually, I know people who have received tickets on private property. The property in question was a large parking lot, but it's still private property, not a public roadway.

As far as insurance rates are concerned, why should one's rate go up if they have a liability-only policy? If you have full coverage (where your insurance carrier will be covering your medical bills), that's a different story altogether, and I agree with you on that. Also, here's another New York example. The reason why insurance rates are so high in New York is because of a mushroom industry, known as "accident mills", which arose from personal injury lawsuits. Regardless of how serious an accident is, those invloved run to their local personal injury medical office and claim injuries that don't exist. The medical office is operating in conjunction with an attorney and an MRI provider. All parties involved work together to obtain an insurance settlement for the "injuries" sustained by their client, and then collect 33% of the settlement. It's a commonplace occurence to hear a report of a medical office getting busted by the feds on the local news. This is the real reason behind ridiculous insurance rates.
 
Vorpal said:
Actually, I know people who have received tickets on private property. The property in question was a large parking lot, but it's still private property, not a public roadway.
Click to expand...
Tickets on their own property? Or on somebody else's parking lot, for which the owner consented to having the cops enforce the rules? If it's a ticket on their own property, and it is not for something that affects other people (like too much noise revving up the engine at 2 am and annoying neighbors) that's definitely wrong and stupid. But there's nothing wrong with the owner setting certain rules and having the cops intervene if the rules are violated. If you park badly or drive too fast on my lot, I'd want the cops to fine you and kick you off my property.
As far as insurance rates are concerned, why should one's rate go up if they have a liability-only policy?
Click to expand...
They shouldn't if it's liability only.
 
Jackolantern said:
Tickets on their own property? Or on somebody else's parking lot, for which the owner consented to having the cops enforce the rules?
Click to expand...


I believe the only private property that cops are prohibited from entering to ticket a vehicle is a private driveway, whereas everything else is fair game. Then again, this is one of those laws that vary from state to state.
 
In Maryland, I believe you can be ticketed for DUI even if you are driving on your own property. Certainly makes one be careful about driving the law tractor with a cold-one in the cup holder! :eek:
 
boatbod said:
In Maryland, I believe you can be ticketed for DUI even if you are driving on your own property. Certainly makes one be careful about driving the law tractor with a cold-one in the cup holder! :eek:
Click to expand...


It's funny you should mention that. I recently stumbled across an article on cnn.com about a man who got a DUI for riding a John Deere lawn mower with a 6-pack of beer attached to the front of it.:D
 
Last Friday, I went to the local traffic violations court to obtain my ticket dispositions. When I approached a clerk and asked to obtain records of all my traffic violations, she told me that I have to go to the DMV and get a driving abstract. I told the clerk that I have already obtained my driving abstract, which only listed information for the past 4 years. The clerk responded that this is the only information that they have available on record, and I wouldn't be able to obtain any information for summonses older than that. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, I had a "no turn" ticket back in 1995, which I have paid. I have records of all other summonses, besides that one. Will this be a problem at the interview? My driving record clearly states that my license is valid (i.e., not suspended/revoked). Would that statement be enough to prove that I have no outstanding tickets?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top