One of the more popular ways to beat a traffic ticket in Lawrence also is one of the more controversial in the insurance industry.
Lawrence, like many cities, offers people the chance to pay a higher fine in exchange for having their traffic ticket - everything from speeding to running a red light - reduced to a nonmoving violation.
The nonmoving violation won't show up on driving records, which insurance companies use to set rates.
Lynn Knauf, with the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said such practices drive insurance companies "crazy."
"It doesn't really give you any picture of a person's driving record," Knauf said. "It puts insurance companies in the position of relying on driving records that have no real meaning."
People who have three or fewer traffic tickets within the past three years can be considered for the program. People with one ticket pay double the fine, people with two tickets pay triple the fine and people with three tickets pay quadruple the fine. In exchange for the higher fine, the ticket is reduced to "inattentive driving," a nonmoving violation.
Jerry Little, the city's lead prosecutor, said someone caught doing 90 mph in a school zone isn't going to get the deal. Someone who has had all three of the allowable tickets within the past year also may not get the deal.
"It is just a courtesy. There is no legal obligation on our part to offer them the deal," he said.
Little said the city had a good reason for offering the deals - and it is not the extra money it generates for the city's coffers.
"The philosophy is to avoid a trial," Little said. "If they come in and say 'I want to keep this off my driving record,' and we don't have a policy that allows us to do that, they have nothing to lose. They might as well go to trial and take their chances. We would have hundreds of trials a month."
The city prosecutor's office, which has two attorneys, handles 20 to 30 trials per month. Little did not have exact numbers of how many people take advantage of the deal but estimated it was more than 50 percent of people who receive a traffic ticket. The court in 2004 dealt with 24,000 traffic tickets, and 9,200 of them were speeding tickets.
Amy Mark, an Overland Park resident, was one of several people who took advantage of the deal Thursday morning. She paid $222 - triple the $60 fine plus court costs - for running a red light. Mark, who said she had used similar systems in other communities, was happy to keep the incident off her record. And she wasn't shedding any tears for the insurance industry.
"What they don't know won't hurt them," Mark said.
Larry Magill, executive vice president with the Kansas Association of Insurance Agents, said people may not be fooling the insurance companies as much as they think. He said policies like Lawrence's - along with a state law that keeps most speeding tickets that are less than 10 mph over the speed limit off a driving record - have caused insurance companies to change their evaluation methods.
He said many insurance companies are now using credit scores of individuals to assess drivers' risk levels. That method has been controversial with some consumer groups, but Magill said studies have found a correlation between bad drivers and bad credit scores. And importantly, Magill said, credit scores are difficult to manipulate.
Magill said his organization hasn't made any push to pass legislation that would stop policies like those of Lawrence.
"You're always going to have those when you have politicians who think they can help keep people's insurance premiums down," Magill said.
There's also not any discussion on the City Commission to change the practice. City Commissioner David Schauner said he's convinced the city offers the deals for the right reasons. He said he didn't think the deals were motivated by any extra money they may create for the city. Estimates on how much the deals add to the city' coffers were not available. The entire Municipal Court generates about $2.5 million in city revenue.
Schauner, who also is a lawyer, said the city is motivated by a need to keep justice moving. He said without plea bargaining, courts would quickly become overloaded and grind to a halt. He said such policies just make it incumbent upon the city to have responsible prosecutors.
"We have always had to rely on the good judgment of prosecutors to find a balance," Schauner said. "That is the tough part of being a prosecutor."
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
punkrockmom (Nikki May) says…
I just want to say that the bad credit = bad driving "correalation" is a bunch of bull. I have horrible credit. I thank college for it, but oh well. However, I've not had a ticket since I was 16 or an accident since I was about 18 and hit a deer. We all know those accidents are usually the deer anyway. So, I am offended by the comment.
jayhawks71 (anonymous) says…
Using credit ratings has little to do with being correlated with "bad driving" as Magill suggests. He is misinformed or lying. The use of credit ratings has been defended has been defended because of the increased likelihood that you will make a claim on your insurance if you get in an accident. The poorer your credit, the more likely you are to make a claim, not because you are a poorer driver. The problem with their defense is that there is also a correlation between the price of the car you drive and your credit rating. Very few with poor credit ratings are driving Mercedes, Porsche, and Ferrari vehicles. Mr. Magill, what is the correlation between carrying comprehensive/collision insurance and credit rating. Let's also correct for the DEMAND that cars being paid off have to have full coverage. Let's take a guess that poor people *might* be less likely to carry it, thus when they are in an accident, they have no claim against their insurance company for their (likely not so expensive) vehicle.
In the end, it IS all about money. The insurance companies don't want to pay out. They raise your rates if you are a higher risk of an accident (tickets) and a higher risk of making a claim if in an accident (credit rating). They are mad about the city's "deal" because ALL it does is reduces the evidence they can use to RAISE your rates. The city's deal does nothing to influence lowering of rates.
Mr. Little, you aren't fooling anyone with your claim that its not about money. If you really want to better people's driving and NOT "fill the city's coffers" then give them an alternative. Give some inconvenience that doesn't fill the city's coffers. Offer a weekend driving school. At worst, offer a nominal increase. If you offer a 10%, 20%, 30%. I bet you that you would get more poeple to take the deal
and "avoid trials."
Schnauer (and Little), your answer is also one of money. To "keep the wheels of justice moving" you have alternatives to doubling, tripling and quadrupling fines, you could add more judges, have the court run 24/7, but... oh that would cost money wouldn't it? See, it IS all about money. And go figure, if you get a ticket, you pay court costs whether you use it or not. How many people actually use the court for other than its administrators stamping the back of checks and plugging "paid" into the computer?
As for the insurance industry, they have no problem tacking on surcharges for at-fault accidents even if you have had 10, 20, 30 years of accident free driving. Next, they will have stores transmitting your name and amount of purchase every time you buy alcohol.
John1945 (anonymous) says…
The essence of allowing citizens to bribe the court in order to hide one's alleged transgressions from the insurance companies is that if half the citizens of state were forced to spend their money paying for high risk insurance they might become less tolerant of being ripped off by yet another government parasite sticking their hand in your pocket on some trumped up "public safety" charge.
Take a look at when these armed thugs confront you. Is it during the rush hour when traffic is 80 miles an hour, bumper-to-bumper? No it's when you virtually have 6 lanes to yourself that these predators come out. Public safety my foot. There's no bigger thief than a state tropper, or a traffic cop. And no bigger scoundrel than a Municipal Court judge. Scum one, scum all.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
so how do you go about paying the extra amount to keep the ticket off your driving record? do you still have to schedule a trial date before the prosecutor will bargain with you????
as for the insurance companies, they are a huge ripoff. they make billions of dollars a year. you pay the insurance, someone runs into you, you take your car to one or possibly three repair shops for estimates, the cheapest gets the job, the repair includes a rental for a micro car, the car doesn't get fixed properly, you have to take the car back countless times because of the crappy repair, you don't get a free rental on the many return trips, and the insurance salesman - he does nothing. you have to do all the work.
so have our insurance rates decreased since they banned fireworks or put a stop to smoking in public places? NO! i wonder what the insurance industry's excuse could be for not lowering our rates now that we no longer have the threat of a bottle rocket landing on our house. i'm sure it would be some carefully worded legal mumbo jumbo b.s.