kayeteekaye on 4/9/2008 9:42:35 AM wrote:
This was a good thread. Hope that you contacted you representative and were an active part!
|
Since1750s on 1/26/2008 9:08:01 AM wrote:
All Ive got to say is Right on...Power to the People..this proves that if we get up off our behinds and speak up..We can still change things in this Country..Im proud of the citizens of Va..
|
Entropy on 1/23/2008 6:39:30 PM wrote:
sselvage, the issue isn't whether or not its ok to fine someone, its the amount and unfairness of the fine. I'm all for fining people for driving badly (like driving in the left lane without passing) but Thousands of dollars? That's a bit excessive. If they give people back their excessive penalties I don't have a problem, but I highly doubt anyone in their sane mind would give back the original violation fee that occurs in addition to the excessive one.
|
scottrc on 1/10/2008 9:20:45 AM wrote:
I am not sure which topic had the discussion about passing on the left and cruising on the right... but I thought I'd share this link about how troopers in Oklahoma have started pulling people over for going under the speed limit and driving in the left lane illegally.
You may have to copy and paste the link since Roanoke.com's message board system does some weird crap to links
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/01/09/ross.ok.slow.drivers.beware.ktul
I can't wait for the overabundance of State Troopers in this region to start pulling over all the grannies doing this on 581!
|
Kringles_Helper on 11/9/2007 10:11:07 AM wrote:
Are there no questions regarding the constitutionality of a speeding ticket in the first place?
THIS is a tax case.
We pay a lot of taxes from various sources.
What are we receiving in return?
Do we even have the tools to make an educated decision?
Hmmm...
Are we getting value, or can we force our "representatives" to do better?
We have an internet that could very easily track ALL of our tax dollars, their sources, and in a singular web site allow "We the People" to understand the value that our tax dollars are providing?
Is it not time we start to apply mature process improvement methodology to our government?
There is no "they" in "Commonwealth", only "we".
"They" need to start listening to "We the People".
Try to be heard...
|
DCR086 on 8/18/2007 4:22:57 PM wrote:
As an oops, please disregard the previously quoted statistic. That was incorrect and was my error. The actual number is that a person is killed about every 11 hours on highways in Virginia with someone being injured about every hour. Not as high, but still alarming.
|
DCR086 on 8/18/2007 10:16:40 AM wrote:
By the way, spinning wheels was reckless driving during the time period you mentioned. It has been reckless driving since the drag-racing days of the 1950's. Even if every instance of this driving doesn't directly endanger someone, condoning it promotes a reckless mindset behind the wheel and furthers the idea that aggressive driving is okay. We should be encouraging new drivers to be safe and defensive, not to push the limits. A person is killed on a Virginia highway about every 8.5 minutes. That's 2X more than are killed by other means including violent crime. Defending a guilty person's reckless behavior in a car, not because they are innocent, but because the you perceive the law, or the police, as unfair is grossly irresponsible.
|
DCR086 on 8/18/2007 10:16:12 AM wrote:
You keep going back to this wheel-spinning incident. Did this charge happen to someone close to you or somehow cost you personally? It seems to have jaded your entire view of reckless driving.
Whatever your experience may be, most judges won't convict of RD for simply barking or chirping the tires. However, when the wheels completely break traction and spin for an extended period or cause the rear of the vehicle to "fish-tail" it is very easy for inexperienced drivers to lose control. It's even easy for experienced driver's to lose it if the conditions are right. This is dangerous behavior on a public highway. Ironically, teen-agers are the ones with the least experience, but are also the most likely to do this.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/17/2007 6:53:30 PM wrote:
Reckless driving for spinning a wheel? Just imagine what the courtrooms would have looked like in the 60's and early 70's when all of the muscle cars were in their heyday... things have changed with the police regarding cars and our youth and it is overkill.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/17/2007 6:39:01 PM wrote:
DCR086, You and I agree on one thing per your last post, not all officers are worthy of trust; but you are correct that there are more good officers than bad. I can also understand why you would think I am a Liberal because the only issue you and I have debated is HB3202. I don't agree with this bill and I am very disappointed that it had bi-partisan support and co-sponsorship. I have been politically involved for many years and am disappointed with my party.
Having said that, I submit we could better utilize our tax dollars fighting serious crimes and not traffic offenses (DUI's excluded, they are serious). And I still stand by my statement that we have too many tyrant officers and code that enables them.
|
DCR086 on 8/17/2007 10:03:33 AM wrote:
Yes, there are incompetent, dishonest or disreputable cops, but those bad apples aren't representative of all cops. In other words, they are no different than any other profession. There are "bad" members in every profession. Two things make the bad cops stand out. Society holds the police to a higher standard than it does itself. Some would say this as it should be, others would say that it is hypocritical. The other difference is that the media doesn't jump at every opportunity to report on the crooked bank teller who embezzles, or the insurance claims worker who dishonestly denies a claim to save the company money. This, however, is an altogether different issue than the abuser fees. The police didn't pass, nor do they impose the fees.
|
DCR086 on 8/17/2007 9:57:58 AM wrote:
The law requires an officer to have reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken, is being broken or is about to be broken in order to stop someone. If you change lanes without signalling and no one is affected, 46.2-848 clearly states that no law has been broken. That most clearly DOES NOT give the police any reasonable suspicion to pull you over. Officers know this. Judges know this. You are allowing your personal animous toward cops to overshadow the facts. This obvious bias tends to discredit your argument. It even casts doubt on any valid points you might make.
|
DCR086 on 8/17/2007 9:56:50 AM wrote:
No kayteekaye, you are wrong,it doesn't give them anything upon which to base a stop. And again you are basing your ideas on your obvious distrust of all police which you in turn base on the media. Ironically you don't even consider the fact that the media only reports the actions of bad officers but you rarely hear about the good ones. Further, if we should compare, the media's character and reliability is just as questionable as the police. To base your opinion solely on media reports, but on no actual knowledge, as your earlier posts indicate, is both narrow-minded and naive. You bemoan your belief that cops unjustly profile and harass, yet you proudly stereotype the police. Spoken with the hypocrisy of a true liberal. But I digress.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/17/2007 9:15:28 AM wrote:
DCR086 - not using a turn signal to change lanes when no other motorist is effected, however, does give the officer a reason to pull you over if you fit a certain stereotype that makes him/her want to harass you anyway.
|
DCR086 on 8/16/2007 6:44:31 PM wrote:
That section also defines when a turn signal is required. If your actions do not affect another vehicle, you are not required to give a signal period. Further, the reckless driving section (46.2-860) references this section (46.2-848) in determining when a signal is required.
So, If you weave in and out of traffic at high speed, you might get an RD ticket, and you deserve one. But if you just change lanes w/o signaling and no other motorist is affected, there is no violation of the law. So the idea that you could be just driving along minding your own business and change lanes on an empty highway without signalling and then be chased down by a cop drunk on power and unfairly given a reckless driving ticket is just a big load of crap.
|
DCR086 on 8/16/2007 6:43:25 PM wrote:
And people please pay attention. The whole turn signal argument presented by the anti-fee crowd is misleading and erroneous. Yes, there is a reckless driving statute covering this (46.2-860). However, by the general definition of reckless driving in 46.2-852, the failure to signal a turn or lane change must be done in a manner that endangers life or property, either that of the driver charged or another person. That is reserved for drivers who change lanes recklessly and cut people off, run others off the road, cause accidents or cause people to take evasive action. There is a different, non-reckless driving Code section, 46.2-848, that governs simply failing to give a signal in a non-reckless manner.
|
DCR086 on 8/16/2007 6:41:15 PM wrote:
No, Entropy, these abuser fees are not going to the literary fund, they are dedicated to transportation. The point was, any other traffic fine imposed in Virginia does, by Constitutional mandate, go into the literary fund. And this too is a way for the courts to collect "taxes" levied against those who break the law in order to further a governmental program. The only difference is that the money from fines goes to support one governmental program (literary fund) while the money from the abuser fees support another gov't program (transportation). When you get right down to it, there is really no difference in the priciple, just how the money is spent.
|
StephenAnderson on 8/16/2007 12:24:49 PM wrote:
OK, one side of the argument is Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine.
Can someone summarize succintly the opposing view? I just want o be sure I have a clear understanding of both sides.
|
CindyG on 8/16/2007 7:37:02 AM wrote:
Kaye, it boils down to one simple sentence...Don't break the law, you don't pay ANYTHING.
Simple, right? Why should this concern you anyway if you don't plan on deliberately breaking the law? Why get in an uproar, stomp your feet and complain if it's a FINE levied on breaking the law? The speed laws and DUI laws were put there to protect us. These fines are finally more than a slap on the wrist to people who break those laws. So here's the SIMPLE way to not have to even bother with it and end all of the debate...
DON'T BREAK THE LAW, YOU DON'T PAY.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/15/2007 4:09:56 PM wrote:
Del Marshall is suing VA over HB 3202. In his suit he clearly defines these "fines" as a tax.
He is quoted as saying, "HB 3202 relies upon members appointed to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority to raise taxes, including two members who do not hold any elective office. The Virginia Constitution states: No ordinance or resolution imposing taxes shall be passed except by a recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all members elected to the governing body." I guess, unlike others on this message board, we have at least one delegate who is calling a tax - a tax.
You should contact your representatives and ask them to join this suit. You can go to www.virginia.gov and get their email link.
|
Entropy on 8/15/2007 3:51:50 PM wrote:
It's not logic. it's typical roanoke regressive and stagnant "I'm scared of change" thoughts.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/15/2007 11:28:39 AM wrote:
So, CindyG, we have lower speed limits than our neighbors; higher fines that only apply to our residents; and 50 year old reckless driving code that gives our patrolmen unchecked power. AND we are supposed to gobble this rubbish up with delight, otherwise, you label us as whiners. That sounds logical...
|
kayeteekaye on 8/15/2007 11:19:24 AM wrote:
CindyG, So using logic, as you asked, the truly habitual (the ones that this bill was supposed to stop) will probably not be stopped even if the “fine is $10K”, because NOW you say this tax is really for the “ones who push th[e] limit, the ones that think they can get away with it” because “It's these people that these fines were made for” and probably, the ones who will actually pay the fine because they aren’t really habitual offenders and need their licenses.
Seems like your “logic” has moved away from your original statement that said, “the ones that habitually break the laws”. Lastly, guess you haven’t driven out of VA lately – across the border in NC the limit is 70.
|
Entropy on 8/15/2007 11:13:53 AM wrote:
Well, I guarantee there are more out of state drivers on I-81 on a daily basis than virginians. It's too much of a travel artery for it to be otherwise. I-95 however, especially due to northern VA probably not so much
Issue #2 is this idea that the money is going to the literary fund. Isn't that what the law group is fighting? because it ISN'T going to the literary fund? Because the COURT is doing the tax collecting (also illegal) it can go to road improvements.
I have no problem charging people who are TRUELY reckless driving. However it def. isn't fair to only single out VA residents.. And I don't think you should be able to apply "reckless driving" to lane changes without a turn signal. The police have too much power.
|
CindyG on 8/15/2007 10:57:44 AM wrote:
What the lawmakers are trying to do is make our highways SAFER for EVERYONE. If these fines make Joe Blow from SalemKo think twice before going 20 miles over the limit when he'd do it and not think twice before, GOOD.
Habituals always end up either in jail or without their licenses anyway, so these fines really aren't going to affect them one way or another. Perhaps it will actually speed their trip to NoLicenseLand or jail. Good riddance. These fines WILL accomplish one thing...safer roads. Even if it's at the expense of a large group of people WHINING about it. Again, think of other states and their speed limits. Try attacking them because you don't think it's fair. If you don't speed or drive drunk, you don't pay a fine. Real simple.
|
CindyG on 8/15/2007 10:52:17 AM wrote:
Now to your second part, habitual offenders. Again, use logic. So we shouldn't have these fines because it's not going to stop the habitual offenders anyway, right? If they're habitual, they're going to drink and drive or speed if the fine is $10,000. So let those people who only drink and drive occasionally and speed 20 over the limit dangerously occasionally ALONE. Right? What has happened now is that on any given day in Virginia, the majority of traffic is going at least 10 over the limit. ALWAYS. There are also people who push that limit, taking thier own AND YOUR FAMILY's lives into their hands by going over 20. It's these people that these fines were made for. The ones who push the limits because they think they can get away with it.
|
CindyG on 8/15/2007 10:44:02 AM wrote:
Easy questions to answer. Who uses our interstates the most? Virginians. Who gets the vast majority of DUI's in Virginia? VIRGINIANS. Ask anyone out of state how inconvenient it was getting a speeding ticket. They have to either pay the fine or travel BACK here to fight it in court.
The lawmakers are working on a way to put these fines on out of staters. Even if out-of-staters never have to pay these fines, it's like speed limits between states, each state has their own set limit. Should we as Virginians force another state to let us speed through at 65 if their limit is 55? I mean, using YOUR logic, we should fight speeding tickets from other states because their limits are lower and we're used to 65, right?? It's just NOT FAIR!!
|
kayeteekaye on 8/15/2007 10:18:37 AM wrote:
CindyG, I understand completely your argument "don't break the law". If the ultimate purpose of imposing these "fines" is to make our roads safer by forcing drivers to slow down, etc. and obey the laws or pay for the cost of repeatedly using our court system, please enlighten us with your (or your grandmothers) wisdom about how this will work with regard to the truly habitual offenders, the ones already driving on suspended licenses, that don't pay the fine. And to most peoples point, enlighen us about the ones using our roads from other states that won't be taxed at the higher rate for the same offense.
|
nshsparent on 8/15/2007 8:45:14 AM wrote:
I have to say this message board has gotten interesting. I have no problem with these penalties being assessed for the worse driving offenses. There is no excuse for DUI, speeding over 20 MPH and reckless driving. However people driving thru who live in other states should have the same consequences. Otherwise we are no better off than before.
|
CindyG on 8/14/2007 10:04:51 PM wrote:
Uh...what further or more simply can be said but 'DON'T BREAK THE LAW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY A FINE'.????
Does anyone mind telling me just HOW this law is prejudice??? Seems to me like the law doesn't care what color you are, how much money you make, or how old you are, it boils down to breaking the law. PERIOD. Throwing in 'prejudice' is absolutely ridiculous. This law is HARDLY a tax. It's a FINE. A fine payable if you break the law. What part of 'FINE' is hard to understand?
Prejudice against a person's looks, their age or their lot in life?? Like my grandmother used to say, 'That dog ain't huntin', darlin.' Say it REAL SLOWLY...DON'T BREAK THE LAW, YOU DON'T PAY A FINE. Easy, right? I mean, even teenagers can understand that one.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/14/2007 5:11:50 PM wrote:
CindyG says the taxes are for “the ones that habitually break the laws”. What about the case that has been filed in Roanoke County where the defendant’s daughter says, “the wreck was the first her mother has ever been in.” At 83 years of age - are we saying the resolution to a potentially fatal crash is to tax her? What if she was 23 and already driving on a suspended, what then?
This is purely a tax that our politicians could not get passed on the ballot; a tax that can be imposed with code written over 50 years ago that is often prejudiced by the way a person looks; their lot in life; or because they are teens and easily prayed upon.
|
DCR086 on 8/14/2007 4:54:29 PM wrote:
Exactly what about Cindy's reply defies common sense? It seems the crux of her argument is if you don't break traffic laws you don't pay the fees. Seems pretty logical.
These anti-tax arguments are what defies common sense? Having the money from fines go to the literary fund is also a way to "tax" only a certain segment of society and use criminal punishment to fund social initiatives. It has been this way for decades and no one cared. The thing that has all the anti-authority whiners up in arms is that the fees are large enough to actually hurt. I've said it before, if the fees were $25 per violation, no one would bat an eyelash. So in reality, all these idealogues who are so offended by these fees are just hypocrits.
|
roenoke on 8/14/2007 4:35:15 PM wrote:
Entropy were is the "death of common sense" in "if you don't speed you don't have to pay the fine"?
It seems pretty simple that if you don't speed you don't have to pay speeding tickets.
I think cries of "police state" are exhibiting more of a gap in common sense.
|
Entropy on 8/14/2007 1:26:45 PM wrote:
A moment of silence for what is the death of common sense within CindyG's reply.
If it was as black and white as that, maybe your argument would hold water, however, if you take a second to delve into the gray zone you'll see all the flaws in this egregious money grab.
We are not a police state, and we should not treat it as such.
|
CindyG on 8/13/2007 9:50:13 PM wrote:
Oh, good grief. What a bunch of crybabies. WAAHHH, I got a ticket for going 20 miles over the speedlimit and now I have to pay a fine. WAAHHHh, I have to pay a fine for reckless driving. WAHH, I have to pay a fine for DUI.
Let's boil it down to the grits, people. IF YOU DON'T DO THE CRIME, YOU DON'T PAY ANY FINE. Seems to me the people complaining the MOST are the ones that habitually break the laws in speeding and want to make sure their easy way out is not stopped.
If you're speeding or driving drunk, you're not only taking YOUR life into your hands, but mine and my family's as well, so you DESERVE to have to pay a huge fine if you're caught. Let's repeat it ONE MORE TIME...IF YOU DON'T BREAK THE LAW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY!!!
|
Unfairtax on 8/13/2007 3:26:57 PM wrote:
Want to do more than just talk about these unConstitutional taxes?
Visit
http://www.ticketthegeneralassembly.com/
And Fight Back!
|
kayeteekaye on 8/8/2007 12:04:36 PM wrote:
18% percent of tax revenues will go to a new bureaucracy to administer the program and collections. Bottom line, it is tax that is being touted as a way to get bad drivers off of the road. If suspending their license is the worst that can happen to habitual offenders, it is just a new tax...
What we are left with is a tax that can be assessed by patrolmen with outdated code, which will be paid by those who have the money, and more than likley, ignored by those who don't.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/8/2007 11:51:43 AM wrote:
My senator says that he has "heard from many others" that the Reckless Driving Article needs to be updated and is urging the chairman of the Courts Committee to review this in Jan.
Drivers who don't pay their fines can have their license suspended by DMV. The drivers that this tax is supposed to target are the habitual offenders. Do you mean the ones who are already driving on suspended licenses? The Richmond case that was ruled unconstitutional was a joke, the guy had several convictions of driving on a suspended - he should have gotten jail time, but these taxes are considered a "supplemental registration fee" vs. criminal; so jail time is not an option.
|
DCR086 on 8/6/2007 1:17:26 PM wrote:
Commoncents, your post doesn't really illustrate your point. By your own words, the vehicle you spoke of had equipment that was visibly illegal to operate on the road in Virginia. Of course he got stopped alot. The police don't have to have a moving violation to go along with an equipment violation in order to stop a car. It sounds like your friend wasn't driving poorly and as soon as he stopped driving a vehicle with illegal equipment, he was no longer stopped. I don't really see stereotyping or profiling here unless you count profiling vehicles with illegal equipment.
Even if the police were looking for drugs, it sounds like they had a valid reason to stop him and isn't looking for illegal drugs one of theings we pay the police to do?
|
commoncents on 8/6/2007 11:37:50 AM wrote:
Not to be in direct support of Kayeteekaye, the vast majority of police are honest hard working people but the stereotyping goes both ways. I have seen this first hand. I know a young man that customized his car with body kits, wheels, paint, mufflers and other things to make his ride unique. Admittedly some of these modifications while legal in many states are not legal in VA. This car was stopped an ave. of once every 8 weeks. One time by as many as 3 patrol cars at the same time and written up for some of the modifications. I suspect they were looking for drugs. He finally gave up, sold the car and bought a 4 dr sedan. Same driver different car has only been stopped once in the last 3 years.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 8/3/2007 3:22:42 PM wrote:
kayeteekaye,
Nope...my head is clearly situated on my neck and nowhere else....DRC is pretty succint with his suppositons and arguments and is much more logical thinking than you or I. I, too, agree that you are sterotyping and over-generalizing. The great cognitive psychologist, Alber Ellis, ( who recently passed away) would describe your thinking as 'musturbatory'...ie..labeling and overgeneralizations, jumpimg to conclusions and negative non sequiturs, and dogmatic beliefs using terms like 'should' 'ought' and 'must'.
You are entitled to your opinions as am I; but I've learned long ago not to waste oxygen arguing with someone who can't or won't follow rules of logic.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/3/2007 3:16:15 PM wrote:
Doesn't feel good to be stereotyped, does it? Have a good day. <>
|
DCR086 on 8/3/2007 3:04:37 PM wrote:
Yor are stereotyping all police officers based on the conduct of a few. This is no more fair, valid or accurate than it is to stereotype based on race, gender or nationality. Should we assume that all doctors can't be trusted because a few get in trouble for illegally prescribing narcotics? Should we assume all surgeans are incompetent because we see news reports of malpractice? Should we assume all members of a given race are drug pushers because some are in the paper for doing it?
Again, attributing specific characteristics of an individual to members of an entire class is stereotyping. Just because the police are the group you have selected doesn't make it any more justifiable.
|
DCR086 on 8/3/2007 3:03:59 PM wrote:
Yor are stereotyping all police officers based on the conduct of a few. This is no more fair, valid or accurate than it is to stereotype based on race, gender or nationality. Should we assume that all doctors can't be trusted because a few get in trouble for illegally prescribing narcotics? Should we assume all surgeans are incompetent because we see news reports of malpractice? Should we assume all members of a given race are drug pushers because some are in the paper for doing it?
Again, attributing specific characteristics of an individual to members of an entire class is stereotyping. Just because the police are the group you have selected doesn't make it any more justifiable.
|
DCR086 on 8/3/2007 2:58:49 PM wrote:
"I don't have enough faith in today's force to leave reckless tickets up to each officer’s personal, subjective discretion"
Sounds like a pretty clear statement that you don't trust the police. Georgiaboy is correct. You are allowing your personal feelings to distort your perception of reality.
Yes, you can pick up any paper and see examples of poor police conduct. But that isn't representative of all police. The media doesn't report it when the police do their jobs properly, only whe they do something wrong. So of course all you hear about is misconduct. The police make thousands of traffic stops, arrests and searches every day without violating anyone's rights, but no one acknowledges that.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/3/2007 2:27:58 PM wrote:
Well, hello GeorgiaBoy. I seem to have touched a nerve. I haven't personally spoken to every officer, I haven't even personally spoken to 10 in my entire life because I have not ever experienced "run-ins" with anyone. Unless you have had your head in the sand (or perhaps somewhere else) you can pick up any newspaper in this country and read about reports of tyrants.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 8/3/2007 2:21:49 PM wrote:
kayeteekaye,
Question for you: Have you met every officer out there? If so, then your all encompassing, grossly overgeneralized statement about 'personality attributes' just may be correct. If not, then your logic and premise about law enforcement officers is irrational. Maybe YOU have had some bad experiences with police and you feel justified in making these assumptions...but then again...if YOU have had some run ins with the law then maybe you should take a look at your own behavior and attitudes.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/3/2007 2:05:47 PM wrote:
DCR086, you are correct again! The problem is not that the "Department", as a whole, gains from writing tickets. The problem lies within the personality attributes that makes people want to be officers in the first place, which in turn, makes some officers tyrants; those who are not necessarily rewarded monetarily for ticket writing, but for the personal satisfaction of having the power to do so.
It is not a correct assumption to say that I must not trust our police. However, it is a correct statement to say that not all are worthy of trust.
|
DCR086 on 8/3/2007 1:50:58 PM wrote:
clearly you don't trust the police, but you should try to consider that sometimes people who have gotten a ticket lie about their behavior. They are motivated to do this becasue they have something to lose if they tell the truth.
Despite public perception, officers don't stand to gain anything from writing tickets. They aren't paid by the ticket, the majority of agencies impose no ticket quotas on their officers and the fines go to the state literary fund, so it's not like the Department profits from the ticket.
|
DCR086 on 8/3/2007 1:47:44 PM wrote:
Just as a slap and multiple closed fist punches are both assault, one is more severe than the other and as such, warrants a more severe punishment. So too would spinning the tires in a long burn out or in a manner that caused the car to fishtail be more severe than a simple spin that caused the tires to bark.
As for the whole turn signal misconception, that argument has been tried and debunked ad nauseum. Simply not giving a turn signal is not even illegal if no other motorist is affected. If a motorist is affected but not endangered, it is charged under 46.2-848 which is not reckless driving. If the failure to signal endangered someone, then it is charged as reckless driving.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/3/2007 1:47:16 PM wrote:
DCR086 While your excellent observation is legally correct, the fact still remains we are giving our patrolmen too much leeway with an outdated code. We need to update this code to POLICE our POLICE. We have way too many tyrant officers.
|
DCR086 on 8/3/2007 1:42:26 PM wrote:
Kayeteekaye,
Obviously you know what someone told you, but not the actual facts. No one gets a ticket for improper driving. Under the Code of Virginia, officers cannot charge someone with improper driving. A judge has an option of finding someone charged with reckless driving guilty of improper driving if he feels the person committed the act but there were mitigating factors or circumstances, but that option is available to judges only. In the example you cite, there could be a number of explanations. The cases could have been tried before different judges, one driver might have had a poor driving record while the other did not or the offense might have been more severe in one case than the other.
|
kayeteekaye on 8/3/2007 12:18:31 PM wrote:
Madmaxi, you offer a pretty simple resolution. But if we are not going to change the Reckless driving code, you could wind up with a hefty fee for something as simple as not using your turn signal... If our government knew this code was so outdated, why did they push this tax through without rewriting it. We give our patrolman too much power with our pocketbooks as it stands. I know of a kid that got a reckless driving ticket for spinning a wheel and another kid got an improper driving for the same offense. How is that just?
|
kayeteekaye on 8/3/2007 12:10:23 PM wrote:
The Reckless Driving Article of the Code of VA hasn't been updated since the 50's. This code needs to give clear and concise instructions, otherwise, who's going to police the police? I don't have enough faith in today's force to leave reckless tickets up to each officer’s personal, subjective discretion. In VA it is considered reckless to not give a turn signal! We need to clearly define which traffic offenses qualify as reckless. It is not reasonable to give patrolmen this much leeway and authority when such monetary penalties are at stake for taxpayers. If we don't rewrite the code, we will be lining attorneys pockets to have minor offenses heard in court, which flies in the face of one of the alleged purposes of this bill.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 8/3/2007 8:30:26 AM wrote:
Historically, the power to set speed limits belonged to the states. Immediately before the National Maximum Speed Law became effective in 1974. The National Maximum speed law was in response to the 1973 Oil Crisis and capped the max. speed at 55. However, this law was widely ignored and eventually the US govt. allowed states to set their own state speed limits. Go do your research Kringles-Helper....better yet...go study some history about the US and the powers granted the US govt. and those given to the states.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 8/3/2007 8:22:02 AM wrote:
Gee Kringles_helper,
if the government does not have the authority to regulate speed limits on our highways then who does? You?
|
Entropy on 8/3/2007 6:51:13 AM wrote:
At least someone gets it. Henrico County that is.... not our beloved roenoke (sic).
|
roenoke on 8/2/2007 9:12:08 PM wrote:
Associated Press
RICHMOND — A Henrico County judge declared the state's new abusive driver fees unconstitutional today.
!!!!GOSH DARN ACTIVIST JUDGES!!!!!
|
Kringles_Helper on 7/28/2007 10:27:57 AM wrote:
Let us discuss this for what it truthfully is...more government income.
The government truthfully has no authority to impose a speed limit in the first place.
We're dancing on dangerous grounds.
When folks are forced to take out personal loans to pay increases in electrical bills...I see only civil disorder and eventually revolution with this short-sighted plan.
What are we paying for? Where is the public service? Where is the money going?
I see more police officers driving nicer cars, not additional public service for "We the People".
...and since when is the government allowed to enforce interest-free loans from its citizens?
I think it is time for the Government to prove its worth.
|
DCR086 on 7/27/2007 3:23:33 PM wrote:
There are a couple of reasons that the child molesters don't receive big fines. I don't agree with them, but here they are.
1) Our liberal society believes child molesters need treatment more than punishment. From their perspective, fining them wouldn't help them, it would just add to their problems. For some inexplicable reason, they feel society should be more concerned with treating molesters than punishing them. And before someone tells me punishment doesn't prevent recidivism, neither does treatment.
2) Under the State Constitution, criminal fines have to go to the literary fund and could not be used as you suggest.
That said, I would be all for large civil fees attached to crimes such as the one you mentioned.
|
bcorral on 7/27/2007 8:39:31 AM wrote:
I agree that we need to keep this in perspective. With that established I find myself revolving around two problematic issues: 1) the saying, “Let the punishment fit the crime”; 2) the relatively harsh financial punishment of these crimes when compared to universally accepted awful crimes. In short, why doesn’t a child molester get fined substantially in addition to their jail time? That money could go to groups assisting victims of similar crimes.
|
roenoke on 7/25/2007 3:43:48 PM wrote:
This poor poor boy. Why should he have to endor such a punishment:
Anthony Price, charged with his fifth violation for driving on a suspended license, was unaware his citation would have become a test case for challenging the new civil remedial fees that can total several thousand dollars and are assessed only on Virginia residents. -AP 7/24/07
|
DCR086 on 7/24/2007 11:13:37 AM wrote:
This has degenerated into a ridiculous frenzy of fear-mongering. jlcrap says this is why we fought the Revolutionary War. Like other arguments people have thrown out against the fees, this is a good rallying cry. Who cares if it isn't accurate or applicable here. The Revolutionary War was based on taxation WITHOUT representation. If you have a representative that you are threatening to vote out of office, then you clearly are not facing taxation without representation. Then he says that anyone can be a victim of the fees. So now the criminals are being victimized by the laws. Now that's an interesting perspective. Others speak of beheading or tie fees to the illegal alien issue. Disagree if you wish, but try keep this in perspective.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 7/20/2007 9:22:14 PM wrote:
Hey jlcrap....maybe you should go back to school and take a history course or three...the unfair taxes back then were for lawful behaviors such as purchasing tea and buying paper products...Kaine's current plan is for taxes on unlawful driving habits. DUH!!
|
StephenAnderson on 7/20/2007 3:22:47 PM wrote:
Maybe this will have a deterrent effect on bad driving behavior and as a result save lives. I't not hard to abide by the laws of the road and not drink and drive. Stay on the right side of the law and you won't have a problem. Engage in risky behavior and you could get hit in the wallet or worse, you could kill someone or yourself.
I believe the only people against this are those that are worried that their driving behavior will eventually cost them a hefty fine.
Straighten up and drive right.
|
jlcrap on 7/20/2007 12:17:18 PM wrote:
Well...Duh!!! Kaine and Howell were surprised at the enormous outrage they received from Virginians? Did they think we were going to roll over and let them get by with this without complaint? Isn't this why we started the Revolutionary War...unfair taxation and fees by an out of touch government??? Only time will tell...either they will reform these "fines" or we will vote them out of office. Of course Kaine doesn't have to worry about that since Virginia has a law regarding no consecutive Governor terms. Thank God for that!!! You know anyone can be victim of these fines regardless of wealth or lack of or social status. Yes...the repeaters need to be punished but this isn't the answer!
|
dbaxfran on 7/20/2007 7:35:54 AM wrote:
Senator Howell is in my opinion the most stupid and shortsighted person ever to serve in the state governement with one exception...Jim Gilmore.
He has cost the citzens of Virginia billions of dollars in lost time, deaths, injuries, fuel, and stress by deffering much needed highway construction and maintenance.
He deserves the outrage he created by trying to avoid the real issue...a gasoline tax increase to fund the urgently needed fixes for Virginia's death roads.
|
justsomeguy on 7/19/2007 6:15:36 PM wrote:
The arguements about illegal immigrants have nothing to do with this.
Ah. So it's OK for illegal immigrants to break the law (and remember, that's why they are called "illegal immigrants"...because they broke the law) but it's not OK for legal Virginia residents to break the law?
It seems to me that it would be hypocritical in the extreme for somebody with your position on these "fees" and the turning of legal Virginia residents into second class citizens to NOT advocate the full prosecution of all illegal immigrants.
You can't have it both ways.
|
kylemickle on 7/19/2007 12:59:32 PM wrote:
"Onerous" "pimping"
No one is mandating that only the poor be fined, or the struggling single mom, the plain fact is, respect the law, respect other drivers, and guess what? Nothing will come out of your pocket book! Suprise! People may actually live because someone will slow down, or not drink and drive or will stop before they make that casual call to a friend while merging into high traffic on I-81. It makes no sense to pay more taxes in order to keep fines down for those who want to run us off the road, or ride our bumpers or disregard the law. Those who want to petition otherwise are petitioning to be able to continue reckless behavior without consequences. That's crazy.
|
madmaxi on 7/19/2007 11:14:34 AM wrote:
Follow the laws of the road, do not build up 8 pts or more on your liscense and you will have no problems. ONly the habitual offenders will pay the higher fines, maybe they should stop whining and just do what the other 90% of us do and follow the rules and laws of the road that makes the roads safer for all of us. Grow up people and act like adults, first you whine and cry about the possibility of paying higher taxes even though Virginia's is the one of the lowest in the 50 states. Then you whine that the roads are terrible and need fixing. Now you whine because they didn't raise taxes and are only going after habitual offenders or ergregious offenders with high fines. Please grow up, take responsiblity for your own actions.
|
jus2kwik on 7/19/2007 9:35:11 AM wrote:
Ok, the argument is still being made that unless you're a criminal, the punishment shouldn't matter. It DOES matter, otherwise why isn't beheading the right response to this problem? No repeat offenders that way. Proper penalties were in place before these "fees" were instated. If they weren't severe enough, then revisit and revise the penalty. REVENUE should be raised through other methods. Bite the bullet, do the unpopular but necessary and raise taxes to raise the necessary funds.
|
Entropy on 7/19/2007 8:03:47 AM wrote:
Cindy, to respond to your earlier post...
Safe driving has more to do with courtesy than it does with speed. If it was all about speed, the entire country would be at 65, and not 70, 75, or 80. The Entire World even. The act of staying out of the left lane when not passing. The act of paying attention to stoplights and obeying traffic flow patterns instead of lollygagging on your phone or looking at birds instead of the road.
The simple fact is, these fines were not created to make roads safer. It was to help offset the diminishing and in some places non-existent personal property taxes on cars and improve roads. (And of course to drive business to our corrupt state lawmaker's traffic law firm.)
|
commoncents on 7/18/2007 9:57:11 PM wrote:
I do not want reckless speeders on VA's roads. I do not want DUI's on VA,s roads. I do not want reckless drivers on VA's roads. I don't want them on VA's roads if they live in VA, MD, NC, WV, TN, DC, Mexico, Canada etc. etc. etc. Let's stop calling these fines. They are specifically created to be fees not fines. If they were fines they would apply to everyone equally under the law. I am not advocating breaking the law. I am advocating equality under the law. Use the fines for whatever purpose you want, just apply them equally. Making these fees to fund the roads is the wrong incentive. It's a slippery slope. The ends do not justify the means.
|
dbaxfran on 7/18/2007 12:36:53 PM wrote:
Griffith along with Dave Albo in Northern Virginia were trained by Jim "Gimmick" Gilmore.
Their inaction and refusal to do what is right to fix Virginia's "death roads" significantly contributes to the memorial crosses that are proliferating along Virginia's highways not to mention the high cost involved sitting in traffic.
Instead of creating disguised gimmicks to raise funds, they should have the guts to do what is right and that is to raise taxes enough to begin bringing Virginia's highways into the 21 century.
Stupidity reigns in Richmond.
|
CindyG on 7/17/2007 10:14:29 PM wrote:
Well GEE, JustSome, I guess it boils down AGAIN to "FOLLOW THE SPEED LIMIT and you won't have to pay any big FINES", huh. The arguements about illegal immigrants have nothing to do with this.
What part of 'don't break the rules and you don't have to pay fines' is hard for you? Well HECK, why don't theives and crack dealers just complain that the fines are too harsh, not fair to the poor folk who commit break THOSE laws? I mean, some of those people are poor, too, right? SHAME that they should have to pay a steep price for breaking the law, right? Speeding, reckless driving and DUIs are just as dangerous as well as driving up the costs of insurance for all of us. Why do you have such a problem with people OBEYING the traffic laws???
|
justsomeguy on 7/17/2007 5:17:20 PM wrote:
Where are we going to house all the new criminals we are making with these laws? Why do you think DMV is in charge of collecting the second and third year "fees"? What happens when Virginia citizens start getting their licenses suspended for being unable to pay the fees, then keep driving (YOU try to live in today's world without a car and see how far you get before you lose your job, et cetera) and end up in jail over this stupidity. We're guaranteeing that people who are poor will be unable to afford to drive legally, (incidentally, while illegal immigrants and out of staters will not be even inconvenienced) and therefore are cast into a further cycle of poverty.The state should just suck it up and bring back Debtor's prisons.
|
justsomeguy on 7/17/2007 5:11:08 PM wrote:
Oh puleeze. If you don't speed, you don't get in trouble. Don't break the LAW.So I guess you want to deport all illegal immigrants, right? After all, they broke the LAW.
|
CindyG on 7/16/2007 10:36:12 PM wrote:
I'd love to see the surrounding states follow suit and I hope that's what they're going to do. It has to start somewhere and I applaud our legislature for doing so. The laws have already made headlines all over the nation, so it's a pretty sure bet that other states around us are going to adopt this policy as well. If Virginians have to force themselves to slow down or face huge fines, obviously it's going to cause a ripple effect on the highway and more out of staters are going to get tickets for sticking out like sore thumbs, so actually out of staters are going to be more likely to get those speeding tickets, and Virginia will get a reputation for having LITTLE to ZERO tolerance for speeders and reckless driving for anyone.
|
commoncents on 7/16/2007 10:41:32 AM wrote:
CindyG. I am supportive of most of what you say. But if what you are after is more safety on the road and full compliance with the law then why do you think only applying it to Virginians will achieve what you want? Why should non-residents be less persuaded to keep your family safe?
|
CindyG on 7/15/2007 10:26:23 PM wrote:
Wahhh, this is going to hurt the poor people the most. Wahh, it's not fair to Virginians. Wahh, this is an unfair tax on drivers. Wah Wah Wah.
Oh puleeze. If you don't speed, you don't get in trouble. Don't break the LAW. Let's say that word again....LAW. Follow the laws and you don't have to pay. Poor people don't have to pay. Nobody has to pay. I'm totally SUPPORTIVE of these new fines to stop the ignorant, selfish and mostly "ME" people in our society who choose to break the laws, taking their own and MY family's safety into their own hands. ANY given day on our highways, over half of drivers are rudely ignoring safe speeds and determined to shove you out of the way. THEY DESERVE to pay. Bring back safe driving.
|
hcky11kev on 7/15/2007 12:46:42 PM wrote:
Although I do not agree with such high fees for simple traffic stops, if you don't speed to begin with, odds are you don't have to worry about that part of it. And you would be surprised with how much gas you will save by just going, let's say 67 in a 65 zone, rather than set your cruise at 80 and go. I do that and get an extra 40 miles on a full tank between fillups. May not seen much at first, but it adds up. Who knows, if everyone did that, the gas demand would fall, maybe even make prices come down.
|
commoncents on 7/14/2007 1:57:35 PM wrote:
No there is no excuse for driving drunk, running from the police, commiting vehicular manslaugher and driving overweight vehicles. Again I am ok with raising the fines for these offenses as long as it applies to everyone and doesn't go to cruel or unusual punishment. I just think there are better solutions to funding or reducing the need for roads.
|
1cacao on 7/14/2007 10:09:20 AM wrote:
"Routine" traffic-stops DO count: 8-point system of fees; routine:simply slightly speeding,not reckless-driving. I am going to rent a room in another state, via per year, and get a license there. It's legal, feasible. Truckers sometimes have 10. I'm just worried about wet roads, etc.,when one might swerve or break-traction: Result: RECKLESS DRIVING charge. The solution would be for MORE stops of average abusers, not to emaciate Virginians via severe penalties. Separate drunk-driving and manslaughter from small-overages speeding tickets; they are NOT in the same "class." Murderers are not relegated with candy-bar shoplifters. I support severe punishment for severe actions, but there is hardly a "line" of division, in the latest laws.
|
commoncents on 7/13/2007 6:05:44 PM wrote:
DCR086. I don't disagree with you that people speed. It's quite obvious if you spend any time on the road at all. And, I'm ok with raising the fines. I'm just not ok with the attempt to make it a fee and apply it only to Virginians. I consider myself fortunate that I can work from home and that I don't have to fight the traffic everyday. Or if I do have to drive that its not at peak hours. I wish more people could/would stay home and off of the road. Interesting story about cresting the hill. Mathematically he was correct but the difference in speed is very small. Not enough to make a difference in a speeding ticket. You sound like you might be in law enforcement.
|
DCR086 on 7/13/2007 3:00:48 PM wrote:
The other I would note is that speeding offenses constitute a very small percentage of the offenses to which the CRF's apply.
Are there also 1000's of reasons for people to drive drunk, run from the police, commit vehicular manslaughter or drive tractor trailers that are overweight?
|
DCR086 on 7/13/2007 2:58:41 PM wrote:
Commoncents, you've done an excellent job of proving my point. That was an excellent rationalization of why people speed. It even admitted that most make an informed choice to speed because they don't think they will get caught. However, go sit in traffic court for a day and see how many people say this in court. Instead they have their calibration certificates, complaints that it was a different car, or, if they do research, a bunch of inane questions about the officers training and how radar works. I've even seen someone tell a judge that because he was cresting a hill, the top of his car was going faster than the wheels so the RADAR reading was wrong. He had a diagram and everything. It was quite unique. Stupid, but unique.
|
commoncents on 7/11/2007 10:51:54 PM wrote:
There are 1000's of reasons in today's society why people are rushed on the road. Many are tradeoffs that can cost many times more than the price of a speeding ticket even if caught. Maybe even the loss of your job. If you really want to solve the transportation problem eliminate the sales tax on mail orders or home deliveries, reduce taxes to companies that have flex hours and/or encourage working from home, require school children to ride the bus and a thousand other incentives to reduce the need to drive. That could cost a lot less than building, repairing and policing roads, eliminating the need for these stupid CRF's.
|
commoncents on 7/11/2007 10:27:27 PM wrote:
DCR086. Idealistically everyone would obey the laws and drive the speed limit. Idealistically everyone would be able to leave early enought to reach their destination without the need to speed. The big problem is that the chances of being caught are slim. Take for example you are a working parent with a child in day care. The day care has a rule, as most do, that you must pick your child up by 6pm or pay a $50 fine. The boss schedules a meeting at the end of the day that runs late and you might have enough time to get to the day care if you hurry. Do you just accept the guaranteed $50 fine or do you take a chance that you won't get caught for going a bit over the speed limit. I know what most people do because the perceived risk is small.
|
DCR086 on 7/11/2007 6:17:19 PM wrote:
Most people who get a speeding ticket are actually speeding and what's more, they know they are speeding. But rather than accept responsibility for their actions, they say or do anything to get out of it and rationalize this to themselves by saying" it's not like it was a serious crime, it was just speeding, red light, etc.
|
DCR086 on 7/11/2007 6:16:11 PM wrote:
And as you noted, driving is not a right. I guess my big beef with the entire issue is that most of issues people have with this stem from a belief system in society that people are unwilling to admit or acknowledge. That is, most people think it is okay to break traffic laws. They also think it is okay to lie about it in court when they get caught. There is no doubt that a traffic conviction imposes a financial burden in fines, fees and insurance premiums, but people seem to think that because it will cost money, all bets are off and it is okay to say or do anything to "beat the ticket."
|
DCR086 on 7/11/2007 6:14:53 PM wrote:
I guess I don't appreciate it because I don't see obeying the law as unrealistic or an irritation. If I have to be somewhere at a given time, I should leave earlier, not drive faster. I also don't know why seeing another car go by is such an irritation. It's not a race. An interesting study once found that people who were preparing to leave a parking lot and saw someone waiting to take their parking space would purposely take longer than usual to leave the space as some sort macho territoriality. Rather than a particular law, I think its this type of "I own the road / parking space and should be able to do whatever I want" attitude on the part of the driver that leads to road rage.
|
commoncents on 7/11/2007 5:10:08 PM wrote:
Your analogy suffers in that the second neighbor does face a cost for commiting the crime. If you don't believe the deterrence is enough we can raise the jail time or the fine. That the financial part of that cost doesn't go where you want the state wants it to is the crux of the problem. If the state line divided the two neighbors and the first lived in VA and the restaurants were located in VA why is it fair to deter one less than the other? What I object to is that the deterrence is not equal. I believe you are going to engender a lot more road rage on the part of Virginians if they feel pressured to maintain lower speeds while watching out of state plates go by. I don't think you appreciate the amount of irritation that will create.
|
commoncents on 7/11/2007 4:38:23 PM wrote:
DCR086. As you correctly state we are all responsible for the cost of roads wherever we live. And, that we share the use of those roads with others from other areas as part of the reciprocity of being allowed to use their roads. We do sometimes apply a use tax in the form of tolls as a method of financing the road but we apply it equally to all who use the road. Everyone recognizes a need to deter misuse of the roads and as such we apply fines to misue. And, anyone using the road should be deterred by an equal amount not to misuse it. I am not aware of any other crime in any other jurisdiction where the deterrence to commit that crime is based upon your residence. That's what is unfair and unjust.
|
DCR086 on 7/11/2007 9:24:36 AM wrote:
As a final thought on this issue, I'll leave you with this analogy and a question. A man and his neighbor both drive the same distance to different restaurants. The first eats dinner and drives home without incident. The neighbor gets drunk, drives home but hits and kills a pedestrian on the way. Both of these people used the road to travel almost the same distance. However, one used the road to get from point A to point B; the other used it to kill someone. Why should they both pay the same costs for transportation?
I submit to you that life is nothing more than a series of choices and consequences. How you choose to use the road, should affect the cost you pay. This law makes those who cost more, pay more. Seems fair to me.
|
DCR086 on 7/11/2007 9:10:24 AM wrote:
The whole "fairness" idea, while a good rallying cry to those who don't like rules, is not really a sincere argument. There are many people out there who use the roads who pay no taxes, who pay no registration fees, who pay no licensing fees. This, too, is not "fair." In an ideal world, everything would be completely fair to everyone, but in the real world, fairness can only exist if everyone wants it to be fair. Those who think they are entitled to a free ride, or to do whatever they want, whenever they want, who take advantage of others, who abuse the process are the very persons these fees seek to target. In the real world, I don't think it gets more fair than that.
|
DCR086 on 7/11/2007 8:52:50 AM wrote:
You are correct in that we do use "their" roads also, but the "it's not fair because it doesn't apply to out of state motorists" argument is yours, not mine. I said all along that argument is not valid as the states can impose laws, restrictions, fees, etc. on residents without applying them to anyone who "passes through." In fact, in most instances, states can't apply administrative rules to non-residents.
You seem to be losing sight of the fact that we all do pay for the roads. Despite how unfair you think this is, these remedial fees do not eliminate the portion of everyone's taxes that already go to transportation. It just means the people who cause the most problems will pay a higher portion because of the problems they cause.
|
jus2kwik on 7/11/2007 8:27:26 AM wrote:
We also use thier roads. It's our obligation to pay for our roads. If we're all going to drive on them, we should all pay for them. Not just lawbreakers, not just males, not just females, not just people over thirty or under twenty, not people who happened to be born on a Monday, but all of us, equally.It's our responsibility, and it should be shared by all, not born by a few that we choose to impose upon. Even if they "deserve" it.
|
DCR086 on 7/10/2007 7:48:48 PM wrote:
But doesn't the idea of raising taxes to pay for transportation shoot the "it's not fair because it doesn't apply to out of state motorists" argument down? I mean a tax increase would also only apply to Virginia residents, and those out of state motorists would still be using "our" roads.
|
jus2kwik on 7/10/2007 8:16:14 AM wrote:
Commoncents, my response was a bit disjointed, I agree. The point I was trying to make was the same as stated a little more coherently by you. Thanks. The revenue the state needs wouldn't be as much of a burden if shared by all in the form of a small tax increase rather than a crippling "fee" imposed on the few. This is basically a "sin" tax,and those are inherantly wrong too.
|
DCR086 on 7/10/2007 2:14:09 AM wrote:
However, this entire debate, both here and statewide, is occuring not because of the fees, but because of the amount of the fees. If the fee were $25, no one would care. Regardless of whether you call it a fee or fine, if it is a cost of a conviction, it is punishment, and legally punishment has to fit the crime.
My opinion is this argument will also fail as I believe the state can show that the fees are not that far out of line when the total costs of these offenses are considered.
All things considered, I still like this revenue source better than taxing everyone. Mine seems to be a minority opinion, but I loathe seeing working tax-payers forced to pay ever more money to pick up the slack for those who cause the most problems.
|
DCR086 on 7/10/2007 2:00:37 AM wrote:
From a legal standpoint, I think a challenge to the remedial fees based on the 8th Amendment would be more likely to succeed than will the equal protection issue. It's fairly well established that the States can pass laws that apply to its own citizen's but not to the citizen's of other states. However, one could argue that the penalties are excessive and out of proprotion to the offense, i.e. cruel and unusual.
I don't necessarily agree with that, as I believe the serious violators /repeat offenders prior to July 1, were not punished severely enough to deter the illegal conduct. For some, no amount of punishment wil be severe enough to prevent the act as they don't plan on getting caught, but for a few, it may help deter recidivism.
|
commoncents on 7/10/2007 1:52:48 AM wrote:
Labeling this a fee in order to move the money to a specific budget is what makes this difficult for them to collect it from non-residents. They could easily collect if they made these fines but then by state law the money collected could not go to fund the transportation budget. As a result they choose to discriminate. Its lawyers playing with words in order to get around the intentions of the law. Its like having to define what the meaning of the word "is" is. Pure semantics for a budgetary and political purpose.
|
commoncents on 7/10/2007 1:34:06 AM wrote:
just2kwik. We both agree that the law is unfair to increase the cost to residents only. However I don't completely follow your justifications. Any fine only applies to the ones that are caught. At least I am not aware of anyone who sends in the money without being caught. The state wouldn't know what to do with all the money if everyone who broke the law just sent in the fine. The point is that it is discriminatory to treat the crime differently because of ones address. Calling it a user fee doesn't change the fact that two equal users using the same piece of real estate pay a different amount based upon their home address.
|
commoncents on 7/9/2007 7:42:42 PM wrote:
To your point about equal protection issues I don't think it would apply but I'm not a lawyer. If you drive legally then it doesn't matter your choice of vehicle. I think you made a similar argument early on for the CRF's. I think the CRF's will have a tougher time with equal protection because of the residency issue than a fine based upon a demonstratable hazard such as weight.
Thanks again for making me think and defend. Even if I can't convince you I enjoy making you think.
|
commoncents on 7/9/2007 7:22:06 PM wrote:
I think the law should be changed to make weight a part of the deterrent because it is a part of the hazard. The determination of weight for the officer can be set by a classification when the vehicle is registered. Maybe it includes an average load for that size vehicle. The actual weight is not as important as the recognition that the vehicle has a relative hazard assigned to it that requires consideration by the driver. Regarding childrens size I don't see how a childs age is easily determined by an officer unless you are required to carry their birth certificate in the car. If you are required to produce it in court you could produce a ruler just as easily. In fact a childs height is probably easier to estimate than their age.
|
commoncents on 7/9/2007 7:05:25 PM wrote:
DCR086. Giving pause is what good debate is all about. Thinking, challenging and refining ideas to make them better. So many times because of the emotions tied to ideas people come to verbal blows and insults in these types of forums because they can't defend their arguments in a reasoned manner. You do, and I respect that your opinions differ from mine. I hope others reading our posts have gained some insight as well. So if I may continue to challenge the points you make, they help me to see if my arguments continue to stand up to scrutiny. To your first point that the law doesn't make speeding at a given weight a violation is the point of the discussion. Laws can change which is the reason we are having this discussion.
|
DCR086 on 7/9/2007 4:08:54 PM wrote:
Aside from that, I still say you will have equal protection issues if you try to base criminal punishment on the choice of vehicle.
Jus2kwik, there are already laws that only apply to Virginia residents. There always have been and always will be. While I agree that it would be better if this law applied to all violators, regardless of residency, this is hardly uncharted territory. If you don't believe me, remember this debate the next time you have your vehicle inspected.
Commoncents, I too have enjoyed the debate and hope you did not take offense at the earlier post. It was not intended as a personal insult toward you. You have raised good points and given me pause to ponder this further. I do still respectfully disagree, though.
|
DCR086 on 7/9/2007 4:02:22 PM wrote:
This is because the only way a height based law could be enforced would be to have the officer make a child exit the vehicle on the side of the road and physically measure his/her height. This would be overly intrusive and the end result would be an unenforceable law. The same would be true for weight based speeding penalties. The court would have to have some type of evidence as to the actual weight of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offense in order to levy the penalty. The result would be that the police would have to either escort the driver to a scale, which are usually only located on interstates, or estimate the weight based on the GVWR on the registration. But the GVWR wouldn't account for any load the vehicle might contain.
|
DCR086 on 7/9/2007 3:57:36 PM wrote:
Commoncents, you are correct that speeding is punished differently based on degree of violation, but it the amount by which one violates the speed limit is part and parcel of the violation. The charging officer can observe and testify to the speed of the vehicle from the RADAR reading. Also, the law says speeding is illegal, it doesn't make speeding at a given weight illegal. Plus, there would be no way to prove how much a car weighed at a given moment. It's similar to the argument that height, rather than age should be used to determine child seat violations. While it is true that 4"9" is the height needed for seatbelts to fit properly, it would be unduly burdensome on both police and drivers/children if the law were based on height.
|
jus2kwik on 7/9/2007 9:01:36 AM wrote:
Commoncents, you made a valid point regarding excusing murderers because they lived out of state. The same logic should apply to these fees as well. If anyone gets a free pass, then everyone should. It's like saying speeding tickets only apply to those people we can catch. If you make it across the state line, you got away with speeding...only this is even more wrong. You don't even have to run, just have an out of state tag. Is it ok to beat the dogs you have in a cage while the others run free? Doesn't matter how you phrase it, it's simply wrong to make laws that apply only to people that you can punish easily.
|
commoncents on 7/9/2007 3:20:14 AM wrote:
Another point on heavier vehicles is that they in general have higher centers of gravity and higher bumpers. This transmits the force above the protective structures of most smaller vehicles making them more lethal to the occupants of the smaller vehicle.
|
commoncents on 7/9/2007 2:28:26 AM wrote:
You make a good point about the forces reaching a point where one can't get more dead than dead. But, depending upon the number of occupants and their placement relevant to the impact there is a greater possiblity for a heavier object to transmit those forces to more people causing more deaths. Someone determined a greater hazard due to speed and set the fines appropriately. Including weight in the calculation of fines can be determined as well.
|
commoncents on 7/9/2007 2:14:19 AM wrote:
DCR086. The law already discriminates by level of hazard. A person driving 5mph over the limit is fined alot less than someone driving 20mph over the limit yet both are breaking the law. So how is including weight due to the hazard unconstitutional? By calling this a fee they are trying to skirt the constitutionality of this charge for breaking the law. It is semantics. This law was supposedly based upon the NJ law which increased fines and applied to everyone equally. They can't collect from OOSD's because they are calling it a fee, not a fine, in order to get the money directly to the state budget.
|
DCR086 on 7/9/2007 1:29:23 AM wrote:
As far as the physics of the crashes involving small v. large vehicles, you reach a point when the forces involved become statistically irrelevant to the passengers in a vehicle. In other words, when the forces exceed the human survivability threshold, it really doesn't matter if the impacting object weighs 200 or 200000 lbs. Once the forces are high enough to kill, people don't get "more dead."
I still think it would be very difficult to differentiate degrees of reckless driving based on the potential hazard posed by the vehicle. If we try to do that, where do you draw the line. Does a 1 ton pick-up truck pay a higher fee than a 3/4 ton. If so, who decides wha the limits are?
|
DCR086 on 7/9/2007 1:13:32 AM wrote:
Commoncents, you are correct about heavier vehicles causing more damage. However, we have to base punishment and fees on the offense committed. It would be unconstitutional to penalize one reckless driver more than another because he drove an SUV instead of a Prius if they both committed the same offense.
As to the out of state drivers, the legislators stated they would like to apply the fees to OoS motorists, but the mechanisms to collect the fees are not in place. Most reciprocity agreements apply to fines, not admin fees, and we can't make other states change their laws to accomodate this. Without the power to garnish tax returns and withhold licenses and registrations, the State would spend more collecting than it would colect.
|
commoncents on 7/9/2007 12:39:55 AM wrote:
With everything else being equal the heavier vehicle costs society more when misused. In general it costs more because it inflicts more wear and tear on the road than a lighter vehicle. This is reflected in fines on overweight vehicles and the fine is determined by the amount of overage. It is not discriminatory to base a fine upon the hazard of the infraction. We already do that based upon speed. What I am advocating is that we include weight in the calculation as well. When everything else is equal it is discriminatory to base it upon ones residence as that has no bearing on the hazard. I would hope we would not give a lighter sentence to a murderer because he was a resident in another state. I hope this explains my reasoning.
|
commoncents on 7/9/2007 12:20:05 AM wrote:
Yes, there is a base cost to society for any particular accident whether it be caused by an abusive driver or one as unavoidable as a deer jumping in front of a car. Let's take another simplified example. An MC driver loses control, slams into an overpass support at 60 mph and is killed. The same driver driving a TT hits the same overpass support at the same speed and dies. And, we will assume that both accidents cause the same level of emergency response and traffic delays (although my gut instinct says the TT will have a higher level of response and delay). If the TT weighs 100 times the MC there will be 100 times more damage to the support. Society also has to pay to fix the support.
|
commoncents on 7/9/2007 12:10:37 AM wrote:
Now imagine that the object doing 60mph is an 80,000 lb tractor trailer (TT). I'm more scared of dying, how about you? What causes the damage is force. Speed is a significant part of force but so is weight. The weight part of force is actually the easier part to determine. An object that weighs 10 times more will have 10 times more force. To determine the speed component of force you have to know the speed of the object the instant it contacted the other object and the time it took to come to a complete stop. This is all described in a mathmatical equation of physics. In general doubling the speed of the fly gives it about four times the force. But I have always stated the MC and the TT have the same speed.
|
commoncents on 7/8/2007 11:53:43 PM wrote:
DCR086. I appreciate your reasoned and intelligent responses. I am enjoying the debate and points of view. I hope you are too. I don't understand where you got the idea that I believe a motorcycle (MC) cannot cause injury to others. I may be idealistic but not naive. I was simply using the example you described and substituting a large truck for the MC. Your reasoning is incorrect however in saying that a lower weight doesn't reduce the danger to those in the other car. Imagine you are the driver of the car and let's take an extreme example. If the object coming thru the intersection was a fly doing 60mph and hit your car, chances are you wouldn't even know it unless there was a spot on the windshield.
|
DCR086 on 7/7/2007 7:10:37 PM wrote:
Statistically, as far as injuries go, bike crashes are far more likely to result in injury than are truck crashes. Crashes involving injury incur more cost to the state than do non-injury crashes due the higher level of emergency response they require. From that perspective, I'm starting to see your point. If we are going to charge people more based on how dangerous the vehicle they drive is, maybe the fees should be higher for motorcycles.
|
DCR086 on 7/7/2007 7:06:33 PM wrote:
The idea that the other people aren't going to be hurt just because the other involved vehicle is a bike is either naive, uninformed or self-serving drivel. In this case the bike hit the car in the left front corner almost directly on the headlight. The impact was so severe as to move the car four feet to the left and cause induced damage to the passenger side door of the vehicle. Had this vehicle, which had the right of way, been further into the intersection, the bike would have hit it in the driver side door. At that speed, the driver of the vehicle would have most certainly been seriously injured or killed as well. A bike going 80 mph and weighing several hundred pounds is a danger to everyone nearby, not just the rider.
|
DCR086 on 7/7/2007 7:00:29 PM wrote:
Commoncents, you've been arguing all along that the fees are unfair, especially because they don't apply to out of state motorists, yet you're okay with treating different people differently because of what vehicle they drive? The motorcyclist did pay the ultimate price, but the fact that a biker is the person most likely to die in a multivehicle accident involving a motorcycle doesn't reduce the danger posed to those in the other car. Nor does it reduce the financial cost of the accident. Even though the rider is dead, it still costs money to have him airlifted out, it still costs money to have police and EMS respond and work the scene for hours. It still costs society to have the roads closed and people directing and diverting traffic.
|
commoncents on 7/7/2007 5:41:21 PM wrote:
DCR086. I was not implying that anyone who speeds is given a pass. However, you have made my point for me. The biker paid a much higher fine for his actions than anyone else directly involved in the accident. Good luck trying to collect the increased fees. Had that been a large truck there would have been many more deaths of those not responsible and the trucker would most likely have been able to walk away. The fine should not be the same. There should be more deterrent to larger vehicles.
|
DCR086 on 7/6/2007 3:52:29 PM wrote:
Commoncents, I can't argue that a tractor trailer has more momentum @ 80mph than does a motorcycle. However, a motorcycle that weighs a few hundred pounds is still an incredible threat at that speed. I saw the results of a high speed motorcycle crash three weeks ago. The car struck by the apparently speeding motorcycle was totaled and the driver of the motorcycle was killed. The roadway was shut down for several hours. The victim was airlifted from the scene. Numerous police, fire and EMS personnel responded and were occupied for several hours. The other driver was injured physically and was enotionally traumatized from witnessing the extensive trauma to the biker. The costs of this accident were very high. Sorry, bikes should count too.
|
jus2kwik on 7/6/2007 10:28:59 AM wrote:
Virginia legislator introduces new speeding ticket tax that boosts penalties beyond $3550, driving business to his traffic law firm.
Virginia motorists convicted of minor traffic violations will face a new, multi-year tax beginning July 1. Led by state Delegate David B. Albo (R-Springfield), lawmakers slipped a driver responsibility tax into a larger transportation funding bill signed by Governor Tim Kaine (D) in April. Albo, a senior partner in the Albo & Oblon, LLP traffic law firm, can expect to see a significant increase in business as motorists seek to protect their wallet from traffic tickets that come with assessments of up to $3000 in addition to an annual point tax that tops out at $700 a year for as long as the points remain.
|
commoncents on 7/5/2007 3:00:27 PM wrote:
In addition fines should be based upon the hazard. The weight of the vehicle being misused is a significant factor in the hazard and should be a significant factor in the fine. A tractor-trailer doing 80mph is far more hazardous to others than a motorcycle doing 80mph.
|
commoncents on 7/5/2007 2:19:25 PM wrote:
DCR086 There must be a problem with posted links as yours does not work either. If you type the link starting with the www. it will work. I don't disagree with your interpretation of the state code. I can only refer you to that VA supreme court doc. that listed the annual fee as I stated. If there is a cost burden to the state (I have not seen that documented) for these drivers then it is a burden imposed by all reckless drivers not just residents and should be handled by increased fines. I agree with you on the "right thing". I don't want my taxes raised. I want the jerks in Richmond to stop playing politics and to stop wasting the money we already send them.
|
sickandtired on 7/5/2007 2:19:06 PM wrote:
The links do not work because for reason when you click them, an additional "Http//" gets added in on the browser window. At least that's what happens to me, and I just delete one of them and it usually pops right up. I think Roanoke.com has been made aware of this before.
|
DCR086 on 7/5/2007 1:00:15 PM wrote:
Furthermore, if we were a socialist country I suppose "the right thing" for politicians to do would be to raise taxes on everyone to offset increased costs that are due to criminals. Thank goodness we haven't completely subscribed to socialism yet. Whether you believe it or not, the people who commit these offenses do cost the State more money than do safe drivers. Personally, I'm tired of my tax dollars going to welfare support for pill-heads and deadbeats who "disabled" because they are too lazy to work. I'm also tired of taxes spent to help defray the increased highway costs incurred by drivers who act with utter disregard to everyone other than themselves. Society is too willing to allow "poor judgement" as an excuse for willful crimes.
|
DCR086 on 7/5/2007 12:49:22 PM wrote:
Commoncents, I don't know if it is typo in the summary or if it even actually says that as the link you posted won't work. However, that PDF file is not the actual Code. Here is the link to the actual code that gives the punishmnet classification for reckless driving.
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-868
This was updated on the legislature homepage on July 2. No type of reckless driving is a felony. If it was the officer could not give you a ticket for it, he would have to arrest you and take you before a magistrate. Further, 46.2-848 clearly states that signals have to be given IF the movement will affect another motorist. The vast majority of RD charges are reduced to improper driving and the fees don't apply.
|
jus2kwik on 7/5/2007 9:50:20 AM wrote:
I hope nobody intreprets my last post as an endorsement of driving while "impaired", I don't condone that under any circumstances. The point is, our lawmakers have put penalties in place for that offense as well as others, to deter crime and punish the offenders. I just don't agree with "fees" for those who commit crimes as a source of revenue. There are small towns that are notorious for using speed traps for that purpose, and if we start using these fees as a source of revenue rather than strictly as a deterent then the situation is ripe for abuse.
|
jus2kwik on 7/5/2007 9:31:06 AM wrote:
Thank you Commoncents.....you've earned your name today. Are you listening, Zi-RANT..hia? If you left Roanoke due to people like me then I have something to be proud of! I'll celebrate that tonite, but I won't drive. They might decide beheading is the appropriate penalty for DUI...and others would support that because "all you have to do is obey the law and nothing will happen to you."
|
sickandtired on 7/5/2007 7:02:18 AM wrote:
zirainthia on 7/4/2007 10:38:24 AM wrote:
I left Roanoke...if only I could leave Roanoke.com...hmmm
You can - we are all pulling for you. You won't be missed.
|
commoncents on 7/5/2007 1:12:56 AM wrote:
I have read it and the new VA code is 46.2-206.1. Here is the link to read a general explanation of the new fees by the staff of the VA Supreme Court http://www.courts.state.va.us/publications/hb_3202.pdf On page 3 of the section on Convictions to be Assessed Civil Remedial Fees under Sec. 42.6-206.1 it lists 46.2-860, RD - Failure to give proper signal - Felony, $1000, Felony 6. As I stated earlier I have never done the crime and do not expect to. These are not fines they are taxes called remedial fees. For the most part they target young people who do not possess good judgement. This is financial aid for defense lawyers and a way for polititians to hide from doing the right thing.
|
DCR086 on 7/4/2007 4:25:12 PM wrote:
Commoncents,
Maybe YOU should read the law instead of just listening to what the media feeds you. A lane change charged as reckless driving is not a felony and is not the same as manslaughter. Reckless driving is a Class 1 Misdemeanor. And again, if the movement doesn't affect another driver, you are not even required to signal (46.2-848).
Its up to the judge, not the cop, to convict people and the judge has several options including dismissing or reducing the charge. Contrary to what you may believe, mandatory fines make judges more likely to reduce or dismiss charges in order to avoid the fees if considered unfair. This law targets people who think they shouldn't have to obey the laws. If you don't want to pay, just obey the law.
|
commoncents on 7/4/2007 12:33:37 PM wrote:
Ziranthia wrote "property values are astronomical in NOVA". Property values in NOVA are a function of income and wealth in NOVA. People move to NOVA because they are attracted by the incomes from all the federal dollars floating around. You have to pay to play.
The need for new roads is required by new development and should be borne by developers and property taxes. The maintenance of roads is hastened by the volume of vehicles, the speed of vehicles and the weight of vehicles. It is also the speed and weight of vehicles that cause more hazard in an accident. It is pure physics. Trucks and SUV's cause more damage to roads and are more hazardous to others in an accident. Fines should be based on behavior and the weight of the vehicle.
|
commoncents on 7/4/2007 12:07:49 PM wrote:
In 32 years of living and driving in VA I have had one ticket, it was for speeding because I missed a speed change sign. It would not have been subject to these fees. I still find the law tyrannical and outrageous. I could support true fines if they were applied equally to everyone that uses VA roads including non-residents but this is a tax.
You better read the law. Improper signalling that an officer might consider felony reckless carries the same fees as manslaughter with a vehicle. And, if the fees aren't generating enough revenue you can expect the determination of reckless to become more liberally applied.
|
zirainthia on 7/4/2007 10:38:24 AM wrote:
I left Roanoke...if only I could leave Roanoke.com...hmmm...today is independence day, enjoy the holiday!
|
ziranthia on 7/4/2007 8:37:25 AM wrote:
"A little defensive, aren't we, Ziranthia?"
Possibly, SickandTired, but with good reason. The irrational remarks made by jus2kwik are annoying. Of course NOVA uses more resources than Roanoke, but there are many times the people in NOVA working to pay for that use. jus2kwik refers to tax rates, which means nothing. Let's say Roanoke and Lebanon Virginia have the same tax rate. Which locality contributes more to the state? The math is easy. Also consider that property values are astronomical in NOVA, so the actual amount of tax paid is higher, regardless of the rate. NOVA has toll roads which contribute to highway funds, Roanoke does not. I fail to see where my "free ride" is. People like jus2kwik remind me of why I left Roanoke.
|
sickandtired on 7/3/2007 9:21:35 PM wrote:
A little defensive, aren't we, Ziranthia? Really, telling someone to shut up is a bit rude, even by your low standards.
|
ziranthia on 7/3/2007 9:09:43 PM wrote:
"Your area uses far more resources than mine, but we pay the same tax rate. I'd say it's you getting the free ride."
STATE YOUR SOURCE. Otherwise, shut up.
|
DCR086 on 7/3/2007 5:55:25 PM wrote:
I still don't see why this is such an issue. These are not minor traffic infractions. All you have to do to avoid the fees is obey the law. Again, the drivers this will hurt are the repeat or multiple offenders who drive like the rules don't apply to them.
|
DCR086 on 7/3/2007 5:53:59 PM wrote:
Jus2kwik, the legislators noted that they would like to apply it to out of state motorists, but it is unclear if these administrative fees can be legally applied to non-citizens. If it is, how do you collect? Under the plan, the DMV won't renew licenses and registrations of people who have delinquent fees. Further, they can garnish state tax returns for those who refuse to pay. That's not possible for out of state drivers. In the end, the cost of collecting the fees from out of state drivers would almost negate the $ benefit from the fees.
|
jus2kwik on 7/3/2007 3:51:18 PM wrote:
DCR, do out of state drivers who commit the same offense in our state NOT cost just as much? If so, then why are they exempt? And why is the money not earmarked for those purposes rather than road maintenance? And Ziranthia...you assume that since I'm from Roanoke I must be a hillbilly who doesn't get out much? Or is it that you believe anyone with an average or above average IQ and some knowledge of the world couldn't possibly live anywhere other than next door to you? A rather condescending assumption to make on your part, don't you think? The only free rides around here come from government handouts, and I don't recieve any. Your area uses far more resources than mine, but we pay the same tax rate. I'd say it's you getting the free ride.
|
Entropy on 7/3/2007 3:31:17 PM wrote:
If they are only fining bad drivers, Roanoke is going to get very poor because people around here can't drive very well.
The left lane is for passing, not cruising.
Yield doesn't mean stop.
|
DCR086 on 7/3/2007 10:27:23 AM wrote:
jus2kwik, you have missed the point of the new fees. It's not just a plan to create revenue.It's a plan to create revenue that places the burden on those who cost the State more money by virtue of their bad habits. Drunk/Reckless/Uninsured drivers cost the state more money than do safe drivers. These costs include increased insurance premiums for all of us, medical costs from injuries, costs for ems response to accidents, costs of property and road damage, costs from increased court and law enforcement workloads, and most of all, the cost of lives lost due to their "bad habits."
Why do you believe a safe, low cost driver should pay the same portion as an unsafe, uninsured driver who costs the state so much more by their dangerous driving?
|
ziranthia on 7/3/2007 9:57:15 AM wrote:
SickandTired! It's nice to see you on the board again. I hope things have been good for you. Have a happy and safe July 4th!
|
roenoke on 7/3/2007 9:39:29 AM wrote:
Look people there is a choice between paying more in taxes and fining the crap out of BAD DRIVERS.
Whats it gonna be?
I would much rather have some reckless drivers paying to build me new roads than increase my taxes/fees.
|
sickandtired on 7/3/2007 9:35:48 AM wrote:
Ziranthia, have we thanked you enough for not living in this area so that the only manner in which we have to deal with you is through a message board? If not, please accept my most sincere thanks that you do not live in this area, and do not vote in this area, and do not spend money in this area, and have no real voice in this area that matters.
|
ziranthia on 7/3/2007 9:22:15 AM wrote:
jus2kwik, people can either change their bad habits, or pay the fines. As for toll roads, I can tell you don't get out much, sweetheart. We DO have TOLL ROADS, along with the "rest of the state" (Richmond and Tidewater). Your Roanoke is getting a free ride from MY tax dollars. Get out more, and see what is really out there, instead of pretending like you know.
|
