[flash]

not true. the case is still reviewed by the court. the paperwork is still processed. it costs no less to process a guilty than a not guilty. the clerk still has to deal with it, as does the court. in traffic court, in the case of an actual court session, the only added expenses would be the bailiff and the reporter. all other expenses of the citation remain in either case, hence the "court costs" fees. "court" is not limited to the room in which a trial is held. it also includes the offices, workers, and the entire system.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

you're missing the point; the process has not changed at all so it's no more cumbersome now for the court or the system as a whole that it was just a couple of years ago when these fees did not get tacked on. furthermore, you'd think technology should make the process more effcicient and ultimately cheaper. like I said, raise the cost of the violations but force-feeding the public this new court costs burden add-on b.s. is pure nonsense. put a measure on the ballot to raise taxes if the bloated bureaucracy needs to be fed, and let's see how far that gets.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

while the process has not changed much, the funding sources have. tax based funding for the court system has been cut quite a bit.



i don't know why you think this is a new thing. this is not new news by any stretch. court fees have been in place for at least about 30 years (i've only been aware of them since 1982. they may have existed before then). i know. i paid them. i had 23 tickets in the first 3 years of driving. these were all in the bay area too. i was only able to beat 17 of them. the rest i had to pay. the fees have always at least matched the fine amount, and in some cases doubled it. i have paid at least the amount of the fine in court fees in every traffic case i have had since then.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

David Beckham was observed texting while driving in London and handed a SIX MONTH drivers licence ban /suspension along with $ 1,200 fine.   This is a first offense penalty for use of a ( non hands free ) mobile phone the UK while driving ?!    Good, we should have that here, not some crappy $ 50 fee for first offense, $ 150 for second offense and so on.      Hearsay is that he was stopped at a traffic light but told, just as is the case with any DUI, it does not matter.  That part seems implausible, but if true it's about as strict of a regulation as it gets..  Still,I agree with the law, and as I said we should enact it here.                 

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Rap]

Wonder why they don’t require a voice activated texting or emailing capability in cars?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

I believe all smartphones do have voice activated texting and email capabilities for outgoing messages , but no idea if any have a voice conversion feature for incoming ones .. ??

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[az968]

There are some decent inexpensive gizmos for handfree use in a car using the phone's bluetooth.  I'm using a Jabra Tour unit which lets me voice dial and text hands free on my phone. Also got a simple phone holder that clips to the CD slot. My android phone will read me the text messages, not sure what ap does that.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.