The Aaron Harber Show

Aaron's Real Opinions (Yikes!)

Is It Time For Tougher H.O.V. Laws?
05-20-03

Recent surveys show as many as two out of every five drivers using High Occupancy Vehicle ("HOV") lanes in the Denver metropolitan area are solitary drivers flaunting the posted two-person per vehicle minimum requirement for the use of such lanes. These scofflaws almost always get off scot-free because the enforcement of the two-vehicle minimum is almost non-existent for three reasons.

First, law enforcement officials don’t put a high priority on HOV violations. They see this as a minor traffic infraction and one which, in their opinion, is not endangering anyone’s safety. Of course, this ignores the thousands of tempers which flare when law-abiding citizens sit in their cars in the middle of stop-and-go traffic while watching the violators speed by. The cost of that collective anger hasn’t been measured but it likely is not a pretty sight. Luckily, for the bad guys, a concrete barrier often separates them from those who would like to ring their necks.

Second, especially given the temporary nature of some HOV lanes and the lack of shoulders or places to pull over in the miles of metro area construction zones, stopping a violator -- especially in high traffic volume times – potentially is dangerous for everyone. Law enforcement officials know such actions could result in serious accidents and, as a result, forego the option. They know enforcing the law is not worth the risks their efforts would create – including for innocent drivers just trying to get through many of Denver’s traffic messes.

Third, staffing for law enforcement traffic patrol vehicles remains inadequate. As the State and its municipalities cut budgets, there likely will continue to be a decline in the number of officers on the road at any time – especially when the major HOV lanes are on roads which are interstate or major state highways (whose traffic tends to be self-regulating simply due to volume).

The fine for violating the HOV restriction has recently been raised from a paltry $50 to a still laughable $100 and has not had any impact on violators. They continue to ignore the law with reckless abandon and laugh at the rest of us who follow the rules. Without enforcement, they continue to pay no heed.

What is the answer? It’s simple – raise the fine to at least $250 for the first violation and increase it by $250 for every additional violation in any three-year period. At those levels, even a slim chance of getting caught will give most violators pause.

Then post the restrictions more extensively with separate signs noting the fines for violators is $250 for the first offensive and $500 for the second. And there should be no "second chances" for violators. Anyone who goes into an HOV lane knows what he or she is doing. It is a conscious choice made with plenty of time to consider the consequences of one’s actions -- and you often have opportunities to change your mind and get back into the proper lane. Violating this law is a gamble. If you want to throw the dice, you need to be willing to consider the result if you throw snake-eyes – you lose!

Is a $250 fine an unreasonable amount? It is reasonable because it barely covers the true cost of enforcement. If the average ticket for HOV violations involves three hours of a law enforcement officer’s time (between catching the violator, pulling him or her over, explaining the violation, running the driver’s license and the car’s registration, writing a ticket, writing up the incident and filing a report, and possibly traveling to and appearing in court -- all at a cost of $50 to $75 per hour) as well as the overhead for that officer (vehicle costs and maintenance, administrative overhead, et cetera -- easily costing taxpayers about $25 per hour), and the court’s time (at least an hour if not two will be spent processing the citation and outcome – all likely at a true cost of about $50 per hour), it likely costs the government $275 to $350 to process the entire infraction. Given these costs, a ticket of $250 is reasonable.

Furthermore, if substantial fines result in the modification of the behavior of violators, then everyone comes out ahead. At the minimum, they should pay the true costs of the law enforcement needed to encourage everyone to follow the rules of the road.

In the future, there may be automated systems which could be used to detect and identify violators. A portion of the revenues generated by violators could be used to pay for the system. Using basic photographic detection to first assess if a vehicle has two or more passengers along with some kind of infrared measuring system, pictures could be taken of vehicles and license plates which would be similar to the "photo red light" systems already deployed in the metro area.
Although some creative drivers might add inflatable dolls to their vehicles (to fool the cameras) and bring their dogs to work (to trick the infrared sensors), the level of the fine again could be used to discourage such deception. For example, violators who try to deceive the system would be subject to a minimum fine of $1,000 plus 100 hours of community service (and an additional fee of $500 for court costs and the expense of supervising that community service). That kind of arrangement likely would eliminate any incentive to cheat.

The preceding concept is a simple one – i.e., make violating the law so expensive there is a huge disincentive to stray. This principle should be applied across the board to almost every infraction. If the fine for littering is $50, who will care? Make it a minimum of $1,000 plus 100 hours of community service (e.g., picking up litter), and you will see a lot less littering. Want people to fasten their seatbelts so we don’t have so many deaths on our roads? Don’t fine them $10 – make it $100 and everyone will buckle up! Want to reduce speeding vehicles? Set speed limits reasonably (10 to 20 miles per hour higher in most cases) but then charge violators $20 for every mile per hour they are more than five miles per hour over the speed limit.

While raising the fines astronomically will help discourage violations, at the same time, it is not advisable to include any jail time for violators. This is overly punitive and unproductive. Our jails and prisons already are full. The preceding are not crimes committed by people who are a danger to society. They don’t need to be locked up. And don’t even take points away from these violators. Just take their money and make them work for their communities -- at their expense.

If government adopted this approach more often, people would obey the law and everyone would be happier – except those who think they are better than the rest of us and wish to ignore the rules of society.