Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

State patrol seeks to increase more than 100 traffic fines

By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published February 19, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

Text size  

Related Stories

More Local News

More stories »

State Patrol Chief Mark Trostel has a new strategy in his drive to eliminate highway deaths by 2025: raise fines.

"Some people are more likely to obey the law if they get hit in the pocketbook," Trostel said.

"They see such a low fine for speeding . . . that's not a deterrent."

Trostel is asking the legislature for increases in more than 100 state traffic fines.

Many are only $15, such as the one for failure to use turn signals, or $35, for running a red light.

Most fines would double, but Trostel wants to triple and quadruple the fines for violations that cause the most fatal crashes in Colorado and that result in the most damage to people.

The largest jump being sought would quadruple the fine for failing to wear a seat belt - from $15 to $65. That's because 40 percent of the people killed on Colorado highways were not wearing seat belts.

Trostel estimated last year that Colorado could save 35 lives a year if troopers could pull over drivers for failing to use seat belts. Now, troopers may issue seat-belt tickets only after stopping a driver for another violation.

Trostel said the patrol checked four other states with lower crash rates than Colorado's and found their fines to be substantially higher.

The other states' fines for an unsafe lane change ranged from $100 to $142, compared with $35 in Colorado.

Trostel said that Colorado Springs raised its fines in 2003 and saw a 32 percent decline in crashes during the next three years.

Top five causes of fatal, injury crashes in 2007

VIOLATION % OF CRASHES CURRENT FINE PROPOSED

1

Exceeding safe speed 21 $35 $100

2

Inattentive to driving 19 $50 $150

3

Unsafe lane change 10 $35 $100

4

Following too closely 8 $35 $100

5

Driving while intoxicated 6 $300+up $600+up

Note:

Causes vary substantially from year to year. In 2006, drunken driving caused 13 percent, or twice the share of crashes as in 2007. Colorado also has various surcharges that can add $6 to $16 to these fines.

Comments

  • February 19, 2008

    5:55 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    samsmargolis writes:

    "State Patrol Chief Mark Trostel has a new strategy in his drive to eliminate highway deaths by 2025: raise fines."

    Snort. Yeah, right. It's all about safety and not about money. This is a tax-increase by any other name. The extra money is probably going to be used to pay back the feds for the inappropriately acquired equipment and office space attributed to the CSP and their stellar leadership in the homeland security realm.

  • February 19, 2008

    6:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    forwhatitis writes:

    Here's a good one. How many of you, prior to reading this article, were aware of the cost of any of the moving violation fines in our state? Secondly, how many of you were aware, and drove more erractically because you knew our fines are less in Colorado than in other states? State Patrol Chief Mark Trostel should be placed back on patrol for believing that his constituents are such idiots.

  • February 19, 2008

    7:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    pappy writes:

    I have no clue what it costs to get a ticket. I guess that is because I don't get them. But the folks who I have been in contact with that have gotten one, sure do complain... and blame the officer. I see it as pretty simple, regardless of the cost, don't break the law. If a single life is saved, it is worth it, and costs me nothing.

  • February 19, 2008

    7:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Radar writes:

    Increasing fines will not eliminate deaths. I would not go as far as calling it a tax increase, cause it is not spead out to all, just violators. I have not idea, at all about how much fines are, and that has no bearing on why i drive the way i do. however i do see some waisting of increased funds that will be coming in.

  • February 19, 2008

    9 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Theoldguy writes:

    I only speed up to keep a safe distance between me and someone following too closely. I find it dangerous to have to drive for someone following my taillights and them not watching the road ahead. I think that is called "breaking trail."
    Drunks should not be allowed to drive period. So many beer cans in the back of pick-ups.
    I always let speeders pass with the hope that I'll be able to watch a grand collision. I certainly won't stop to offer aid. Let 'em die.
    When changing lanes I always take my time and if there's some goof riding my tail they'll just have to wait. Remember folks, if a deer were to run in front of that truck I'm passing YOU won't see it, but I will.
    A cell 'phone user? I'd love to have a jammer.

    Now you know how I think when driving. I'm the guy that moves over to the side of the road to let you pass so I'll have a good view when you kill yourself. Not selfishness....I just want a good view .

  • February 19, 2008

    9:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    blacksho89 writes:

    Most of the citations listed in the body of the article are written as municipal or county offenses as it stands. The cities and counties have higher fines than the state. A red light violation is going to cost you close to a hundred after all of the court costs, victim's assistance fees, and other fees are added in.

  • February 19, 2008

    9:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    samsmargolis writes:

    "That's because 40 percent of the people killed on Colorado highways were not wearing seat belts."

    Um. Isn't that simply Transportation Darwinism? If you're dumb enough to operate a vehicle without wearing a seat belt - and you can't drive on top of that - then, by all means, thin the herd.

  • February 19, 2008

    9:57 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    aeb1barfo writes:

    Its called REVENUE ENHANCEMENT. It's all about the money.

    Not ENFORCING SAFETY.

    Why not just KILL the people you stop? That is an example of the same rationale; it will reduce the number of lawbreakers too.

  • February 19, 2008

    12:39 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Theoldguy writes:

    samsmargolis

    "Transportation Darwinism"...........I like that. I caught hell when I tried that about the three idiots that killed themselves in Broomfield a while back.

    The thinking in law enforcement and government has changed to that of whacking the wallet instead of the butt. They seem to think that a monetary fine has a greater effect. I does if you're poor. It's too bad the cops have separated themselves from society into their own culture. Us versus them. I sure do miss the days of "Officer Friendly".

    As for me? I watch 'em for entertainment. Since 9/11 I can't seem to take any law enforcement seriously. Federal, state and local. I just putter along waving and smiling like any ol' fart would.

  • February 19, 2008

    5:34 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    forwhatitis writes:

    You want safer drivers? Replace airbags with sharpened, 14" steel spikes.