Washington Traffic Law Blog : Washington Traffic Lawyer & Attorney : Jon Zimmerman Law Firm : Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma

Why is it that as you're taking time off to be with friends and loved ones, there are more police officers on the road writing tickets?  

Often on holiday weekends in the Seattle area and in high-traffic areas like I-90 and I-5 in the State of Washington, drivers will notice an increased police presence.  Part of this has to do with a need for more police responders to deal with additional collisions that occur over high-capacity travel times, but the reality is that many police officers make EXTRA MONEY - yes, overtime - when they work certain holidays.  Part of the extra money is to get officers to work on certain holidays where they might otherwise take the day off, and as an increased incentive to many law enforcement agencies, the federal government will grant money to local jurisdictions to increase the police presence in traffic enforcement (read: more tickets).  

What the means for Jane and Joe Driver is that Jane and Joe just might end up with a speeding, lane change, stop sign, negligent driving, or other type of traffic infraction this weekend.  

The important thing to realize is that if you are the unlucky beneficiary of one of these traffic tickets, you are not alone.  You do not need to panic.  If you get a ticket in the State of Washington, you can call a traffic attorney who can help to maintain your driving privilege and keep your insurance rates low.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday the Washington House of Representatives reversed itself by passing the Washington Senate's version of a cell phone/texting bill, which the Governor is expected to sign.  

What does this mean to drivers in the State of Washington?  It means that if the bill becomes law (and it's really more a matter of when than if), police officers will be able to stop motorists who are holding cell phones and/or texting while driving without witnessing another offense.  Current law allows the police to issue traffic tickets to motorists for holding a cell phone or texting only if some other primary driving infraction (e.g., speeding, improper lane change) is being committed at the same time.  

Proponents think the new legislation will save lives; opponents see government intrusion and wonder why other activities such as smoking, eating, and putting on makeup are not similarly made primary offenses.  

As an attorney who deals with traffic offense cases every day, while I strongly support measures that make roadway users safe, I also believe in providing the driving public with incentives--especially economic ones--that will make drivers alter behavior in a positive way. 

The new legislation, while making cell phone and texting infractions primary offenses, prohibits the offenses from becoming part of a driver's record that is available to insurance companies.  Here, the Legislature creates a monetary penalty for the offenses, but says "hey, we don't want this offense on a driver's record, because even though we think this type of driving is so outrageous, and there is a major safety issue here that we must spend a ton of time with in this legislative session, we don't think it's really worth telling the public about or insurers."  Instead, the Legislature sends the following message:  the conduct is so unsafe that we don't want anyone to know the people who perform this unsafe behavior, so we will not punish through insurance increases anyone who breaks the law and we will not reward those who choose to obey the law.  

There's a reason that the word "law" is in the word "flaw."  The Legislature could have done a much better job by passing a bill that actually helps people who obey the restrictions obtain better insurance premiums.  After all, if the conduct is so dangerous, than clearly risky drivers ought to assume a greater financial burden.  But the Legislature didn't care about that, and instead chose expediency over substance, a common theme in this session.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Today the Seattle Times called the House of Representatives the "House of Wimps" in an editorial about the Legislature's failure to pass a distracted driving law.  I don't wholly disagree with the Times, but House members and senators are wimps not because they couldn't pass a comprehensive law, but rather because the bills lack any real incentive to improve public safety.  

A few years ago the Washington Legislature made texting and talking on a handheld wireless communication device civil traffic infractions punishable by a fine.  However, the Legislature made these infractions secondary offenses, meaning that police officers can only stop drivers who are allegedly committing some other, primary traffic violation.

Since these laws took effect, many citizens and some legislators have wanted to go a step further by making the texting/cell phone bans primary offenses.  Others, including some legislators who serve as police officers, criticized the move as going too far, at least as far as non-texting, verbal cell phone communication goes.  

What the Legislature wholly fails to address - and why I think the bills sponsored by Senator Tracey Eide (D-Federal Way) and State Representative Reuven Carlyle (D-Queen Anne) are inadequate - are incentives for the driving public to be better drivers.  If you buy the conclusion that texting and/or talking on a handheld wireless communication device, combined with driving, is dangerous - then why would you not want to punish the people creating the danger and reward your constituents who don't create the risk?  

The bills don't envision any reward/punishment scenario and as such, the bills might feel great but they don't really do anything for public safety.  

In fact, there is a built-in incentive for people to perform the very conduct  that legislators are trying to ban.  Why?  Because unlike drivers' other traffic offenses that are shared with insurance companies - and lawful drivers have to purchase insurance - cell phone and texting offenses are not shared and the Legislature has prohibited such communication of these offenses to insurance companies.  These offenses can still affect the privileges of intermediate (under age 18) drivers, but most of the driving public is not incentivized with any reward or punishment.  

If legislators really want to improve public safety AND help most of the driving public and their constituents pay less in insurance premiums, sponsors should strike the bills’ language that prevents employers and insurers from finding out about a person's driving offenses in this area.  

As there have been many comparisons to texting and cell phone offenses with DUI, if the comparisons are accurate (and I'm not arguing one way or the other that they are), it seems fitting that drivers who create risk by texting and/or holding a cell phone to their ears while driving should be readily identifiable to those who insure and employ these same drivers, whether it's a company attempting to measure risk or someone looking for a babysitter to drive their children to soccer practice.  

The safety and economic incentives are simple: if employers can minimize risk on the road by screening those drivers who have a history of these offenses, we will arguably have safer roads if more people are economically incentivized to curb conduct deemed risky or offensive.  

If insurers can identify drivers who create greater risk, then insurers can isolate risk to specific policyholders and policyholders who choose a more prudent way of driving will be economically incentivized to drive with their hands free of wireless communication devices if these drivers know they will pay less for insurance than the person who breaks the law. 

 Perhaps next year the Legislature can address the real issues with texting/cell phone legislation and debate the merits of a clean and meaningful bill.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Whether you decide to travel from Spokane to Seattle, Yakima to Yelm, or points in between during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend, you will probably notice an increased police presence.  But rather than serve you some turkey and pumpkin pie, the police will be serving motorists with speeding tickets and other traffic tickets for such offenses as negligent driving, following too close, and improper lane change. 

The days preceding and following holidays are typically among the times of year when most fatality-collisions occur.  According to AAA, 2.1 million more travelers will be on the road this year during the hoilday weekend. 

Officers will not only be responding to collisions and looking for speeding, but also for drivers and passengers not wearing seat belts and also for cars with expired tabs. 

Of course, should you receive a ticket for a moving violation, you will want to fight it so that you can save money on insurance premiums and keep your driving record clean. 

Happy Thanksgiving and safe driving this holiday weekend. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sen. John Kerry's daughter will not be charged with DUI due to insufficient evidence.  Despite her public arrest after she was pulled over for an expired tabs violation, Los Angeles prosecutors have declined to go forward because, to put it bluntly, they have no case.  So at most Ms. Kerry gets a traffic ticket, a type which probably has no effect on her insurance premiums.  And Ms. Kerry will not have to make repeated trips to court to be exonerated.  

Sure, so Alexandra Kerry was driving a car with expired tabs.  So what.  One King County judge even admitted in open court to having had expired tabs.  Happens to many drivers.  But at least prosecutors in Los Angeles realized that Ms. Kerry is an upstanding citizen and that a tabs violation shouldn't lead to a DUI charge.  

It also helped that Ms. Kerry probably did not give anything of evidentiary value to the police, beyond a below the limit breath test at the police station.  The daughter or a former prosecutor, Ms. Kerry probably knew to not respond to police questioning, to invoke her right to silence, to invoke her right to a lawyer, and to not take roadside tests.  Congratulations, Ms. Kerry, your sound judgment saved the day.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Earlier this week Seattle Times reporter Danny Westneat wrote about his frustration and how his driving habits have changed--for the worse--since Seattle decided to put up red-light cameras.

Since drivers call me daily to talk about red-light camera traffic tickets that motorists have received in the mail (and no one has called me happy to have received such a gift), it is important to note that a red-light camera traffic ticket has no effect on insurance premiums, although if a driver is stopped by a police officer and cited for a red light violation, this latter type of violation does have consequences to insurance costs.

Seattle joins other cities like Auburn, Bellevue, Bremerton, Burien, Federal Way, Fife, Issaquah, Lacey, Lake Forest Park, Lakewood, Lynnwood, Monroe, Moses Lake, Puyallup, Renton, Seatac, Spokane, Tacoma, and Wenatchee in having some form of automated traffic camera devices.

Westneat makes many good observations (more after the jump).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks

Alexandra Kerry was the subject of a traffic stop in Hollywood today.  A police officer stopped a vehicle driven by Kerry, 36, because of expired vehicle registration tabs. 

Unfortunately, a simple traffic infraction turned into a full-blown DUI stop, with a custodial arrest.  Kerry declined to take a portable breath test, instead opting to take a breath test at the station.  In California, like in the State of Washington, a person can still be charged with a DUI if their breath test is below the legal limit because the State can still convict a person of DUI without a breath test if the person is appreciably impaired.  

I hope prosecutors in California decline to move forward with criminal charges.  Ms. Kerry was pulled over for a nonmoving violation, she appeared cooperative, and her breath test was below the per se limit. Clearly her case generates a lot of press and has cost her thousands of dollars in bail money, which, although she is a person of more than modest means, is still somewhat punitive.  

But what lesson should be learned from Ms. Kerry's experience in the traffic stop context?  It's quite simple: check your license tabs.  Don't drive without valid tabs.  Driving with expired tabs is like driving with your gas cover open--both are visible distractions to police officers and likely to get you pulled over. 

Since Ms. Kerry was not pulled over for a moving violation, it appears as though she would not have had a problem with the police but for her expired tabs.  

To avoid a traffic stop and traffic ticket for an infraction of expired tabs in the State of Washington, remember to renew your tabs and post the new license tab each of your vehicles prior to tab expiration.  

And good luck Ms. Kerry, I am cheering for you.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A forum on decriminalizing marijuana and making the offense punishable as a civil infraction will be the subject of an upcoming forum in Edmonds, the Daily Herald reports.  

My state senator, Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-Queen Anne), will participate in a panel discussion with travel writer Rick Steves, former U.S. Attorney John McKay, and attorney and former White House Advisor Egil "Bud" Krogh.  It appears that Rep. Mary Helen Roberts (D-Lynnwood) might sign as a House sponsor.  

The idea is simple - treat low possessory amounts of marijuana like a speeding ticket or nontraffic civil infraction, save millions of dollars in incarceration and court costs, and bring in revenue (presumably millions of dollars) for people cited for marijuana possession as a civil infraction.  

What is less clear though are these items:  why the legislation proposes a $100 fine and why juveniles would get sanctioned criminally but adults would not.  

A $100 penalty for marijuana possession would be less than an HOV or lane change infraction, so perhaps legislators need to revisit the amount assessed for this proposed infraction, and whether the traffic version of a marijuana possession infraction would be a moving violation like possessing an open container of alcohol in a vehicle (which also carries a higher fine than $100).  

Second, it hardly seems fair that juveniles would receive detention ("juvy jail") for marijuana possession but adults would be able to pay a fine with no criminal sanctions.  Penalizing juvenile offenders more harshly than adults is unfair on its face nor would it be helpful for juvenile offenders who would have criminal records for marijuana possession when that same possession would be decriminalized if the juvenile were an adult.  

Third, the topic of marijuana decriminalization should be discussed in the broader context of our alcohol laws.  While decriminalization of marijuana could be a civil infraction for 19- or 20-year-olds, individuals this same age would still be charged as adults for the crime of minor in possession of alcohol.  Legislators should consider decriminalizing certain alcohol offenses.  Without certain changes, state law becomes inconsistent and appears to favor an illegal substance over a legal one, with a ticket for the illegal substance (marijuana) and jail time for the legal substance (alcohol possessed by an underage individual).  

I commend Senator Kohl-Welles for fostering a discussion on these important items.   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

It appears that on Monday, October 5, 2009, Bellevue will join the growing ranks of Washington cities to use speed cameras in an effort to obtain revenue from unwitting motorists.  Lake Forest Park began using the cameras earlier this year. 

Bellevue alleges that the cameras are part of a "pilot project to improve traffic safety," according to the Seattle Times.  Predictably, Bellevue stands to gain hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.  At least Bellevue might be fiscally safer! 

Although these cameras will probably do nothing to improve safety, the cameras will have the effect of thousands of tickets being issued (and many if not all of them wrongly) to vehicle owners who receive tickets in the mail. 

Here's how it works:  You're dropping your child off at school, and a camera attached to a speed measuring device photographs your vehicle.  The vehicle's owner (perhaps your spouse) gets a ticket in the mail.  Actually, you might even get a few tickets in a day, because it will take time for you to realize that you've even been photographed, traveling, perhaps, 25 mph in a 20 mph zone. 

Don't like speed cameras?  Sponsor an initiative to ban them, or vote your elected officials out of office. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks