Policymakers love to use amnesty programs to demonstrate their magnanimity toward perceived rule-breakers or, more likely, to encourage them to fork over some of what they owe. Typical amnesty programs target things like delinquent taxes, overdue library fines and of course traffic enforcement fines.

Traffic ticket amnesty programs are widespread and take many shapes. California kicked off its most recent program in January by offering a 50 percent discount on old, unpaid tickets. News accounts have hyped the program as a "win-win" for drivers and the state. Yet, the program is expected to reduce outstanding traffic fines by only two percent.

Washington D.C. just wrapped up a program that waived penalty fees if drivers paid the outstanding amounts of their original fines. But even as the District threatened to turn its in-house collections agency (ominously known as the Central Collection Unit) loose on non-payers, the program barely made a dent in the District’s backlog of unpaid traffic fines.

And Texas completed an amnesty program last year for drivers hit with surcharges from the state's Driver Responsibility Program. By paying pennies on the dollar, drivers could settle up and get their licenses reinstated. Despite the favorable terms, only 14 percent of the more than 700,000 eligible drivers took advantage.

Why do people resist such schemes? Maybe they simply ignore them, or maybe they understand the inherent unfairness that permeates the system and refuse to support it, even though they end up benefiting from the amnesty. That unfairness extends to the amnesty programs themselves because they exclude drivers who have dutifully paid their fines on-time.

These drivers may not be so responsive the next time, banking on another amnesty to bail them out. (This phenomenon is akin to the moral hazard associated with the large-scale bank bailouts of a few years back.) And therein lies the problem. Amnesties can exacerbate the problem they're trying to fix. And that leads to more amnesties.

We're not discouraging drivers from participating in amnesty programs. If they can clean up their driving records and catch a financial break, so much the better. But amnesties are no "win-win." They are a symptom of a broken traffic enforcement system. They will never restore justice for traffic defendants. For that, we would need a system based on the following principles taken from the NMA's Motorist Bill of Rights:

• Traffic laws based on sound engineering and public consensus
• Fair and consistent enforcement not motivated by revenue generation
• Reasonable fines/penalties free of surcharges, fees and taxes
• Guarantees that traffic revenue will be used solely for roadway improvements
• Court systems that protect the due-process rights of traffic defendants

As a result, more drivers would stand up for themselves in court and receive more equitable outcomes. This would ultimately negate the need for further government-sponsored carrots and sticks. ♦

Many members call us to ask how they can fight their camera tickets and what to expect in court when they do. The short, but honest, answer is it depends.

Some of the reasons for this include:

• Photo enforcement statutes vary from state to state
• Courts (even within states) interpret the laws differently
• Courts routinely disregard the constitutional rights of traffic defendants
• The system is designed to provide revenue for the jurisdiction not justice for defendants

What results is a capricious patchwork of enforcement practices intended to confuse motorists and to discourage them from standing up for their rights.

At one extreme, there's Arizona and Virginia. In each state, courts have ruled that camera-based traffic citations must be delivered in-person (personal service), otherwise they are deemed to have not been delivered and can be effectively ignored. (However, any acknowledgement of receipt could be deemed as a waiver of the personal service requirement.)

At the other extreme, there's Prince George's County, Maryland, where at least one judge has warned motorists that common, valid ticket camera defenses won't be heard. A motorist's only acceptable defense, according to the judge, is to state that he/she was not driving and to identify who was. (Listen to the judge's whole statement.)

In Washington, D.C. a U.S. Court of Appeals recently rejected a class-action lawsuit that argued motorists were denied their constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law because drivers cited for speeding by metro police faced stiffer penalties than drivers receiving camera citations for the same violation.

In writing for the appellate court, Judge Harry T. Edwards concluded, "The District has decided that the best way to deter speeding is through the creation of some variability and uncertainty in the city's enforcement schemes."

But nowhere has "variability and uncertainty" been more on display than in Palm Coast, Florida.

When Ann Paris and Scott Hunter appeared one after the other before Traffic Magistrate Charles Cino, common sense predicted a similar outcome for each. Each was cited for a red-light camera violation, and each had signed an affidavit stating that another person was driving their car at the time.

According to a news account, Cino repeatedly pressed Paris to identify the driver of her car, to which she answered, "I don't know." Paris then agreed to pay the original fine of $158 versus the approximately $264 she was facing for taking the case to court. Cino moved to Hunter.

Cino said he would not force Hunter to tell him who was driving and agreed with Hunter's attorney that it was not his client's burden to provide that information. Case dismissed.

The only apparent difference in the cases was that Paris represented herself (pro se), and Hunter had an attorney. Courts routinely treat pro se traffic defendants with disdain (e.g., making them wait until the end of the session to present their cases).

One reason the NMA encourages members to challenge every ticket is to demonstrate the inherent unfairness of the traffic justice system. The more people stand up for themselves, the greater the chance for meaningful reform.

So, given the vagaries of the process, how do you protect yourself? First, don't expect the court to be fair-minded. Second, learn how to fight your traffic ticket. Third, attend a traffic court session before your appearance so you know what to expect. Finally, don't give up; even if you lost the first round, consider an appeal.

Residents in Arizona, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming should be ashamed of themselves.

Why? They simply haven't passed enough traffic safety laws, according to a report from the Advocates for Highway and Automotive Safety (Advocates). The group ranked all 50 states based on the number of basic traffic safety laws they had on the books. States got higher marks for having more laws pertaining to things like primary seatbelt enforcement, mandatory helmet requirements, interlock devices for first-time DUI offenders and cell phones/texting.

The report goes to great lengths to demonstrate that safer roads lead to fewer accidents and reduced medical costs. This seems obvious. Less obvious is how the passage of more laws will lead to safer roads. After somberly laying out a series of national accident statistics, the report concludes, "An additional 348 new laws need to be adopted in all states and D.C. to fully meet the group's safety law recommendations."

The report also ignores a key indicator of roadway safety – fatality rates – which, according to NHTSA, have been steadily declining since the 1995 repeal of the 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit. Acknowledging this would severely hinder the group's (and the media's) efforts to portray America's roads as increasingly dangerous and America's drivers as scofflaws.

In an interview with an Ohio public radio station, the group's president admitted, "We didn't look at fatalities … we just looked at how well states were doing in passing what we consider some of the most basic highway safety laws." This approach ignores what's going on in the real world and leads to misguided policymaking.

Take Ohio. The report lambasts the state for its "dangerous lack" of basic safety laws. Yet, even with a secondary seatbelt law, Ohio's 2009 fatality rate was far below the average of all states with primary seatbelt legislation.

Rather than targeting Ohio, maybe Advocates should be looking at constructive ways to improve roadway safety in states like North Carolina, Louisiana, and Kansas. These states had 2009 fatality rates far above Ohio, yet still ranked at the top of Advocates' list because they had passed more laws.

So what good is Advocates' ranking system if it doesn't identify true safety needs or offer any real solutions? A clue comes from the group's name. Many organizations with names that highlight "highway safety" or "safer roads," etc., are backed by organizations with a vested interest in fomenting public hysteria and/or the passage of more restrictive traffic laws.

And Advocates for Highway and Automotive Safety is no exception. Its list of members includes top insurance companies, consumer safety groups and MADD. All of whom benefit from Advocates' cynical agenda.

If you live in one of the states listed at the beginning of this article, Advocates may be coming to a media outlet near you. Take the time to review the issues so you can debunk their arguments when they do.