Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Moving violation

A moving violation is a infraction committed by a vehicle operator while the vehicle is in motion, distinguishing it from stationary offenses such as improper or malfunctions. These violations typically encompass actions that directly endanger , including exceeding speed limits, disregarding signals, or improper lane changes. In the United States, are codified under state vehicle and laws, often resulting in demerit points added to the record, monetary fines, and heightened automobile premiums due to perceived increased risk. Accumulating multiple points—commonly three to six per violation depending on severity—can lead to suspension or , with insurers typically raising rates by 15-20% or more following a . Unlike non-moving violations, which generally carry no points and minimal insurance repercussions, moving infractions reflect active disregard for operational rules and thus incur stricter penalties to deter recurrence. Enforcement mechanisms, such as police observation or automated systems like , capture these offenses in real time, underscoring their role in broader efforts. While minor infractions may resolve via fines or courses, egregious cases like or elevate to criminal status, potentially involving court-mandated interventions or incarceration. This framework prioritizes causal accountability for dynamic hazards over static ones, aligning penalties with empirical risks to public safety.

Core Definition

A moving violation constitutes any breach of traffic laws or ordinances perpetrated by a vehicle's operator while the vehicle is in motion, distinguishing it from infractions involving stationary conditions. This category encompasses behaviors that actively engage the vehicle's operation, such as exceeding posted speed limits, disregarding stop signs or signals, and executing unsafe lane maneuvers, all of which occur during travel rather than at rest. In jurisdictions across the United States, statutes typically codify this as an act or omission under vehicle codes that endangers public safety through dynamic driving errors, with penalties calibrated to reflect the heightened risk posed by motion. The legal import of this definition lies in its role for administrative sanctions, including accumulation of demerit points toward license revocation and surcharges on , as signal patterns of negligent operation more acutely than static offenses. While primarily civil in nature—absent aggravating factors like or —these infractions carry standardized fines, appearances, and remedial requirements such as courses, enforced variably by departments of motor vehicles. Definitions exhibit minor jurisdictional variances, such as explicit listings in vehicle codes, but uniformly emphasize motion as the delineating criterion to prioritize roadway hazards over administrative lapses.

Distinction from Non-Moving Violations

Moving violations are defined as infractions committed while a is in motion, such as speeding, failure to yield, or , which directly implicate the driver's control and safety on roadways. In contrast, non-moving violations involve and typically encompass infractions, defects like inoperable lights, or registration lapses, where no active driving behavior is at fault. This fundamental distinction hinges on the 's operational state at the time of the offense, with moving violations assessed as indicators of dynamic risk to public safety, whereas non-moving ones address static compliance issues. Legally, carry greater severity across U.S. jurisdictions, often resulting in points added to the —ranging from 2 to 6 points per offense depending on the and infraction—which can accumulate to trigger license suspension thresholds, such as 12 points in within 12 months. Non-moving violations, by comparison, do not contribute to point systems on , as they do not reflect operational hazards, though unpaid fines may lead to vehicle immobilization or registration holds. Insurance implications further underscore the divide: typically raise premiums by 20-30% or more for 3-5 years, signaling heightened risk to insurers, while non-moving citations like tickets exert negligible or no effect on rates. Enforcement reflects this hierarchy, with more likely to involve officer observation or automated systems like speed cameras during travel, potentially escalating to misdemeanors for egregious cases, whereas non-moving infractions are often resolved via civil fines without appearances unless contested. Variations exist by —for instance, some classify certain equipment failures as non-moving only if discovered during —but the motion criterion remains the primary legal delineator, prioritizing interventions against active roadway threats. In the United States, are typically classified as civil infractions or misdemeanors rather than felonies, though severe cases involving recklessness or can escalate to criminal charges. Penalties include monetary fines—such as $60 for standard in excluding mandatory court appearances—demerit points on the , and potential suspension upon accumulation, with systems varying by ; for instance, 12 points within two years often results in . These offenses also trigger rate hikes due to increased by providers. In the , moving violations are addressed under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and related legislation as endorsable offenses, assigned ranging from 1 to 11 based on severity, or prosecuted as careless, inconsiderate, or . Less serious infractions may involve fixed penalty notices with fines up to £1,000 and points, while can lead to summary conviction with up to two years' imprisonment, unlimited fines, and mandatory disqualification. Civil enforcement powers under the Traffic Management Act 2004 extend to certain moving contraventions like misuse outside . In Canada, moving violations are generally provincial offenses treated as quasi-criminal matters under highway traffic acts, carrying fines, demerit points, and possible license suspension, though egregious acts like or impaired operation fall under with potential hybrid or indictable proceedings. Penalties vary by province; for example, Ontario's system imposes demerit points leading to suspension after 15 points for novice drivers, with unpaid fines potentially blocking license renewal. Serious convictions, such as those for impaired driving, render individuals criminally inadmissible for purposes. Across member states, moving violations lack uniform classification but are harmonized for cross-border enforcement via directives like 2015/413/EU, enabling fine collection and vehicle registration for offenses such as speeding or red-light running. systems predominate: Germany's StVO treats minor speeding as administrative fines (e.g., €30–€1,800 based on excess speed), while classifies serious violations under with potential imprisonment. Recent 2024 regulations enhance offender identification and fine recovery, addressing prior gaps where foreign drivers evaded penalties. Penalties often include points systems leading to license revocation, with Finland's income-based fines reaching extremes for high earners.

Historical Development

Origins in Early Automobile Era

The advent of the automobile in the late necessitated novel traffic regulations, as motorized vehicles exceeded the speeds of horse-drawn carriages and introduced unprecedented risks of collision and injury. Prior to widespread adoption, rudimentary rules governed horse traffic, such as speed limits in urban areas dating back to the 17th century in places like (now ), which capped wagons at four to prevent accidents. However, these were insufficient for self-propelled machines capable of 20-30 even in primitive forms, prompting jurisdictions to enact specific prohibitions on excessive speed and careless operation while the vehicle was in motion—hallmarks of what would later be termed . In the , early precedents emerged with the Locomotives on Highways Act of 1865, which restricted "road locomotives" to 4 in the countryside and 2 in towns, requiring a crew including a flag-waving attendant to warn pedestrians; violations of these speed and signaling rules constituted the first enforceable moving infractions for motorized travel. The first recorded conviction occurred on January 28, 1896, when Walter Arnold of East Peckham was fined for driving at approximately 8 in a 2-mile-per-hour zone, pursued by a on a . These measures reflected causal concerns over the automobile's mechanical unreliability, noise, and potential for sudden breakdowns, which amplified accident risks in shared roadways. In the United States, pioneered state-level laws on May 21, 1901, establishing speed limits of 12 miles per hour in cities and 15 miles per hour on rural roads, with penalties for exceeding them or operating recklessly in a manner endangering life or property. followed in the same year with mandatory vehicle registration, the first such requirement, aimed at identifying operators responsible for like speeding or improper passing. Enforcement initially relied on local observing violations manually, often without standardized tickets, as automobiles numbered fewer than 8,000 nationwide by ; these laws marked the shift from road use to codified accountability for dynamic behaviors, driven by rising incidents of pedestrian strikes and inter-vehicle crashes in growing urban centers. By 1903, additional states adopted licensing and speed rules, formalizing as distinct from static offenses like parking irregularities.

Expansion and Standardization Post-1920s

The rapid growth in automobile ownership during the , with U.S. passenger car registrations increasing from about 6.5 million in 1919 to over 23 million by , heightened road congestion and accident rates, necessitating broader and more uniform regulations on driver conduct. In response, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances published the initial in , providing states with a comprehensive model for statutes that explicitly defined and penalized , including speeding, failure to yield right-of-way, and reckless operation of vehicles in motion. This code emphasized empirical needs by codifying rules derived from observed causal factors in crashes, such as improper passing and disregard for signals, rather than localized ordinances that varied widely prior to standardization. Post-1926 revisions to the progressively expanded the catalog of to accommodate evolving traffic dynamics, with the 1938 edition incorporating refinements from the National Conference on Street and Highway Safety, such as detailed prohibitions on between lanes and inadequate at higher speeds common on improved highways. By the and , further updates addressed intersections and multi-lane roads, adding infractions like improper lane changes and failure to signal intentions, which were linked to a significant portion of based on contemporaneous data analyses. These expansions reflected causal realism in , prioritizing violations directly tied to kinetic behaviors over static issues, and were supported by concurrent advancements like the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), first compiled in and revised thereafter to standardize signage enforcement. Although no state adopted the UVC verbatim, its provisions influenced the majority of state codes, fostering de facto standardization of moving violation categories and penalties, which by mid-century included graduated fines and points systems in many jurisdictions to deter repeat dynamic infractions. This uniformity improved interstate consistency, as evidenced by reduced legal ambiguities in cross-border enforcement, while allowing states to adapt based on local empirical data without undermining core principles of safe vehicle operation. The framework's enduring impact is seen in modern traffic codes, where core moving violations trace back to these post-1920s developments, underscoring the shift from ad hoc rules to systematic, evidence-informed governance of roadway motion.

Key Legislative Milestones

In 1901, became the first U.S. state to enact a , capping speeds at 15 in cities and 20 in rural areas, marking an initial legislative effort to regulate moving vehicles amid rising automobile adoption. Similarly, that year required vehicle registration and established urban s at 15 , with rural limits at 25 , laying groundwork for of infractions like speeding. The 1903 driver's licensing laws in and represented early mandates for operator accountability, requiring licenses without tests but tying them to compliance with emerging traffic rules, which facilitated penalties for s. In 1910, passed the nation's first statute explicitly prohibiting driving while intoxicated, criminalizing impaired operation as a moving violation and setting a precedent for blood-alcohol thresholds later refined with scientific testing. The 1926 Uniform Vehicle Code, developed under Commerce Secretary by the National Conference on Street and Highway Safety, provided a model for state laws standardizing definitions and penalties for such as and signal disobedience, influencing widespread adoption despite non-binding status. Federal involvement intensified with the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Highway Safety Act, signed by President , which created the and mandated states to adopt uniform safety standards, including enhanced enforcement of to reduce fatalities. Subsequent milestones included the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, imposing a national 55 miles per hour to conserve fuel, which uniformly classified excessive speeding as a federal-influenced across states until its repeal in 1995. These developments shifted from localized ordinances to coordinated frameworks emphasizing empirical safety data over ad hoc rules.

Categories of Moving Violations

Minor Infractions

Minor infractions refer to involving minor deviations from traffic laws that do not typically endanger or to a significant degree, distinguishing them from reckless or major offenses like or excessive speeding. These infractions generally carry lighter penalties, such as modest fines and accumulation of fewer demerit points on a driver's record, without triggering automatic suspension in most U.S. jurisdictions. Examples of common minor infractions include speeding by 10 to 20 over the posted limit, which federal safety guidelines classify as a basic absent aggravating factors like conditions or prior offenses. Failure to signal before changing lanes or making turns also qualifies, as it involves improper vehicle maneuvering while in motion but without of to evade or endanger others. Following too closely () at safe distances and minor failures to right-of-way, such as at non-intersection merges, further exemplify these infractions, as they stem from lapses in attentiveness rather than deliberate risk-taking. Disobeying signals in low-risk scenarios, like a brief red-light overrun without collision, may be treated similarly in state codes, though classification can vary by locality and context.
Infraction TypeKey CharacteristicsJurisdictional Note
Minor SpeedingExceeding limit by under 20 mphOften payable without court; points added per state scales
Failure to SignalLane change or turn without indicator useCivil infraction in most states; focuses on predictability for others
Following Too CloselyInsufficient spacing from preceding vehicleAddressed in commercial regs; minor if no near-miss
Improper Turns or YieldingBasic right-of-way lapses without hazardCommon in urban enforcement; fines vary by
Such infractions are enforced primarily through officer observation or automated systems, with repeat occurrences escalating to status in penalty frameworks adopted by agencies like the FMCSA since the early .

Major or Reckless Violations

Major moving violations, also known as reckless violations, involve operating a in a manner that demonstrates a conscious disregard for the of others, often escalating to or charges due to the heightened risk of or . Unlike infractions such as moderate speeding or failure to signal, these offenses prioritize severe over mere rule-breaking, with from traffic analyses showing they contribute disproportionately to fatal crashes—reckless behaviors alone accounting for approximately 30% of roadway fatalities in analyzed U.S. data sets. Reckless driving serves as the archetypal major violation, uniformly penalized across all 50 U.S. states as a criminal offense involving "willful or wanton disregard" for safety, such as weaving through traffic at high speeds or ignoring road conditions that could precipitate accidents. Penalties typically include fines ranging from $200 to $2,500, jail terms up to one year for first offenses, and mandatory license suspensions of 30 days to six months, with repeat offenses escalating to felonies in states like and . Specific thresholds define recklessness variably; for instance, classifies average speeds 20 mph over the limit or exceeding 85 mph as reckless by , while deems driving without due caution under the circumstances sufficient for prosecution. Other prominent examples include (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI), where impairment from alcohol or drugs—blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or higher in all states—compromises vehicle control and decision-making, correlating with crash risks 6 to 23 times higher than sober driving per studies. Hit-and-run incidents involving injury or , street racing on public roads, and excessive speeding (e.g., 100 mph or more in many jurisdictions) also qualify, often triggering immediate and criminal courts rather than administrative fines. These violations demand based on causal evidence of intent or negligence, distinguishing them from inadvertent errors through first-hand witness accounts or data in enforcement proceedings.

Examples with Specific Behaviors

Specific behaviors constituting moving violations typically involve actions by a driver that demonstrate unsafe operation of a moving , such as disregarding speed limits or signals. These infractions are enforced under state codes and federal guidelines for commercial driving, with variations by jurisdiction but common patterns across the .
  • Speeding: Exceeding the posted speed limit or driving at a speed unsafe for conditions, which increases crash risk due to reduced reaction time.
  • Following too closely (tailgating): Maintaining insufficient distance from the vehicle ahead, impairing the ability to stop safely and contributing to rear-end collisions.
  • Improper lane changes: Changing lanes without signaling or checking blind spots, often cutting off other drivers and leading to side-swipe incidents.
  • Reckless driving: Willful disregard for safety, including excessive speeding, weaving through traffic, or other aggressive maneuvers that endanger others.
  • Failure to yield right-of-way: Not yielding to pedestrians, emergency vehicles, or other traffic at intersections or merges, violating priority rules.
  • Improper turns: Failing to signal turns, making U-turns in prohibited areas, or turning from the wrong lane, which disrupts traffic flow.
  • Running red lights or stop signs: Proceeding through controlled intersections without stopping, a frequent cause of broadside crashes.
These examples are drawn from enforcement data and safety analyses, emphasizing behaviors observable during vehicle motion rather than stationary conditions.

Detection and Enforcement Mechanisms

Manual Police Enforcement

Manual enforcement of moving violations involves officers actively patrolling roadways to observe and intervene in real-time infractions, such as speeding, failure to signal, or improper changes, using direct visual or calibrated devices. Officers typically employ visual for initial detection of behaviors like or , which relies on trained to gauge deviations from safe driving norms without technological aids. For speed-specific violations, common methods include pacing, where the officer follows the target at a consistent and uses the patrol car's to measure average speed over a known ; devices, which emit radio waves and calculate velocity via the ; and (light detection and ranging) systems, which project pulses to determine instantaneous speed with narrow-beam . Upon detecting a violation, officers initiate a by activating emergency lights and sirens to signal the driver to pull over safely to the right shoulder or designated area, prioritizing officer and public safety during approach. Standard procedures require the officer to request the , registration, and proof of , verify and status via radio or computer checks, and explain the observed violation while assessing for additional risks like or warrants. If warranted, a is issued on-site, documenting the violation, time, , and used, with options for the driver to plead guilty by or contest in ; arrests may follow for egregious cases like . Uniform application of enforcement is emphasized in guidelines from bodies like the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), which advocate for consistent policies across similar violations to maintain fairness and deterrence. In scale, U.S. conducted approximately 12.4 million stops in 2022, leading to tens of millions of annual citations for , far outpacing automated systems in discretionary interventions like detecting distracted or impaired . Programs such as Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (STEP), combining targeted s with public education, have demonstrated reductions in specific violations by focusing officer presence on high-risk areas or behaviors. Empirical studies indicate that visible manual enhances through general deterrence, reducing rates by influencing driver via perceived of immediate apprehension, though effectiveness depends on sustained and officer rather than mere volume. This approach allows for on-scene to warn minor offenders or escalate for serious threats, contrasting with automated methods by enabling holistic assessment of conditions.

Automated and Technological Systems

Automated traffic enforcement systems utilize fixed or mobile cameras to detect such as speeding and without requiring on-site police presence. These systems capture photographic evidence of infractions, including vehicle license plates, timestamps, and speeds, which are then reviewed for ticketing. The first automated speed cameras in the United States were deployed in 1987 in , and , marking the initial adoption of such technology for violation detection. followed, with , implementing its program in August 1999, using and images to record vehicles entering intersections after the light turns . Technological components include or sensors for speed measurement in speed cameras and inductive loops or video detection for red-light systems to trigger imaging upon violation. Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs), integrated into many enforcement setups, employ algorithms to scan and identify plates in , aiding in the detection of unregistered vehicles or outstanding violations. Advances in and have enhanced ALPR accuracy to over 99.7% for high-speed captures, even under varying lighting conditions via infrared-equipped cameras. Empirical evaluations indicate these systems reduce targeted violations and associated crashes. Automated speed enforcement has been shown to decrease speeding by 20-25% and crashes by 30-40% in monitored areas, according to analyses of deployment outcomes. The (NHTSA) reports that such programs effectively lower speeding violations and crash rates, supporting their role in supplementing manual enforcement. However, effectiveness depends on proper placement in high-violation zones and public awareness, with some studies noting initial deterrence that may wane without sustained operation. Recent integrations of extend detection to behaviors like wrong-way driving or via video , though widespread adoption remains limited by concerns and regulatory hurdles. ALPR networks, often mounted on vehicles or fixed poles, enable cross-jurisdictional violation tracking, with systems capturing millions of reads daily in urban areas. Despite debates over revenue generation versus safety benefits, data from controlled implementations affirm causal reductions in violations through consistent, unbiased monitoring.

Post-2020 Shifts in Enforcement Practices

Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and subsequent police reform movements, manual traffic enforcement for moving violations declined significantly across numerous U.S. jurisdictions. By the end of 2023, police departments in cities such as Baltimore, New Orleans, and San Francisco conducted fewer than half the number of traffic stops compared to pre-pandemic levels. Nationally, traffic violation citations decreased by 13% since the pandemic began, correlating with a 22% rise in motorist death rates. In San Francisco and Seattle, citations dropped by approximately 90% between 2019 and 2023. This reduction stemmed from reprioritization of police resources amid public health measures, staffing shortages, and directives to limit non-emergency stops, often framed as reducing pretextual policing for minor infractions. The shift emphasized high-risk behaviors over routine patrols, influenced by initiatives like those from the Traffic Safety For All coalition, which advocated limiting low-level stops to enhance equity and . However, empirical data indicated adverse outcomes, with surging and fatalities increasing in areas of diminished , challenging claims from groups—such as those asserting safety gains from fewer stops—that prioritize over deterrence. links reduced visible to diminished perceived risk of violation, exacerbating speeding and other moving infractions. To compensate, some localities expanded automated enforcement systems post-2020. The number of communities employing speed safety cameras rose from 137 in 2018 to 183 by 2022, reflecting a pivot toward technology-driven detection of moving violations like excessive speeding. Cities including Oakland and supplemented reduced manual stops with camera programs, aiming to maintain compliance without interpersonal encounters. Despite this, overall citation volumes remained suppressed, and red-light camera usage declined nationally, underscoring uneven adoption amid debates over efficacy and privacy. By 2025, while select states like extended point retention periods for violations to 24 months, enforcement practices continued prioritizing selective, data-informed interventions over comprehensive patrols.

Immediate and Direct Consequences

Fines and Points Systems

Fines for moving violations consist of monetary penalties levied by courts or administrative schedules, typically ranging from $50 to $500 for common infractions like minor speeding, with amounts escalating based on severity, jurisdiction, and prior offenses. In , for instance, speeding 6-10 over the limit incurs a $60 fine, while 19-23 over results in $193. imposes fines of $90 to $600 for a first speeding , scaled by excess speed: $45-150 for 1-10 over, up to $360-600 for 31+ over. These base fines often include mandatory surcharges, costs, and fees, effectively doubling or tripling the total payment; Virginia's uniform fine schedule, for example, doubles penalties for violations committed by commercial drivers. Points systems, or demerit points, track convictions on a to enforce progressive discipline, with most U.S. states assigning 1-11 points per violation proportionate to risk. Accumulation over defined periods—typically 12-36 months—triggers reviews, mandatory education, or suspensions; deems drivers "negligent operators" after 4 points in 12 months, leading to probation or revocation. suspends licenses at 11 points in 18 months and assesses a $100-750 Driver Responsibility fee starting at 6 points. Common assignments include 1 point in for speeding under 100 or running a red light, and 2 points for . In , speeding adds 3 points for 1-10 over, 4 for 11-20 , 6 for 21-30 , 8 for 31-40 , and 11 for 41+ ; failure to yield or improper passing adds 3-5 points. Points persist for 18-36 months, influencing renewals and , though traffic school can mask one violation in some states like to avoid points. Variations exist: lacks a formal points system, relying instead on surcharges and hearings, while states like assign points via schedules for violations like careless driving (4 points). Fines and points apply uniformly to —defined as infractions involving motion, excluding —but courts may reduce or waive via pleas, though convictions still report to DMVs.

License and Vehicle Impacts

Moving violations in the United States typically result in points being added to a driver's license under state-administered demerit systems, with accumulation thresholds triggering suspensions or revocations to deter repeat offenses. For instance, many states suspend licenses upon reaching four points within 12 months, six points in 24 months, or eight points in 36 months, though exact figures vary by jurisdiction. In the District of Columbia, 10 to 11 points lead to a 90-day suspension, while 12 or more points result in revocation. Maryland imposes suspensions for 8 to 11 points, often requiring driver improvement programs for lesser accumulations like 5 to 7 points. Major , such as or excessive speeding, can prompt immediate license suspension regardless of points, with durations ranging from 30 days to indefinite revocation depending on severity and prior record. Accumulations from common infractions like speeding (2-4 points) or failure to yield (3-5 points) escalate risks, as points remain on records for 2 to 5 years before potential removal through safe or remedial courses. Drivers under 21 often face stricter thresholds, such as suspension for nine points in 12 months in certain states. Vehicle impoundment is less routine for minor moving violations but occurs for serious ones involving public safety risks, such as driving under the influence or evading police, where law enforcement seizes the vehicle to prevent further immediate harm. In cases of arrest during a traffic stop for violations like reckless driving, police may impound if no licensed operator is available or if the vehicle poses a hazard. Some jurisdictions, including parts of Washington State, authorize impoundment for moving violations tied to unlicensed operation or repeated offenses, with owners facing towing fees and storage costs averaging $100-200 daily until release. Alternatives like vehicle immobilization—using devices to prevent operation—have been piloted in select areas as a less costly option to full impoundment for certain violations.

Court and Administrative Processes

Upon receiving a citation for a moving violation, drivers typically have options to pay the fine, contest the ticket administratively, or request a hearing, with processes varying by but generally classified as civil infractions rather than criminal offenses unless elevated to reckless or aggravated levels. Administrative handling often occurs through departments of motor vehicles (DMVs) or equivalent agencies, where tickets are processed for via , , or in-person, potentially including surcharges for late fees if not addressed within specified timelines, such as 30 days in many jurisdictions. Failure to respond can trigger automatic license or additional penalties enforced administratively without judicial involvement. For contested tickets, administrative review may precede court if the violation involves points accumulation or eligibility for traffic school to mitigate penalties; for instance, in systems like Pennsylvania's, accumulating six or more points within a year prompts a warning letter, while 12 points in a year leads to automatic suspension, appealable via hearing. administrative hearings focus on of the violation's occurrence and driver responsibility, often resulting in upheld suspensions, required remedial driving courses, or reinstatement fees ranging from $25 to $100 depending on the state. In urban areas like , the 's Traffic Violations Bureau adjudicates non-criminal through mailed pleas or hearings, where judges assess officer reports, driver , and before imposing fines up to $250 for minor infractions or points that contribute to long-term record impacts. Court processes for moving violations, handled in specialized traffic courts or municipal divisions, begin with an arraignment where the driver enters a plea of guilty, not guilty, or no contest; guilty pleas often lead to immediate fine payment and points assessment without trial. If not guilty, a trial follows, typically a bench trial before a judge rather than a jury, involving prosecution presentation of the citing officer's testimony and any technological evidence like radar calibration logs, followed by cross-examination and defendant rebuttal. Judges in traffic court possess authority to dismiss charges for procedural errors, reduce violations to lesser non-moving offenses, or impose enhanced sanctions such as community service or probation for repeat offenders, with appeals possible to higher courts on legal grounds but rarely overturning factual findings. Federal moving violations, such as those on interstate highways under U.S. District Court jurisdiction, route through the Central Violations Bureau for processing, scheduling contested hearings within 30-60 days of submission, emphasizing payment or waiver of immunities for diplomatic cases. Overall, these processes prioritize efficiency, with over 90% of citations resolved via payment or plea to avoid trial delays, though administrative backlogs in high-volume states can extend resolutions to 6-12 months.

Broader Impacts and Effectiveness

Effects on Insurance and Driving Records

Moving violations are recorded on a driver's official record maintained by state departments of motor vehicles (DMVs), where they typically result in the assignment of demerit points under state-specific systems designed to track risky . For instance, a speeding violation exceeding the limit by 1 to 10 often incurs 3 points in states like , while more severe infractions such as can add up to 11 points. Accumulation of points—such as 12 within 18 to 24 months in many jurisdictions—triggers or to mitigate risks. Points generally remain active for 3 to 5 years from the conviction date, though visibility on records can extend longer; for example, retains most violation details for up to 4 years even after remedial courses. State variations are significant, with some like dismissing points after 36 months of clean , while others enforce indefinite notation for major offenses. These points and convictions directly influence automobile premiums, as insurers access driving records via the Motor Vehicle Report (MVR) to assess claim likelihood, often raising rates for policyholders with recent to reflect elevated accident risk. A single speeding , a common moving violation, correlates with an average premium hike of 23% to 27% nationally, equating to roughly $582 annually for full coverage based on 2025 data. More egregious violations, such as those involving excessive speed or running red lights, can amplify increases up to 95% in isolated cases, though severity and frequency drive the variance. Insurers typically scrutinize records for 3 to 5 years post-violation, after which rates may normalize absent further incidents, but multiple convictions compound surcharges, potentially doubling premiums. Non-moving violations, by contrast, rarely impact rates unless unpaid fines lead to license issues. Empirical analyses confirm that these adjustments stem from actuarial data linking to higher crash probabilities; for example, drivers with points face 20-30% greater odds of at-fault incidents, justifying the risk-based pricing. State-specific factors, including Florida's 7-28% hikes post-ticket, underscore how local enforcement and regulations modulate effects, with options like courses sometimes mitigating points and thereby blunting premium surges.

Empirical Data on Road Safety Outcomes

A of studies by the (NHTSA) indicates that traffic safety , including citations for such as speeding and impaired driving, reduces unsafe driving behaviors and associated crashes, though precise quantification of enforcement levels' direct impact on outcomes varies due to inconsistent comparability across jurisdictions. Analysis of traffic citations along from 2015 to 2018, using reduced-rank and negative binomial modeling, revealed that interactions between specific citation types and crash factors significantly lowered equivalent only (EPDO) crashes; for example, hours-of-service citations interacting with commercial crashes yielded a of -0.22 (p<0.005), and seatbelt citations interacting with unbelted crashes showed -0.15 (p<0.005). Without accounting for these interactions, aggregate citation data sometimes correlated positively with crashes, highlighting the need for contextual modeling in enforcement impact assessments. Speed limit enforcement operations (SLMOs), targeting a core moving violation, reduced traffic accidents by 7.5% and casualties (slightly injured) by 8.5% on enforcement days in analyzed regions, with effects driven by heightened detection risk rather than educational components; however, these reductions were temporary, reverting to baseline levels immediately post-operation. Broader reviews of enforcement interventions, including automated systems for speeding and red-light violations, report consistent crash reductions: speed cameras have lowered injury crashes by up to 20-30% in implemented areas, while general ticket issuance for aggressive violations correlates with fewer severe incidents, though long-term deterrence requires sustained presence. NHTSA data underscores ' prevalence in crashes: in , speeding contributed to 29% of fatal crashes, involving over 12,000 deaths, emphasizing 's potential role in mitigating high-risk behaviors despite challenges in isolating causal effects from factors like volume. Enforcement of , particularly speeding and red light running, establishes causal links to reduction through deterrence mechanisms that lower violation rates and associated risks. Empirical studies, including natural experiments, demonstrate that issuing tickets directly reduces subsequent crashes by altering driver behavior, with one analysis of randomized enforcement showing significant declines in accidents and non-fatal injuries following ticketing interventions. High-visibility enforcement campaigns further amplify these effects by increasing perceived risk of detection, leading to measurable reductions in and crash incidence across jurisdictions. Speed provides robust evidence of , as elevated speeds exponentially increase severity via principles, and targeted citations have been modeled to significantly decrease overall numbers. For instance, higher volumes of speeding tickets correlate with reduced frequencies in econometric analyses, while aerial programs have empirically lowered average speeds, thereby diminishing collision risks. These outcomes stem from both general deterrence—broad compliance shifts—and specific deterrence for cited individuals, with peer-reviewed research confirming that reduced speeding exposure directly lowers injury and fatality rates. Red light camera systems exemplify automated enforcement's causal impact, with meta-analyses synthesizing multiple evaluations to find statistically significant reductions in total crashes, right-angle collisions, and injury outcomes at signalized . One comprehensive review estimated that eliminating red light violations could avert up to 40% of road injury crashes, supported by before-after studies showing net declines despite occasional rear-end increases from cautious braking. These effects hold across diverse settings, underscoring enforcement's role in mitigating intersection conflicts, though long-term efficacy depends on sustained operation and public acceptance. Broader traffic syntheses reinforce these links, indicating that comprehensive violation targeting—encompassing and failure to yield—yields positive safety returns when data-driven and visible, though isolated studies note diminishing marginal effects in high-compliance areas. Limitations include potential spillover crashes from over-cautious responses and challenges in isolating from factors like improvements, yet the preponderance of from controlled and quasi-experimental designs affirms via reduced violation prevalence.

Controversies and Debates

Demographic Disparities in Enforcement

Studies analyzing large datasets of traffic stops in the United States have identified racial disparities in the enforcement of moving violations, with Black drivers facing higher rates of stops and citations relative to their share of the driving population. The Stanford Open Policing Project, examining nearly 100 million stops, found that Black drivers are stopped at rates about 20% higher than White drivers after adjusting for residential population benchmarks, though Hispanic drivers experience similar or lower rates compared to Whites. A 2024 analysis of roadway user composition and citations indicated that Black drivers receive disproportionate citations for moving violations, even after accounting for the racial makeup of road users, as evidenced by speed camera data showing elevated infraction rates. Similarly, a 2025 study using high-frequency location data reported that racial and ethnic minority drivers are 24% to 33% more likely to be cited for speeding, paying 23% to 34% more in fines. Gender disparities are pronounced, with drivers receiving the majority of citations despite comparable or lower per-mile driving exposure in some contexts. In 2005, s accounted for 63.4% of all U.S. tickets, exceeding their proportion of licensed drivers and reflecting patterns of higher male involvement in violations like speeding. suggests this stems partly from behavioral differences, as men exhibit greater non-compliance with s such as speed limits, though enforcement leniency toward female drivers—potentially influenced by officer discretion—may amplify the gap. Officer does not significantly alter ticketing rates, indicating that the disparity arises more from driver conduct and dynamics than from policing by sex. Interpretations of these disparities vary, with some attributing racial differences in stops to pretextual for investigatory purposes rather than , while data adjusted for often align with or exceed benchmarks for minorities in certain violations. A "veil of darkness" effect, where drivers experience fewer stops at night when visibility is low, supports claims of visual bias in discretionary stops, though it does not directly address outcomes for observed violations. California-specific data from 3.4 million stops in 2019 by major agencies confirm overrepresentation in stops for equipment and , but lower search hit rates for minorities suggest inefficiencies or thresholds in post-stop actions rather than uniform bias across stages. These patterns underscore the need for exposure-adjusted analyses, as raw stop rates may reflect policing deployment in high-crime or high-violation areas rather than targeting demographics alone.

Revenue Motivations Versus Public Safety

Critics of practices contend that in jurisdictions heavily reliant on fines from , revenue generation often supersedes public safety as the primary motivation, leading to incentives for increased ticketing of minor infractions rather than targeting high-risk behaviors. For instance, a 2019 analysis identified at least 583 U.S. cities and towns where fines and forfeitures accounted for 10% or more of general fund revenue, with some small municipalities deriving up to 40% of their budgets from such sources. This financial dependence can foster quotas or , as evidenced by research showing that revenue-motivated policing intensifies when local governments retain ticket proceeds, resulting in higher citation rates for low-level violations that yield quick funds but may not correlate strongly with reduction. In fiscally strained cities, judges have been observed imposing fines to maximize revenue, prioritizing budgetary needs over equitable or safety-focused . Empirical evidence on the impacts of such reveals mixed outcomes, with some studies indicating that increased citations correlate with reduced crashes and injuries, suggesting a deterrent effect from heightened visibility. However, when revenue imperatives drive policy, may shift resources away from investigating serious crimes toward traffic stops, potentially undermining overall public by diverting time and eroding community trust in the system. A synthesis of global data on fine increases found inconclusive effects on violation rates, with modest reductions (e.g., 15% for 50-100% fine hikes) but no consistent proof that revenue-focused regimes enhance long-term beyond general deterrence. Proponents of automated systems, such as speed and red-light cameras, argue they balance revenue with , yet promotional materials often highlight fiscal benefits alongside accident prevention, raising questions about dual motives. Reforms aimed at decoupling enforcement from budgets, such as state-level restrictions on local fine retention, have shown potential to realign priorities toward , though implementation varies. In examples like certain towns (e.g., and Snellville), where fines constitute a large share, reduced reliance has not demonstrably worsened metrics, implying that dependence may inflate enforcement without proportional gains. Ultimately, while traffic enforcement can causally contribute to safer roads through credible threat of penalties, systemic targeting introduces perverse incentives that prioritize fiscal extraction over evidence-based risk mitigation, as causal analyses link over-reliance on fines to suboptimal allocation of efforts. In recent years, particularly following the and heightened scrutiny of policing practices, numerous U.S. jurisdictions have curtailed enforcement of , reallocating resources toward or minimizing low-level stops amid concerns over racial disparities and officer safety. This shift has drawn criticism from traffic safety researchers and advocates, who argue that diminished visible enforcement erodes deterrence against behaviors, contributing to a surge in fatalities and injuries. Empirical data from the (NHTSA) show U.S. traffic deaths increased by 7.2% to 38,680 in 2020, with the fatality rate rising 23% to 1.37 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)—despite a 13% drop in overall VMT—attributing part of the rise to unchecked speeding and impaired driving amid reduced patrols. Critics contend that the retreat from proactive traffic stops, which fell by over 20% in many cities post-2020, has fostered a perception of impunity, exacerbating dangerous trends like street racing, wrong-way driving, and excessive speeding. A New York Times analysis of enforcement data from 100 major U.S. cities found that while pandemic-era declines in stops were initially tied to lockdowns, many departments have not restored pre-2020 levels, coinciding with a 15-20% national uptick in pedestrian and cyclist deaths through 2023. In New York State, motor vehicle fatalities climbed 15% from 964 in 2018 to 1,111 in 2023, with the rate per 100 million VMT surging 24%, reversing prior declines and linking the trend to lax enforcement of speeding and red-light violations. Studies on high-visibility enforcement, such as those reviewed by the Governors Highway Safety Association, demonstrate that sustained patrols reduce speeding by up to 20% and overall crashes by 10-15% through general deterrence, effects diminished when stops prioritize only egregious violations over routine ones. Proponents of reduced , often from groups emphasizing , claim shifts away from stops yield safer outcomes by focusing on high-risk behaviors, but such assertions rely on selective metrics like non-fatal reductions in specific locales while overlooking broader fatality spikes. Critics counter that these views undervalue causal evidence from longitudinal data, where intensity inversely correlates with violation rates; for instance, a review found proactive stops avert crashes by interrupting distracted or impaired driving, patterns unchecked in de-emphasized regimes. In states like and , post-2020 policy changes limiting pretextual stops have been associated with 10-25% rises in hit-and-run incidents, per state highway patrol reports, underscoring how reduced presence enables evasion of accountability. Overall, these critiques highlight a tension between equity-driven reforms and empirical imperatives, with data suggesting that blanket reductions in compromise public protection without commensurate gains elsewhere.

References

  1. [1]
    MOVING VIOLATION Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
    Oct 16, 2025 · a violation (as speeding or drunk driving) of motor vehicle or traffic laws that is made while the vehicle is moving
  2. [2]
    The Real Costs of a Non-moving or Moving Violation - State Farm®
    A moving violation occurs whenever a traffic law is violated by a vehicle in motion. Moving violations are considered a more serious offense because they can ...<|separator|>
  3. [3]
    What You Should Know about Moving Violations - I Drive Safely
    Moving violations are traffic offenses committed when a vehicle is in motion. Examples of common moving violations include running a red light, texting while ...
  4. [4]
    Moving Violations vs. Non-Moving Violations | Overland Park Attorney
    May 28, 2024 · Speeding: Exceeding the posted speed limit. · Driving without a seatbelt: Failing to wear a seatbelt, which is required by law in most ...
  5. [5]
    Driver's License Points - StateofFlorida.com
    Moving violations occur when a driver does not follow traffic laws while the vehicle is in motion. Examples include speeding, running a red light or texting ...
  6. [6]
    Do Speeding & Parking Tickets Affect Insurance? - Progressive
    A speeding ticket may raise your insurance rate, as can other moving violations like running a red light. If it's your first speeding ticket or violation, ...
  7. [7]
    How Do Traffic Tickets Affect Insurance? - Experian
    Mar 12, 2025 · The most serious offenses, like driving under the influence, can spike your rates substantially, and potentially lead to a policy cancellation.
  8. [8]
    How a Speeding Ticket Impacts Your Insurance in New York
    Apr 29, 2025 · A speeding ticket in New York increases your insurance premium by 15% on average, and the points stay on your record for four years.
  9. [9]
    Moving vs Non-Moving Violations in Florida - Gans Law
    Non-moving violations are not related to vehicle maneuvering, like parking or expired registration. Moving violations involve vehicle in motion, like speeding  ...
  10. [10]
    Moving vs. Non-Moving Violations: Key Differences
    Jun 10, 2025 · Typical examples of moving violations include speeding ticket violations, running a red light or stop sign, seat belt infractions, reckless ...
  11. [11]
    The 2025 Florida Statutes - Online Sunshine
    (2) Thirty dollars for all nonmoving traffic violations and: (a) For all ... moving and nonmoving violations under chapters 316, 320, and 322. Of this ...
  12. [12]
    Moving or Equipment Violations - Hawaii State Judiciary
    Moving traffic crimes include reckless driving, driving without a license, racing on the highway, no motor vehicle insurance (after the first offense), ...
  13. [13]
    Types of Traffic Tickets and Penalties - Super Lawyers
    Jun 25, 2025 · Moving violations. These occur when the car is in operation and/or moving. Examples include speeding or running a red light. · Non-moving ...
  14. [14]
    MCL - Section 257.601d - Michigan Legislature
    (4) As used in this section, "moving violation" means an act or omission prohibited under this act or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to this act ...
  15. [15]
    WAC 308-104-160: - | WA.gov
    The term "moving violation" means any violation of vehicle laws listed in this section that is committed by the driver of a vehicle, while the vehicle is ...
  16. [16]
    6.3.12 Common Violations - fmcsa/csa - Department of Transportation
    Moving violations, such as: Speeding; Following too closely; Improper lane changes; Reckless driving; Improper turns; Failure to yield to right of way; Railroad ...<|separator|>
  17. [17]
    Moving vs. non-moving violations: what's the difference?
    Dec 16, 2024 · Examples include: Parking violations; Expired registration; Broken taillights or headlights; Failure to display proper license plates ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  18. [18]
    The Florida Driver's License Point System In 2024 - The Ticket Clinic
    Nov 13, 2024 · ... parking violations or non-moving violations generally won't affect your Florida record. But for significant moving violations, like speeding ...
  19. [19]
    How Parking Tickets Affect Your Driving Record and Insurance
    Parking tickets do not impact your driving record because they are non-moving violations and do not reflect poorly on your safety habits as a driver.Impact on Driving Record · Impact on Insurance · Consequences of Unpaid Tickets
  20. [20]
    Understanding the Differences Between Moving and Non-Moving ...
    Jul 11, 2024 · Moving violations are breaches of traffic law while in motion, like speeding. Non-moving violations relate to parking, vehicle condition, or ...
  21. [21]
    Differences Between NC Moving and Non-Moving Violations
    What's a Moving Violation in North Carolina? This occurs when a vehicle is in motion, and a driver disobeys our state's traffic laws. Moving violations ...
  22. [22]
    Misdemeanor and Felony Traffic Offenses - FindLaw
    Dec 9, 2023 · Therefore, state laws often treat less egregious traffic violations as misdemeanors. Most minor traffic offenses are considered even less severe ...Traffic Misdemeanors · Traffic Felonies · Felony Traffic Violations...
  23. [23]
    Moving Violations - State.gov
    A twelve point accumulation within a two year period will cause all license and driving privileges to be suspended. Habitual violation of traffic laws will ...
  24. [24]
    Endorsement codes and penalty points - GOV.UK
    Each endorsement has a special code and is given 'penalty points' on a scale from 1 to 11. You get more points for more serious offences.
  25. [25]
    Road Traffic - Summary Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service
    This guidance is provided to provide an overview of road traffic practice and procedure for summary offences.<|separator|>
  26. [26]
    Driving offences | The Crown Prosecution Service
    There is a broad range of offences that come within the scope of a driving offence. There may be more than one offence that covers particular behaviour.Missing: moving | Show results with:moving
  27. [27]
    [PDF] Civil enforcement of road traffic contraventions - GOV.UK
    This section describes the requirements for the management of changes and modifications to certified traffic enforcement systems. All modifications to certified ...
  28. [28]
    Traffic Ticket Laws - SRD Legal Services
    Canadian law categorizes provincial offenses to be quasi-criminal with less-aggravating charges compared to others stated in the Criminal Code of Canada.
  29. [29]
    Check the status of traffic tickets and fines online or request a ...
    Aug 13, 2018 · Check ticket status online with location code and offence number. Request a meeting online if not paid or found guilty. Pay online via the ...
  30. [30]
    Find out if you're inadmissible - Canada.ca
    Sep 8, 2025 · If you drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs, including cannabis, you may be inadmissible for serious criminality.
  31. [31]
    FAQ: EU Cross Border Enforcement Directive - ETSC
    Mar 31, 2015 · EU Member States must transpose the new legislation into their national law by May 2015 or risk facing EU infringement procedures. In the ...
  32. [32]
    New rules for better cross-border enforcement of traffic laws
    Dec 16, 2024 · The newly adopted rules tackle these shortcomings by enhancing cooperation among Member States, streamlining offender identification, and facilitating fine ...
  33. [33]
    EU crackdown on foreign drivers that commit traffic offences - ETSC
    Apr 24, 2024 · The European Parliament has voted to approve new rules to ensure more foreign-registered drivers face justice after committing road traffic offences outside ...
  34. [34]
    Analysis of Level of the Traffic Fines through International Comparison
    Aug 7, 2025 · This study attempted to compare the fines for traffic law violations in major countries and Korea and suggest an appropriate increase level.Missing: moving | Show results with:moving
  35. [35]
    The First U.S. Speed Limit Law Dates Back to 1652 and Inflicted a ...
    Apr 23, 2024 · New Amsterdam (now New York) established speed restrictions for non-motorized vehicles way back in 1652.
  36. [36]
    What it Was Like to Drive 100 Years Ago - Edgar Snyder & Associates
    In 1901, Connecticut became the first state to pass a law regulating cars, setting their speed limit at 12 mph in cities and 15 mph on rural roads. However, as ...
  37. [37]
    Walter Arnold and the World's First Ever Speeding Ticket - Historic UK
    On 28th January 1896 Mr Walter Arnold of East Peckham became the first person to be caught speeding in a motorised vehicle.
  38. [38]
    Connecticut enacts first speed-limit law
    On May 21, 1901, Connecticut becomes the first state to pass a law regulating motor vehicles, limiting their speed to 12 mph in cities and 15 mph on country ...
  39. [39]
    Traffic safety in the 19th century - Woodstock History Center
    Feb 21, 2020 · “The mandatory registration of automobiles was one of the first traffic regulations in the United States. New York became the role model in ...<|separator|>
  40. [40]
    History of Traffic Tickets - Traffic Safety Guide
    Apr 5, 2025 · Before the automobile, traffic laws existed in a rudimentary form. In the 1800s, cities like London and New York were bustling with horse-drawn ...Missing: moving | Show results with:moving
  41. [41]
    Traffic woes in the 1920s | History | whig.com
    Sep 5, 2021 · Private automobile ownership exploded in the 1920s. In 1919, there were about 6.5 million passenger cars in America.<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    Chapter 3. Traffic Laws and Regulations - FHWA Operations
    Traffic laws in the US are primarily state-enacted, with the UVC as a common reference. The MUTCD provides consistency in traffic control. State laws vary, and ...Missing: moving | Show results with:moving
  43. [43]
    A Brief History of Traffic Laws - Speeding Ticket KC
    Jun 27, 2024 · In 1901, Connecticut took the initiative by creating the first statewide traffic laws. These laws primarily focused on vehicle speeds, imposing ...
  44. [44]
    The Uniform Vehicle Code: Amendments - ROSA P
    The Uniform Vehicle Code was reviewed in 1938 by the National Conference on Street and Highway Safety. Most of the changes made are in Acts II and V. In ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  45. [45]
    [PDF] NCUTLO: Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Ordinance
    The Uniform Vehicle Code is a specimen set of motor vehicle laws, designed and advanced as a comprehensive guide or stan- dard for state motor vehicle and ...Missing: impact | Show results with:impact
  46. [46]
    The Evolution of MUTCD - Knowledge - Department of Transportation
    Dec 19, 2023 · In the early 1920s, representatives from Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Indiana toured several States with the intent of developing a basis for ...
  47. [47]
    Chapter 4. Uniform Vehicle Code - FHWA Operations
    The Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) is a guide for states to develop traffic laws, with chapter 11 addressing traffic laws relevant to automated driving systems.
  48. [48]
    [PDF] UNIFORM TRAFFIC LAWS - ROSA P
    It is intended to bring out the importance of uniformity in the essential provisions of motor vehicle laws for the convenience of state officials and others and ...Missing: impact | Show results with:impact
  49. [49]
    The History of Speed Limits in America: A Nation Speeding Up
    Early Speed Limit Laws. Connecticut was the first state to pass a speed limit law back in 1901.This law limited the legal speed of motor vehicles to 12 mph in ...Missing: era reckless
  50. [50]
    The Birth of Traffic Regulations in the United States - Ticket Void
    Nov 14, 2023 · Early traffic regulations were met with skepticism and resistance. The general public viewed the automobile as a luxury and its drivers as ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  51. [51]
    When was the first U.S. driver's license issued? - History.com
    Jun 24, 2016 · In 1903, Massachusetts and Missouri became the first states to require a driver's license, although it wasn't necessary to pass a test to obtain one.
  52. [52]
    Brief History of DUI Laws - Russman Law
    Oct 29, 2013 · ... DUI laws exist in their current form. The first jurisdiction to adopt laws against drunk driving in the United States was New York in 1910.
  53. [53]
    Uniform Vehicle Code – Past, Present, and Future - 4SafeDrivers
    The document was revised in 1968 as the Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance, which was prepared by NCUTLO and considered legally binding by the ...
  54. [54]
    A Moment in Time: Highway Safety Breakthrough - Highway History
    Nov 1, 2021 · On June 24, 1966, the Senate spent only 6 hours on the two bills before passing S. 3005 by a roll call vote of 76 to 0 and S. 3052 on a voice ...
  55. [55]
    Short History Of The "Speeding Ticket" - Matthew Charles Law Office
    May 16, 2017 · Speeding fines for exceeding a maximum speed have evolved from a loosely enforced mechanism to the nation's most ticketed moving violation.
  56. [56]
    Identifying Major vs. Minor Traffic Violations - Embark Safety
    Jul 18, 2023 · Examples of minor traffic violations include speeding within reasonable limits, failure to use turn signals, parking violations, driving with ...
  57. [57]
    What is a Moving Violation? - WRD Law
    Nov 8, 2022 · What is a moving violation? Moving violations are traffic offenses that occur while a vehicle is in motion, such as speeding.
  58. [58]
    Minor Traffic Tickets and Moving Violations - AllLaw
    Some of the more common moving violations include tickets for speeding and running a red light or stop sign. In most states, a moving violation will result in ...
  59. [59]
    [PDF] Examples of Minor Traffic Violations
    Examples of minor traffic violations include blocking traffic, disobeying traffic lights, driving uninsured, and driving with an expired license.
  60. [60]
    Reckless Driving Laws: 50-State Survey - Justia
    Apr 1, 2024 · This survey summarizes the reckless driving laws in each state, including the definition of the offense and the penalties that a driver may face.
  61. [61]
    Reckless Driving Laws by State - FindLaw
    Jan 24, 2025 · Each state enforces reckless driving penalties. The chart below describes how states define and penalize reckless driving charges.
  62. [62]
    Speeding and Aggressive Driving Prevention - NHTSA
    Occasional episodes of aggressive driving–such as speeding and changing lanes abruptly–might occur in response to specific situations, like when the driver is ...
  63. [63]
    [PDF] Aggressive Driving Fact Sheet - Texas Department of Insurance
    It is a moving violation subject to fines or jail time. Examples of aggressive driving include: • speeding in heavy traffic;. • tailgating;. • cutting in ...
  64. [64]
    Report an Aggressive Driver - Colorado State Patrol
    Some examples of aggressive driving behaviors are moving violations that put other motorists at risk, such as improper lane changes, following too closely ...
  65. [65]
    Effect of High-Visibility Enforcement on Motor Vehicle Crashes
    Jun 22, 2020 · ... moving violations and the unsafe driving behaviors that lead to crashes. Some of these violations, such as speeding and drivers' failure to ...
  66. [66]
    [PDF] Comparing Real-World Behaviors of Drivers With High versus Low ...
    Willful behavior includes: aggressive driving, purposeful violation of traffic laws, and use of vehicle for improper purposes (e.g., intimidation). Yaw Rate ...
  67. [67]
    [PDF] Unsafe Driving BASIC Factsheet - fmcsa/csa
    Some example roadside safety violations that may cause a motor carrier to rank poorly in this BASIC include speeding, reckless driving, improper lane change ...
  68. [68]
    Fighting a Speeding Ticket: How Was Your Speed Measured? - Nolo
    As noted above, police use different methods for measuring or estimating driver speed. These methods include: radar; laser (LIDAR); pacing; VASCAR, and ...
  69. [69]
    Police Visual Estimation Observation - Radar - Expert
    Sep 16, 2024 · Police are using visual estimation / observation coupled with traffic radar ... Radar guns are commonly used by officers to detect vehicle speeds.
  70. [70]
    Methods of Speed Measurement in Traffic Ticket Cases
    Oct 20, 2022 · Radar Radar uses radio waves to measure speed. · Laser A laser device uses pulses of light in a similar manner to the way radar uses radio waves ...Missing: lidar | Show results with:lidar
  71. [71]
  72. [72]
    What to Do and Expect When Pulled Over by Law Enforcement
    Law Enforcement officers are responsible for conducting traffic stops when they have reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or a criminal violation.
  73. [73]
    What Should I Do if Stopped by a Police Officer? | North Kingstown, RI
    When a police officer signals you to pull over: Pull over as far to the right as safely possible. This allows the officer to more safely walk to your car.
  74. [74]
    Traffic Stops' Best Practices: Tips for Minimizing Risks
    Law enforcement article: a short refresher on traffic stop basics to ensure police officers stay safe at all times when approaching reckless drivers.
  75. [75]
    traffic stop | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
    A routine traffic stop is justified if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the occupant is unlicensed or the vehicle is unregistered.
  76. [76]
  77. [77]
    Traffic Citations are a multi-billion dollar industry - Traffic-Summons
    Oct 7, 2020 · Not including parking citations, we can estimate that somewhere between 25 and 50 million traffic citations are issued each year. Assuming an ...
  78. [78]
    [PDF] A Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) Based on ... - NHTSA
    To achieve this goal, the STEP model combines intensive enforcement of a specific traffic safety law with extensive communication, education, and outreach ...
  79. [79]
    Examining enforcement coverage for speeding and red-light ...
    Over the years empirical evidence has shown that traffic enforcement reduces traffic violations, crashes, and casualties. However, less attention has been ...
  80. [80]
    Research Confirms Roadway Safety Benefits of Traffic Enforcement
    Jun 8, 2022 · The study also found that enforcement is effective at reducing other dangerous behaviors that are leading contributors to roadway fatalities.Missing: manual | Show results with:manual
  81. [81]
    [PDF] Thematic Report - Traffic law enforcement - ROAD SAFETY
    The effectiveness of TLE can be improved by: • Legislation that is clear and fair, and provides police with adequate legal competences and effective procedures.<|separator|>
  82. [82]
    MV PICCS Intervention: Automated Speed Camera Enforcement
    Jul 28, 2025 · The first speed cameras in the United States were installed in 1987 in the Peoria and Paradise Valley communities in Arizona.2 As of January ...
  83. [83]
    Automated Safety Camera (ASC) Program
    DC implemented its automated red light enforcement program in August 1999. ... Step 6 Red light cameras also record a 12 second digital video of the ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
  84. [84]
    8 Reasons to Use Intelligent License Plate Recognition Systems
    Advanced VIT systems like Scylla have a high accuracy rate of more than 99.7% and can recognize plates from multiple cameras on fast-moving cars in real time.
  85. [85]
    Automatic License Plate Readers | Homeland Security
    Jun 10, 2025 · Advances in machine learning, computer vision, and artificial intelligence (AI) have made ALPR systems more affordable and more effective.
  86. [86]
    [PDF] License Plate Reader Program Best Practices Guide - AAMVA
    Aug 19, 2025 · High-resolution cameras, often equipped with infrared technology, capture clear images of license plates regardless of lighting conditions .
  87. [87]
    Automated Traffic Enforcement in sensitive & high crash areas
    Sep 4, 2024 · Automated Speed Enforcement Systems on average can reduce speeding by 20 to 25 percent and crashes by 30 to 40 percent.
  88. [88]
    [PDF] System Analysis of Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation
    This report is a system analysis of automated speed enforcement implementation, as speeding is a major factor in traffic crashes.
  89. [89]
    Safety Impact of Automated Speed Camera Enforcement
    Jul 11, 2022 · This paper reviews the effectiveness of automated speed cameras and some of the considerations informing the public debate around them in the United States.
  90. [90]
    Law Enforcement and Technology: Use of Automated License Plate ...
    Aug 19, 2024 · ALPR systems work by automatically capturing images or videos of passing vehicles. An algorithm then detects the license plates within the photo ...
  91. [91]
    FEATURE: Are speed cameras for safety or profit?
    Jul 10, 2025 · Automated traffic enforcement can have a big impact on improving safety by reducing speeding and red-light running.
  92. [92]
    Safety Effectiveness of Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems - MDPI
    This study finds that ATES has emerged as an effective tool to ensure traffic compliance and improve overall traffic safety.
  93. [93]
    Traffic Enforcement Dwindled in the Pandemic. In Many Places, It ...
    Jul 29, 2024 · By the end of 2023, the police in Baltimore, New Orleans and San Francisco were making fewer than half the traffic stops they did prepandemic.
  94. [94]
    TransUnion Insurance Research Highlights Link Between 13 ...
    Since the onset of the pandemic, traffic violation citations have decreased nationally by 13%, while the death rate for motorists has increased 22%.Missing: moving | Show results with:moving
  95. [95]
    Shifting traffic enforcement priorities and creating a culture of ...
    Mar 8, 2025 · Both San Francisco and Seattle experienced a 90 percent drop in traffic citations between 2019 and 2023. Between 2019 and 2022, the Texas ...
  96. [96]
    Leveraging Research Findings to Reform Traffic Stops - Urban Institute
    Aug 29, 2025 · Pretextual stops can escalate tensions and result in unwarranted searches, frisks, fines, and arrests; they can also lead to emotional distress, ...
  97. [97]
    National Coalition Launched to Modernize Traffic Enforcement and ...
    Mar 25, 2025 · This new coalition, Traffic Safety For All (TS4A), will coordinate and educate stakeholders on the importance of limiting low-level traffic stops.
  98. [98]
    Police Are Stopping Fewer Drivers — and It's Increasing Safety
    Jan 11, 2024 · New data shows that cities across the country are benefiting from reducing non-safety-related traffic stops.<|separator|>
  99. [99]
    [PDF] Automated Enforcement in a New Era
    Automated enforcement is part of the Safe System Approach, and its effectiveness is discussed, along with challenges and solutions.
  100. [100]
    Automated Traffic Enforcement is Gaining Acceptance
    Traffic stops in Oakland, Calif., have decreased by 71% since 2016, and Seattle traffic stops dropped by 83% between 2019 and 2023. According to a December 2023 ...
  101. [101]
    Major Changes to New York's DMV Point System in 2025
    Jun 25, 2025 · Key DMV Changes in 2025. Extended Look-Back Period. Points from moving violations now remain on your driving record for 24 months, up from the ...Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
  102. [102]
    [PDF] * = MANDATORY COURT APPEARANCE Offenses and Violations ...
    OFFENSE. VIOLATION. SPEEDING. 6-10 over the limit. $60.00. GA 40-6-181. 11-14 over $132.00. GA 40-6-181. 15-18 over $165.00. GA 40-6-181. 19-23 over $193.00.<|control11|><|separator|>
  103. [103]
    Speeding Tickets in New York State - Rosenblum Law
    Oct 9, 2025 · For a first New York speeding ticket conviction, the fines can range between $90 and $600. Specifically, it will cost $45-$150 for speeding 1 mph to 10 mph ...How To Fight A NY Speeding... · VTL 1180(a) · Speeding in a School ZoneMissing: patrol | Show results with:patrol
  104. [104]
    [PDF] Uniform Fine Schedule - Virginia's Judicial System
    Moving violation committed. 46.2-947. Double. $51 in highway safety ... ) General Violations. Marking of motor vehicle. 49 C.F.R.. $25. $51. $76. § 390.21.Missing: common | Show results with:common<|control11|><|separator|>
  105. [105]
    Driver Negligence - California DMV
    Points are assigned to convictions for traffic violations that involve the safe operation of a motor vehicle. Point count traffic convictions are listed below.Negligence · Negligent Operator Points · Nots Points
  106. [106]
    Driver Responsibility Assessment (DRA) - NY DMV - NY.Gov
    If you receive 6 points on your driver record for violations committed during a period of 18 months, the annual assessment is $100. The minimum amount that you ...
  107. [107]
    New York Point System | Gannes & Musico, LLP
    The New York State DMV assigns points for certain traffic violations. If you get 11 points in 18 months, your driving license may be suspended.
  108. [108]
    Schedule of Points Values - TN.gov
    The following schedule contains values assigned to moving traffic violations or contributing to the occurrence of accidents: Moving Traffic Violations ...Missing: typical | Show results with:typical
  109. [109]
    Driver's License Points by State - FindLaw
    Dec 4, 2023 · Most states have a traffic ticket points system that assigns a point value to different kinds of traffic offenses. Find your state's system ...
  110. [110]
    Driver's License Points: State Guide for 2025 - WalletHub
    The number of points added to your license for each violation depends on the seriousness of the infraction, so minor violations like speeding aren't worth as ...
  111. [111]
    Driver's License Suspensions Based on Traffic Tickets - Justia
    Oct 18, 2025 · A license suspension can result if a driver receives four points in one year, six points in two years, or eight points in three years.
  112. [112]
    Driver Point System Chart - DC DMV
    Drivers in DC can lose their license with too many points. 10-11 points leads to a 90-day suspension, and 12+ points leads to revocation. Points are assessed ...Missing: thresholds | Show results with:thresholds
  113. [113]
    Maryland Point System: Traffic Violations & License Suspension ...
    Mar 17, 2025 · 3-4 points: Warning letter · 5-7 points: Enrollment in a driver improvement program · 8-11 points: License suspension Maryland is possible · 12+ ...
  114. [114]
    How Many Points to Suspend a License? A Guide to State Rules
    Aug 15, 2025 · Your license can be suspended if you get 4 points in 12 months. It can also be suspended for 6 points in 24 months, or 8 points in 36 months.
  115. [115]
    Traffic Ticket Points Laws: 50-State Survey - Justia
    Aug 1, 2022 · Most states assess “points” for a violation. The number of points is proportionate to the severity of the violation. A driver may face a license suspension if ...
  116. [116]
    When Can Police Impound Your Car? | Callender Bowlin
    Sep 18, 2024 · In this guide, we'll cover when and why police can impound your car, and what steps you can take if it happens to you.
  117. [117]
    When Can Police Impound a Car? - LegalMatch
    Generally speaking, police are not allowed to impound the vehicle simply because the vehicle was involved in a routine traffic stop.
  118. [118]
    Impoundment of Vehicles - MRSC
    Oct 28, 2024 · This page provides an overview of state laws and examples of local ordinances in Washington State allowing law enforcement officers to impound vehicles.
  119. [119]
    [PDF] Update of Vehicle Sanction Laws and Their Application - NHTSA
    Vehicle immobilization may be a good alternative to vehicle impoundment in that it avoids the storage costs of impoundment and there is some evidence that this ...
  120. [120]
    Traffic Violations and the Administrative System that Resolves Them
    Nov 27, 2017 · Most traffic violations are administrative, not criminal, offenses. This fundamental difference is behind most of the confusion that people tend to face after ...
  121. [121]
    Traffic Tickets | Motor Vehicle Division NM - MVD New Mexico
    Dec 7, 2020 · Courts allow for payment by mail, or in person at the address indicated. Some courts allow payment with a credit card over the phone. Payment ...
  122. [122]
    Administrative DMV Hearings for DUIs and Traffic Tickets - Nolo
    This article explains some of the reasons that can lead to an administrative license suspension as well as the administrative hearing and appeal process.
  123. [123]
    PennDOT Driver Licensing Administrative Hearings
    We navigate the complexities of PennDOT regulations to contest violations and work towards reinstating driving privileges or updating your driving record.
  124. [124]
    Traffic Violations Bureau - NY DMV
    Check the "guilty" box on the ticket · Fill in the requested information · Update you address if different than the one captured by the police officer · Sign the ...
  125. [125]
    What To Expect in Traffic Court - Ohio State Bar Association
    Apr 22, 2016 · Your first appearance in court is called an arraignment. At the arraignment, the judge will ask if you have received a copy of the ticket and understand the ...Missing: United | Show results with:United
  126. [126]
    Trials & The Legal Process in Traffic Ticket Cases - Justia
    Oct 18, 2025 · The majority of traffic ticket cases take place before a judge, but sometimes a driver will exercise their right to a jury if their state provides it.
  127. [127]
    Traffic Court & Legal Process: Complete Guide - Ticket Void
    Oct 15, 2025 · Traffic judges have the power to impose fines, assign license points, order traffic school attendance, and even suspend driving privileges.
  128. [128]
    Frequently Asked Questions | Central Violations Bureau
    If you intend to contest the ticket, CVB will schedule the case for court after they receive the ticket and if a court date and time was not assigned by the ...
  129. [129]
    What Happens in Traffic Court? - Nolo
    How things work in traffic court and how to fight a ticket by challenging the state's evidence and presenting your own evidence.
  130. [130]
    Understanding the DMV Point System - Extra Mile
    Aug 1, 2024 · If you are convicted of a moving violation, a set number of points will be added to your driving record. Get enough points and you could face a ...
  131. [131]
    New York State Vehicle Traffic Law Points System
    For violations reflecting speeding in the range of one to 10 miles per hour over the limit, three points will be assessed. By contrast, tickets for speeding in ...
  132. [132]
    The Point System - State.gov
    Each infraction has been assigned a proportionate point value. Accumulating eight points in a two-year period on your driving record is cause for review and ...
  133. [133]
    Point and Insurance Reduction Program | NY DMV
    Even after you complete the course, most violations, convictions, and points will continue to show on your driving record for up to 4 years. Violations and ...
  134. [134]
    Driver Point System: What is it and how does it Work? - Flickit
    For example, in New York, points from a violation stop affecting your insurance after 18 months, while in California, points may be removed after 36 months, ...<|separator|>
  135. [135]
    Speeding Tickets and Insurance Costs | Liberty Mutual
    Car insurance rates can increase by 25% after a speeding ticket. Learn more about why and how you can lower your premium.
  136. [136]
    How Much Will My Insurance Go up After a Speeding Ticket?
    May 31, 2025 · A single speeding ticket can raise your car insurance premium by $582 per year on average, and subsequent violations can cause further rate increases.
  137. [137]
    How 37 common traffic tickets raise the price you pay for car insurance
    Sep 18, 2024 · A single violation can increase your insurance costs by 95% · Insurance impact varies by violation · The more severe the violation, the bigger the ...
  138. [138]
    How Long Does a Speeding Ticket Stay on Your Record
    A speeding ticket can stay on your official record 1 year to permanently, points for 1-3 years, and insurance for 3-5 years, depending on state and insurer.Missing: milestones | Show results with:milestones
  139. [139]
    How Traffic Tickets Impact Car Insurance Rates in Florida
    A traffic ticket in Florida can increase car insurance rates by 7-28%, but a driver improvement course may prevent this hike. Multiple tickets can lead to ...
  140. [140]
    [PDF] Synthesis of Studies that Relate Amount of Enforcement to ... - NHTSA
    However, for all targeted behaviors, the enforcement campaigns evaluated in the available literature were effective in improving safety outcomes even though the ...
  141. [141]
    Complex Impacts of Traffic Citations on Road Safety - MDPI
    Apr 27, 2022 · The results highlighted that traffic tickets significantly reduce crashes and nonfatal injuries. Aggressive traffic enforcement was used in ...
  142. [142]
    Speed limit enforcement and road safety - ScienceDirect.com
    We find that SLMO reduce traffic accidents and casualties by about eight percent. •. Immediately after the SLMO end, traffic accidents return to the usual level ...
  143. [143]
    Speed - IIHS
    Numerous studies have shown that cameras reduce speeds and crashes on all types of roads. ... This study showed a decrease in speeding violations for each ...
  144. [144]
    [PDF] Traffic Safety Facts: 2021 Data - CrashStats - NHTSA
    The fatality rate per 100,000 registered vehicles was 14.18 for the United States in 2021, ranging from a high of 32.36 (Mississippi) to a low of 7.61 (Hawaii).
  145. [145]
    Do Traffic Tickets Reduce Motor Vehicle Accidents? Evidence from a ...
    Aug 10, 2025 · I find that tickets significantly reduce accidents and non-fatal injuries. However, there is limited evidence that tickets lead to fewer fatalities.<|separator|>
  146. [146]
    Evidence-Based Practices Using Data to Drive Down Traffic Fatalities
    Feb 15, 2019 · Evidence suggests that traffic enforcement can lead to reductions in crashes, injuries, and fatalities, but for enforcement to be effective, the ...
  147. [147]
    (PDF) Impact of traffic Enforcement on Traffic Safety - ResearchGate
    The modeling results showed that higher numbers of speeding and seat belt citations reduce the number of crashes significantly. These findings are the results ...
  148. [148]
    Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed ...
    Research has demonstrated that aerial speed enforcement programs have a generally positive effect in reducing highway speeds. In western Australia, researchers ...
  149. [149]
    The effect of traffic tickets on road traffic crashes - PubMed
    Drivers with six traffic tickets per year had over eleven times higher risk of fatal/severe crashes compared to those with one ticket per year. Reducing ...
  150. [150]
    Red light camera interventions for reducing traffic violations and ...
    The aim of this review is to systematically review and synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of RLCs on the incidence of red light violations.
  151. [151]
    [PDF] Using Meta Analysis Techniques to Assess the Safety Effect of Red ...
    This study draws on several techniques, termed meta-analysis techniques, to evaluate the effect of automated enforcement cameras on reducing crashes and ...
  152. [152]
    Findings - The Stanford Open Policing Project
    The project has collected and standardized over 200 million records of traffic stop and search data from across the country.
  153. [153]
    Stanford Open Policing Project analyzed data from nearly 100 ...
    A study of nearly 100 million traffic stops across the United States reveals that black drivers were about 20 percent more likely to be stopped than white ...
  154. [154]
    The racial composition of road users, traffic citations, and police stops
    Jun 3, 2024 · Our findings highlight a disproportionate rate of citations for moving violations among Black drivers through both speed camera enforcement but ...
  155. [155]
    High-frequency location data show that race affects citations and ...
    Mar 27, 2025 · We find that racial or ethnic minority drivers are 24 to 33% more likely to be cited for speeding and pay 23 to 34% more money in fines.<|control11|><|separator|>
  156. [156]
    [PDF] Gender Bias in the Enforcement of Traffic Laws: Evidence based on ...
    In 2005, 63.4% of all traffic tickets in the United States were issued to male drivers.1 This gender disparity in tickets received is in excess of the male ...
  157. [157]
    Traffic compliance effect of more women behind the wheel: Pride or ...
    Results debunk the myth: women comply more traffic law (seatbelt, speed limit, drink). •. A gender approach should be encouraged to design preventive and ...
  158. [158]
    Officer Gender and Traffic Ticket Decisions: Police Blue or Women ...
    The findings show that the decisions of women and men officers were indistinguishable regarding the frequency with which traffic tickets were issued.
  159. [159]
    [PDF] A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the ...
    Mar 6, 2020 · We assessed racial disparities in policing in the United States by compiling and analysing a dataset detailing nearly 100 million traffic stops ...
  160. [160]
    A 'veil of darkness' reduces racial bias in traffic stops - Stanford Report
    May 5, 2020 · Black drivers get pulled over by police less at night when their race is obscured by 'veil of darkness,' Stanford study finds.
  161. [161]
    Racial Disparities in Traffic Stops - Public Policy Institute of California
    Oct 30, 2022 · In this report we use data on 3.4 million traffic stops made in 2019 by California's 15 largest law enforcement agencies to examine racial disparities in stop ...
  162. [162]
    Measuring racial and ethnic disparities in traffic enforcement ... - NIH
    Past studies have found that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely than White drivers to be pulled over by the police for alleged traffic infractions ...Missing: moving | Show results with:moving
  163. [163]
    Nearly 600 Towns Get 10% Of Their Budgets (Or More) From Court ...
    Aug 29, 2019 · At least 583 cities and towns have collected 10% or more of their general fund revenue from fines and forfeitures.
  164. [164]
    Does revenue‐motivated policing alter who receives traffic citations ...
    Dec 31, 2022 · There are four major findings. First, revenue-motivated policing only occurs when local governments retain the revenues from ticketing. Second, ...
  165. [165]
    Traffic tickets can be profitable, and fairness isn't the bottom line in ...
    Sep 21, 2023 · Our new research indicates that judges in cities facing red ink often use their positions to maximize revenue from traffic tickets.
  166. [166]
    Revenue, Race, and the Potential Unintended Consequences of ...
    May 27, 2025 · Research suggests revenue generation may push law enforcement officers away from investigating violent and property offenses and toward traffic ...
  167. [167]
    [PDF] Evidence Synthesis on Impact of Traffic Fines to Improve Road Safety
    Increasing fines. Inconclusive. • One meta-analysis found that an increase of fines by 50%–100% may decrease violations by 15%. The same ...
  168. [168]
    The Expansion of Criminal Legal Systems Through Traffic ...
    Jun 27, 2025 · Moreover, leading government officials touted the revenue-generating potential of traffic enforcement alongside public safety and congestion ...
  169. [169]
    Data shows how Georgia municipalities aggressively use law ...
    Warwick, Oliver, and Snellville are just three examples of Georgia municipalities that rely on fines and forfeitures for a large portion of their budgets. The ...
  170. [170]
  171. [171]
    2020 Fatality Data Show Increased Traffic Fatalities During Pandemic
    Jun 3, 2021 · The fatality rate for 2020 was 1.37 fatalities per 100 million VMT, up from 1.11 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 2019. NHTSA's analysis shows ...
  172. [172]
  173. [173]
    America's roads are more dangerous, as police pull over fewer drivers
    Apr 6, 2023 · The fatality rate on America's roads remains higher than before the pandemic, and some blame the increase on less traffic policing.<|separator|>
  174. [174]
    News Release: New York Traffic Fatalities Increased 15 Percent ...
    Jul 2, 2024 · New York traffic fatalities increased 15% from 2018 to 2023, from 964 to 1,111, and the fatality rate per 100 million VMT increased 24%.