2011 Traffic Laws

[SB 405]

Someone sent this to me (seems to be going around) so I thought I would post it in case anyone wanted to comment...



HUGE California Traffic Tickets Fines Effective 01/06/2011

Please be extremely careful in your driving and car registration & insurance matters. State of California is broke and they are trying hard to squeeze all of us hard to collect money.

Effective immediately, if you do not stop at the red light, be ready to pay $436 in fines or if you pass a school bus with flashing red signals, you will be charged $616. The state of California is going for blood, so be extra careful in driving, You cannot afford messing with them. I have been hearing that Highway Patrols are under pressure to issue a lot more tickets than last year with at least 30% increase in fines over 2009, so beware of radar guns, highway and traffic cameras installed everywhere and the tougher enforcement of parking rules.
Just for your info, the next time you park in the handicapped zone, even for a minute, you will be looking at almost $ 1000 in parking tickets , so it'd better be worth it.

California needs money, so pay close attention to the rules of the road!

Traffic Ticket Fines (Effective 01/06/2011)

VC 12814.6 $214 Failure to obey license provisions.

VC 14600(A) $214 Failure to notify DMV of address change within 10 days
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
VC 16028(A) $796 Failure to provide evidence of financial responsibility (insurance)
Note: This fine may be reduced with proof of insurance on or after the violation date.
VC 21453(A) $436 Failure to stop at a red signal.
VC 22349 $214 Unsafe speed, 1 to 15 miles over the limit.

VC 22350 $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 Driving while using a wireless phone not hands free, first offense .
I know someone who got this and it ending up being $274

VC 23123(B) $256 Driving while using a wireless phone not hands free, each subsequent offense.

VC 23123.5 $148 Driving while using a wireless device to send, read or write text.

VC 23124 $148 Minor driving while using a wireless phone.

VC 22500 $976 Parking in a bus loading area.

VC 22507(A) $976 Violation of disabled parking provisions, first offense.

VC 22507(B) $1876 Violation of disabled parking provisions, second offense.

VC 26708 $178 Unlawful material on vehicle windows.

VC 27150 $178 Adequate muffler required.

VC 27315 $148 Mandatory use of seat belts.

VC 27360 $436 Mandatory use of passenger child restraints.
Note: This fine may be reduced by completing a court authorized child seat diversion program .

VC 27400 $178 Headsets or Earplugs covering both ears.

VC 27803 $178 Violation of motorcycle safety helmet requirements.

VC 34506 $616 Commercial Driver - Log book violation.

VC 4000 $256 No evidence of current registration.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.
VC 4159 $178 Notify DMV of change of address within 10 days.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.

VC 5200 $178 Proper display of license plates.
Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction.

VC 9400 $178 Commercial weight fees due.


Note: The fine may be reduced with valid proof of correction Look out for the money grabbers in Sacramento but don‘t blame the cops. They don’t set the fines or collect them!

[rufio11]

Hmmmmmmmm...........

[bcjack]

2010 California Bail Schedule. Each County will have a slightly different (higher) bail schedule due to local Penalty Assessments (PA's) that are added. The 2011 Bail Schedule apparently has not been posted yet.


http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/documents/2010_jcbail.pdf

[bcjack]

Santa Barbara County:

http://www.sbcourts.org/general_info/BailSchedule

[storm]

I have been hearing that Highway Patrols are under pressure to issue a lot more tickets than last year with at least 30% increase in fines over 2009, so beware of radar guns, highway and traffic cameras installed everywhere and the tougher enforcement of parking rules.


The California Highway Patrol enforces traffic laws to protect property and save lives. We are not out there to generate revenue for the state or counties. The whole part about we are under pressure to write more tickets is completely FALSE. If I write less tickets because people are obeying the traffic laws than I am perfectly happy with that.

The California Highway Patrol also does not get any money for tickets that it issues.

[Bradley]

VC 22507(B) $1876 Violation of disabled parking provisions, second offense.


:redface:

almost $2k? Wow. I hate when I see people parking in disabled spots just as much as the next guy, but that seems extremely high.

Then again, I guess anyone who does it AGAIN after the first $1k fine deserves it. :noidea:

[HonkingAntelope]

Only more evidence that the vast majority of vehicle code is written to raise revenue for the state and the court system rather than improve safety. I don't think it's a coincidence when the fines going up while the state is broke as a joke.

Today, a lousy 10mph over limit ticket runs nearly $300 if someone takes traffic school. Even the traffic school fee has gone up from $15 to $65 in just two or so years. Better yet, last year our Governor vetoed the bill to reduce the fine for not making a complete stop on right-on-red turns from the extortionist $500 shakedown it is now simply because dropping the fine would ruin state profits. I've seen a couple of families where this caused very real financial and emotional strain just because the wifey got popped by a camera. Yet he did sign another bill into law that prohibited cities from charging VC violations as administrative violations because those fines went to the cities instead of the state and spared drivers from insurance increases.

The money from this shameless taxation may not go to the police agencies, but anyone who claims that revenue has nothing to do with enforcement is a bad liar.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/10/california-governor-signs-vetoes-red-light-camera-bills/

[bcjack]

VC 22507(B) $1876 Violation of disabled parking provisions, second offense.


:redface:

almost $2k? Wow. I hate when I see people parking in disabled spots just as much as the next guy, but that seems extremely high.

Then again, I guess anyone who does it AGAIN after the first $1k fine deserves it. :noidea:

They have an excellent political lobby.

[alexfarrington]

Only more evidence that the vast majority of vehicle code is written to raise revenue for the state and the court system rather than improve safety. I don't think it's a coincidence when the fines going up while the state is broke as a joke.

Today, a lousy 10mph over limit ticket runs nearly $300 if someone takes traffic school. Even the traffic school fee has gone up from $15 to $65 in just two or so years. Better yet, last year our Governor vetoed the bill to reduce the fine for not making a complete stop on right-on-red turns from the extortionist $500 shakedown it is now simply because dropping the fine would ruin state profits. I've seen a couple of families where this caused very real financial and emotional strain just because the wifey got popped by a camera. Yet he did sign another bill into law that prohibited cities from charging VC violations as administrative violations because those fines went to the cities instead of the state and spared drivers from insurance increases.

The money from this shameless taxation may not go to the police agencies, but anyone who claims that revenue has nothing to do with enforcement is a bad liar.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/10/california-governor-signs-vetoes-red-light-camera-bills/

Does increased revenue play a part here? Do huge fines serve as a deterrent to illegal activity? Does the Pope put his pants on one leg at a time?

Without specifically addressing the issue of camera-based traffic enforcement -- which is a huge can of worms on it's own -- there is a way for you to bring about change in the system. I think that the idea that the "vast majority" of the VC is written to bring in revenue is absurd. Perhaps you know of a road without recent engineering surveys where the speed limit is artificially low. Or maybe you know of a stop sign that could be a yield sign, or a stop light whose yellow light phase is half a second too short. Maybe you think VC section XXXXX is completely bogus for whatever reason. That doesn't mean the whole thing is broken or that 90% of the laws are about revenue. If you're convinced that laws X, Y & Z are strictly about revenue, then start with your Assemblyman and Senator and make your voice known. Contact the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee. Use the rights we've been afforded to make your voice heard.

And yet, if you drive within the boundaries of the law, you're fine... :think:

[AyatollahGondola]

Does increased revenue play a part here? Do huge fines serve as a deterrent to illegal activity? Does the Pope put his pants on one leg at a time?

Without specifically addressing the issue of camera-based traffic enforcement -- which is a huge can of worms on it's own -- there is a way for you to bring about change in the system. I think that the idea that the "vast majority" of the VC is written to bring in revenue is absurd. Perhaps you know of a road without recent engineering surveys where the speed limit is artificially low. Or maybe you know of a stop sign that could be a yield sign, or a stop light whose yellow light phase is half a second too short. Maybe you think VC section XXXXX is completely bogus for whatever reason. That doesn't mean the whole thing is broken or that 90% of the laws are about revenue. If you're convinced that laws X, Y & Z are strictly about revenue, then start with your Assemblyman and Senator and make your voice known. Contact the Senate Transportation & Housing Committee. Use the rights we've been afforded to make your voice heard.

And yet, if you drive within the boundaries of the law, you're fine... :think:

I think that most of the VC code was written with safety and management in mind. Their usage after they were written may start to deviate from that though. I do believe that the increase in fines was changed with revenue in mind as opposed to safety.
You're not always fine when you drive within the boundaries of the law. Traffic court is full of people who feel they were cited unfairly or unlawfully. The process by which those claims are adjudicated is a bit perverse sometimes, and with cash shortages in the courts and municipalities, it may become even more so. Changing something at the state level is a god awful process, and as noted above, all of the hard work and monetary investment can fall victim to the stroke of the executive pen.

[AyatollahGondola]

VC 22507(B) $1876 Violation of disabled parking provisions, second offense.


:redface:

almost $2k? Wow. I hate when I see people parking in disabled spots just as much as the next guy, but that seems extremely high.

Then again, I guess anyone who does it AGAIN after the first $1k fine deserves it. :noidea:

And it's no small wonder that the set asides for constructing parking lots for handicapped parking spaces get more numerous with each passing year. The other thing is, I have seen so many undeserving looking people using the placards. I think the criteria is set far too low. People with visible mobility problems are a no-contest; But when you see people easily walking from their cars, and seemingly effortlessly pushing shopping carts around a walmart, it starts to degrade the whole experience.

[HonkingAntelope]

Perhaps you know of a road without recent engineering surveys where the speed limit is artificially low.

I know of quite a few. For starters, just about every single major freeway in CA has its speed limit based on an arbitrary governmental proclamation rather than standard traffic engineering practices and a speed survey.


And yet, if you drive within the boundaries of the law, you're fine... :think:

Not too long ago, there was a huge crash that killed five bikers near San Diego. The cause was someone trying to pass the said group of bikers because the bikers were obeying the law and the 65mph speed limit, and someone got too impatient. Unfortunately, the passing driver misjudged the distance to the oncoming traffic, and the driver of an oncoming vehicle lost control while attempting to avoid the collision and slid sideways into the biker group. If the limit was set based on prevailing traffic speeds instead of an arbitrary number, such incident most likely never would have occurred (and anyone who wishes to go slower would have to yield to faster traffic).

And it's no small wonder that the set asides for constructing parking lots for handicapped parking spaces get more numerous with each passing year. The other thing is, I have seen so many undeserving looking people using the placards. I think the criteria is set far too low. People with visible mobility problems are a no-contest; But when you see people easily walking from their cars, and seemingly effortlessly pushing shopping carts around a walmart, it starts to degrade the whole experience.

Go figure... Even an RN can write up the papers for a permanent placard, nevermind the shady docs (right along with a prop 215 recommendation to treat the "disability"). Cities like Sacramento or SF have such scarce and expensive parking that the placard pays its weight in gold within a year.

[alexfarrington]

I know of quite a few. For starters, just about every single major freeway in CA has its speed limit based on an arbitrary governmental proclamation rather than standard traffic engineering practices and a speed survey.

...

If the limit was set based on prevailing traffic speeds instead of an arbitrary number, such incident most likely never would have occurred (and anyone who wishes to go slower would have to yield to faster traffic).

True enough. I was driving through Texas around this time last year and was amazed that the speed limit on the two lane rural highways (Farm Roads?) was regularly 75.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States

It's also hard to beat the insurance industry when it comes to lobbying power. The insurance companies have a vested interest in keeping speed limits low: increased premiums for higher-risk drivers (speeders). It's also reasonable to assume that if people drive slower there will be less damage when a TC occurs. Theoretically, anyway.

So there it is. Certainly not an easy situation to sort out, and realistically not anything thats gonna change quickly, if at all. It never hurts to try, though...

But even in the absence of speed limits, you cannot eliminate human error. Or stupidity. Or whatever.

[Mac]

Wow. Is anybody here in this thread to hand out the tinfoil hats yet?

[UncleBeano]

Wow. Is anybody here in this thread to hand out the tinfoil hats yet?

MAC, I passed out several "pink" tinfoil hats today! Each one was "requested" by the recipient. And what do 'ya know, they fit just fine.

[FTY]

Today, a lousy 10mph over limit ticket runs nearly $300 if someone takes traffic school.

On a recent trip to Colorado, I drove for hours on major expressways during afternoon traffic. It was relatively light and the speed limit was 75mph in most areas. I never broke 80mph, even to pass traffic. I never got passed once. Why?? Maybe because people outside of California have an understanding that the max speed is actually the max speed. Maybe because the Police don't think that 10mph over is a lousy ticket and will gladly cite those who think its not a big deal. Either way, it was refreshing to not have a tailgater, a person cutting in and out of traffic, or your typical speeder who always has to be going faster than everyone else no matter the speed of traffic.

[AyatollahGondola]

It's not paranoid to think that your government is out to get your wallet when such factors are present indicating otherwise. I don't believe that mindset is in the hearts or minds of all agencies and/or individual officers, but it probably was so in the statehouse when the codes were recently amended.

[Vinnie]

Funny... increased traffic fines haven't cost me a dime ever since the first ticket I ever got. If people would only learn...

[SB 405]

My thoughts exactly....obey the traffic laws,no problems. :wink:

[cjincognito]

I still dig the whole daytime limit 65, nighttime limit 45 thing I saw while in colorful Colorado. Wish that happened here sometimes.

[Mac]

I still dig the whole daytime limit 65, nighttime limit 45 thing I saw while in colorful Colorado. Wish that happened here sometimes.
Better yet, how about the old Montana speed limits where the allowable daytime speed was simply "reasonable & prudent":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/MONTANA-PR.svg/250px-MONTANA-PR.svg.png

[AyatollahGondola]

Better yet, how about the old Montana speed limits where the allowable daytime speed was simply "reasonable & prudent":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/MONTANA-PR.svg/250px-MONTANA-PR.svg.png

Ha! This is California though. That would be an invitation to triple digit speeds here.

[Bradley]

Better yet, how about the old Montana speed limits where the allowable daytime speed was simply "reasonable & prudent":

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/MONTANA-PR.svg/250px-MONTANA-PR.svg.png

:shock:

I would love this, although I think I would be scared to drive during the day. What scares me the most is people driving outside the brake limitations of their vehicles.

[emcviper]

I've seen a couple of families where this caused very real financial and emotional strain just because the wifey got popped by a camera.
Is it anything like the financial and emotional strain caused when someone makes a quick "California rolling stop" at a red light before gunning it, not seeing the pedestrian proceeding across the crosswalk when their signal reads "WALK"?

[LadyVol@330]

Let's face it. How much traffic do you think there is in Montana? We have been out in the Big Sky country on vacation in the middle of summer and hardly another vehicle to be seen --only off and on. That's through the rolling hills where one can see for miles. Love that place! It's so beautiful that I really don't want to be going through the scenery in a blur anyway. The Kansas Turnpike used to be 80 MPH, but I think it's 65 now. Eighty was fun. Everyone used to joke about getting a ticket from toll booth to toll booth when you were going over the speed limit and got there too soon. I don't think that was ever implemented. Interesting, though. As someone stated, no matter the speed limit in CA, there is always someone on the rear bumper who wants to exceed that, whatever it is.

[HonkingAntelope]

:shock:

I would love this, although I think I would be scared to drive during the day. What scares me the most is people driving outside the brake limitations of their vehicles.

It's the tires, not the brakes, that make all the difference when it comes to quick stops. :biggrin:

Is it anything like the financial and emotional strain caused when someone makes a quick "California rolling stop" at a red light before gunning it, not seeing the pedestrian proceeding across the crosswalk when their signal reads "WALK"?

Well, that's why most drivers are supposed to have not one but TWO(!!!) properly functioning eyeballs before hitting the road. If someone's situational awareness is terrible enough to run over a ped right in front of them, they need to have their license yanked for good.

[cjincognito]

It's the tires, not the brakes, that make all the difference when it comes to quick stops.

Coefficient of friction has nothing to do with it whatsoever?

Well, that's why most drivers are supposed to have not one but TWO(!!!) properly functioning eyeballs before hitting the road.

Is this an actual requirement? I have seen the requirements for vision, but it looks as if you have the optomotrist fill out the appropriate paperwork and you can pass the driving test to prove you can compensate for your visual impairment, then why can't you have a license? That sounds like an ADA issue? :think: