Re: Repeal of the National Speed Limit Law

In article <scotdunDAqE2E.Ivt@netcom.com>, scotdun@netcom.com (Scott Dunn) writes:
|> In article <3si436$rar@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, AAPR RB <aaprrb@aol.com> wrote:
|> >Everyone has quoted that the speed limits serve as revenue enhancement
|> >devices for the police. Could someone please explain then why the speed
|> >limit fines are among the lowest fines in the CVC? If it were economically
|> >motivated, wouldn't they be higher. They are currently the cheepest fines
|> >you can pay for a motor vehical violation. 
|> Since you raise many points, I will stick with this one.  The reason why 
|> they are the lowest is that volume talks.  

In the responses that I have read, everyone talks about volume making 
up the difference and how easy speed laws are to enforce. I view it a bit 
differently. I tend to think of the 'pain threshold' of the fine. Suppose,
for example, it now cost $1000 for 10 mph over the limit. Also suppose that
your insurance would go up $300/year for 3 years if convicted. What would happen?
I believe that EVERYONE would fight their ticket! Result: clogging of the 
court system followed by something akin to a total breakdown. It appears to me
to be a simple matter of economics.

This shows me that the people who set the fines for speeding REALLY knew what
they were doing (or they were REALLY lucky!). Set them just high enough 
to make money, but not so high that people will fight them, thereby causing 
the government to lose money.

Just my thoughts.