New Virginia Traffic Fees Set to Wallop Motorists' Wallets

[dazzleman]

http://ourvalley.org/news.php?viewStory=831

What do you guys think of this article?

These 'fees' seem over the top to me.  I wonder how the whole scheme will work out.

_____________________________________________
New traffic 'civil remedial fees' will wallop the wallets of traffic offenders
Cathy Benson
"The General Assembly dubbed the law the 'Dangerous Driver Law,' but it is much more far reaching than that," said Tommy Moore, clerk of the Botetourt Circuit Court.

It will keep the clerk's office busy collecting the first of three annual civil fee payments from drivers convicted of any number of traffic violations. The civil fees will be on top of traffic fines courts impose, and are part of the new financial package to help fund Virginia's beleaguered highway department.

For instance, an offender charged and convicted of reckless driving for going 20 mph over the speed limit would pay the traffic fines and court costs, plus be accessed a $1,000 civil fee. One-third of the civil fee would have to be paid the day of the conviction. The rest would be paid in two equal installments over the next two years. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is responsible for collecting the final two payments

The new system is designed to spread the fees into three yearly payments.
The fees could reach into the hundreds or thousands of dollars for some traffic offenders.
The idea, according to published a report, is "Drive Safe and Save Money."
"We felt it would be a good thing to do for public safety and a unique way to raise more funding," said Del. Steve Landes, (R-Weyers Cave,) who co-sponsored the legislation this past winter.

The civil fees will go into a newly created special transportation fund to pay for road construction.

Local elected officials didn't want to go on the record commenting on this way of raising funds for transportation in the state, but privately several said it was a way of keeping the Republican-controlled General Assembly from having to implement a new tax or raise taxes for the troubled transportation system. Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, signed the bill into law.

Instead of direct taxes to fund transportation, some are calling the civil penalties "hidden fees." They range from $250 to $3,000, depending on the traffic violation, and will be assessed on a variety of misdemeanor traffic violations including being a passenger in a hit and run or the failure to give a proper signal.

Moore provided a print out of violations that he received at the circuit court clerks conference on June 4 and 5. The print out filled five pages.

Many of the civil fees do address alcohol as was the intent of the "Dangerous Driver Law" when it originated, but the fees also may be accessed for such daily traffic violations as rolling through a stop sign (a fee of $300), or impeding traffic--a charge that's possible when stopping in front of your mailbox to get the mail. The civil fee alone for a conviction on the latter is $300.

Play an R or X rated movie on the van DVD player and if it is seen by someone in another vehicle, a driver can be charged and fined with having an obscene video image seen from outside the car. The civil fee is $300.
The new law takes effect July 1.

Botetourt County Commonwealth's Attorney Joel Branscom feels this will be hitting some folks who can least afford the extra fees.

If a convicted traffic offender does not pay the fees for whatever reason, the person's driver's license is revoked.

The fees will be hitting many of those who can least afford to lose a driver's permit, and the fallout could keep people from being able to work or pay child support, and that is already a part of the downward spiral many traffic offenders are already facing, said both Branscom and Moore, who see dire effects with the new set of civil fees.

"Judges have no leeway with the new law," said Branscom. which means they cannot reduce or suspend the civil fees.

According to Moore, after the court collects the first civil fee installment, the DMV collects the next two yearly installments and will use a collection agency to retrieve those final two payments. That adds a layer of cost in collection that will reduce the benefit to road funding.

Those who have driving points on their record also will be assessed an additional $175 per point in civil fees for their previous record up to $700 if convicted of a new violation.

Drivers from out of state will not be penalized by the civil system of fees because "the state can not go beyond its borders to collect the (civil) fees," said Moore. "These fees are for Virginia residents and those with a permit listing a Virginia address."

July 1 looms in two weeks and the clerk's offices around the state are doing what they can to prepare for the collection of the first round of civil fees, which will bring a whole new aspect to traffic court in Virginia.

[Raza]

Fuck Virginia....so hard.

They just lost every tourist dollar they ever would have gotten from me.  If I go south, I will drive around Virginia.

AN R RATED MOVIE!?  Jesus Christ!

They're moving very slowly towards a police state.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Basicaly, getting caught going 20mph over the limit, one would be out at least $1500? Nice. I am happy not to be a Virginia resident. They already have enough stupid laws in VA, so this isn't really suprising.  I just hope this "civil fee" idea doesn't spread to other states. Fucking asshole democrats.

[NomisR]

Basicaly, getting caught going 20mph over the limit, one would be out at least $1500? Nice. I am happy not to be a Virginia resident. They already have enough stupid laws in VA, so this isn't really suprising.? I just hope this "civil fee" idea doesn't spread to other states. Fucking asshole democrats.

I thought Republicans put out this bill?  Either way, I definately hope this doesn't spread to people's republic of Kalifornia.. and I'll definately fight against any candidate who will try to put this law into this already police state here...

[Eye of the Tiger]

I thought Republicans put out this bill?? Either way, I definately hope this doesn't spread to people's republic of Kalifornia.. and I'll definately fight against any candidate who will try to put this law into this already police state here...

I will murder anyone who tries to get it passed in any state I live in.

[dazzleman]

Fuck Virginia....so hard.

They just lost every tourist dollar they ever would have gotten from me.? If I go south, I will drive around Virginia.

AN R RATED MOVIE!?? Jesus Christ!

They're moving very slowly towards a police state.

Dude, these 'fees' only apply to Virginia residents.? You'd be getting a free ride on your fines, by comparison.

I also have to say -- I think it's absurd to automatically designate 20 mph over the speed limit to be reckless driving.

[ifcar]

I also have to say -- I think it's absurd to automatically designate 20 mph over the speed limit to be reckless driving.

I don't think it's automatic, but that they have the option of considering it reckless.

[Soup DeVille]

Play an R or X rated movie on the van DVD player and if it is seen by someone in another vehicle, a driver can be charged and fined with having an obscene video image seen from outside the car. The civil fee is $300.
The new law takes effect July 1.

I had a friend a while back who had a nicely done  airbrush of a well-endowed girl doing something with a sword on the hood of his pick-up; and the endowments weren't very shy about themselves either.

Can't see how that's any different than this; and he never got ticketed for that.

But yeah, Michigan had this same bright idea a year or so ago: except they call it the "driver responisibility law."

[Eye of the Tiger]

I don't think it's automatic, but that they have the option of considering it reckless.

The cops have the option of considering it anything they want.

[hounddog]

I will murder anyone who tries to get it passed in any state I live in.

Perhaps the most sophmoric statement I have seen in a very long time.


And the police can only issue a ticket if the violation falls within certain criteria, known as 'elements.'   


Just thought you might like to know that.

[GoCougs]

The word "convicted" keeps being used. In most any state, traffic violations are not crimes (meaning, one is not convicted of failure to yield, or of doing 58 in a 50). Serious driving offenses; reckless driving, DUI, are crimes (and thus convicted). This leads me to believe that chronic bad drivers are to be targetted.

The unsettling aspect is that the article argues that this is a non-representative tax passed under the auspicies of improving road safety. I guess the jury's out on that for the moment.

If the fines are truly levied upon chronic bad drivers who are routinely convicted of driving-related crimes, or who have chronically high point counts, I agree with the stategy for chronic bad driving isn't punished nearly as harshly as it should be.

[Soup DeVille]

I also have to say -- I think it's absurd to automatically designate 20 mph over the speed limit to be reckless driving.

It comes out in the wash.

Surprisingly enough, driving backwards at the speed limit shooting a pistol at street signs with a hooker in your backseat is not automatically considered reckless driving.

[ifcar]

The cops have the option of considering it anything they want.

Right, the option. It's not automatic.

[hounddog]

It comes out in the wash.

Surprisingly enough, driving backwards at the speed limit shooting a pistol at street signs with a hooker in your backseat is not automatically considered reckless driving.

I think it might.  Just depends on the drivers state of mind at the time.  Were his actions "Wanton and willful" and did he "disregard the safety of public, property, or persons?"

[Soup DeVille]

I think it might.? Just depends on the drivers state of mind at the time.? Were his actions "Wanton and willful" and did he "disregard the safety of public, property, or persons?"

Yes, it might, but its not automatic!

[hounddog]

Yes, it might, but its not automatic!

How do you know its not automatic?  Did you look into the car?  Maybe it was a hybrid tranny like on the BMW?  Unless you saw the console, do not claim it was a stick shift.  Butt-brain! 
















<-----------------------current photo of me and my Hollandia.

[hounddog]

By the way, my post #13;  that was another attempt at some subtle humor.? Apparently, it was extremely subtle!

[Eye of the Tiger]

Perhaps the most sophmoric statement I have seen in a very long time.


And the police can only issue a ticket if the violation falls within certain criteria, known as 'elements.'? ?


Just thought you might like to know that.

What are these 'elements', what do they have to do with these 'civil fees', and why in hell would you want to pay two fines for one traffic violation?

[hounddog]

What are these 'elements', what do they have to do with these 'civil fees', and why in hell would you want to pay two fines for one traffic violation?

In almost every single state reckless driving, driving drunk, driving while suspended, operate without insurance,? and a few other violations are criminal/arrestable misdemeanors and are punishable with jail time.?

Elements are the conditions, or criteria, which must be met for there to be a 'conviction.'? Every crime has them, no matter how big or small the crime is.? i.e.? Murder in the first degree; 1) someone has to be killed? 2) intent to kill 3) reasonable belief that your actions will result in likely death 4) lying in wait.? These are some of, but not all, the elements of 1st degree murder which must be proven.

Traffic enforcement is similar.? In Michigan, reckless driving is usually defined as a "Wanton and willful disregard for the safety of public, property, and persons."? ? In other words,? 1) Intended to drive in a manner which would be considered unsafe by a reasonable person 2) Those which are at risk are the public, property, and other persons? 3) drove the car.? These are the very basic elements needed to prove guilt.? Minus "intent" the violation would only rise to the level of 'careless driving.'?

No one will wish to pay the extra fines for several years.? That, in its entirety, is the point.

[Eye of the Tiger]

In almost every single state reckless driving, driving drunk, driving while suspended, operate without insurance,? and a few other violations are criminal/arrestable misdemeanors and are punishable with jail time.?

Elements are the conditions, or criteria, which must be met for there to be a 'conviction.'? Every crime has them, no matter how big or small the crime is.? i.e.? Murder in the first degree; 1) someone has to be killed? 2) intent to kill 3) reasonable belief that your actions will result in likely death 4) lying in wait.? These are some of, but not all, the elements of 1st degree murder which must be proven.

Traffic enforcement is similar.? In Michigan, reckless driving is usually defined as a "Wanton and willful disregard for the safety of public, property, and persons."? ? In other words,? 1) Intended to drive in a manner which would be considered unsafe by a reasonable person 2) Those which are at risk are the public, property, and other persons? 3) drove the car.? These are the very basic elements needed to prove guilt.? Minus "intent" the violation would only rise to the level of 'careless driving.'?

No one will wish to pay the extra fines for several years.? That, in its entirety, is the point.

No one but you would ever wish to pay the extra fines. Adding fines on top of fines will never solve anything. As the article insinuates, the original intention of the new 'civil fee' system wasn't geared towards increasing traffic saftey, rather, it was created to generate funding for road construction.

[Champ]

I'd just move.

[hounddog]

No one but you would ever wish to pay the extra fines. Adding fines on top of fines will never solve anything. As the article insinuates, the original intention of the new 'civil fee' system wasn't geared towards increasing traffic saftey, rather, it was created to generate funding for road construction.

I did not say it would resolve any problems, only stated that it was entirely the point of this system hence its name; "Dangerous Drivers..."? That would indicate its intent and purpose, the road funding is merely where they chose to funnel whatever funds this legislation generates.? ?Sometimes, an apple is just an apple.

And to state you would murder someone, even in jest, for supporting a law intended to curtail dangerous driving is just plain idiotic. 

[Soup DeVille]

I'd just move.

Now, see that's what I love about America. Look at the middle east. Those Palestinians are scraping and fighting and dying for generations because they want their land back: It doesn't matter to them that their land is a bullet-riddled wasteland, they have this thing that says its theirs, and they're staying.

Meanwhile, in America; if people don't like a situation and they realize they can't do much about it, they have the god-given sense to leave and seek something better.

[Eye of the Tiger]

I did not say it would resolve any problems, only stated that it was entirely the point of this system hence its name; "Dangerous Drivers..."? That would indicate its intent and purpose, the road funding is merely where they chose to funnel whatever funds this legislation generates.? ?Sometimes, an apple is just an apple.

And to state you would murder someone, even in jest, for supporting a law intended to curtail dangerous driving is just plain idiotic.?

The civil fees will be on top of traffic fines courts impose, and are part of the new financial package to help fund Virginia's beleaguered highway department.

The civil fees will go into a newly created special transportation fund to pay for road construction.

"We felt it would be a good thing to do for public safety and a unique way to raise more funding," said Del. Steve Landes, (R-Weyers Cave,) who co-sponsored the legislation this past winter.

This apple looks more like rat to me. A rat that needs to be murdered.?

[hounddog]

No one but you would ever wish to pay the extra fines.

By the way, what the fu** is this supposed to mean?  Can you please point out one single example where I ever said I, or anyone else for that matter, would wish, like, desire, hope, or want to pay ANY extra fines? 

[hounddog]

The civil fees will be on top of traffic fines courts impose, and are part of the new financial package to help fund Virginia's beleaguered highway department.

The civil fees will go into a newly created special transportation fund to pay for road construction.

"We felt it would be a good thing to do for public safety and a unique way to raise more funding," said Del. Steve Landes, (R-Weyers Cave,) who co-sponsored the legislation this past winter.

Your own quote prooves my point that its intention is to increase public safety, and they have simply chosen to funnel the extra cash toward the road fund. 

[saxonyron]

20 mph over the limit is reckless driving?? A $1,000 fine? Holy crap - I'd be a pauper in a few months!  In my town, my dad just got pulled over doing 58 in a 30 zone.  God bless the cop - he just issued a warning.  Nothing reckless about it - I've driven the same road thousands of times.  It wanders past corn and hay fields, and the houses are many hundreds of feet apart.  A truly stupid speed limit.

Draconian penalties like that would no doubt encourage municipalities to set up some NIGYYSOB* low speed zones just to rake in the dough.  I've often said in normal situations, speeding fines really don't add up to that much revenue, and talking to Greg he concurred.  But these asinine high fees would get any Town Treasurer's attention.  You could really rake in some dough if the average cop on traffic patrol bagged a thousand dollar ticket every few hours!

*NIGYYSOB = Now I Got You You Son of a Bitch

[Eye of the Tiger]

Your own quote prooves my point that its intention is to increase public safety, and they have simply chosen to funnel the extra cash toward the road fund.

We're getting into sematincs here. The point is, adding fees on top of fees doesn't make the roads safer, it's just another bullshit law that you have to worry about everytime you get behind the wheel.

Personally, threatening me with a $1500 fee isn't going to make me drive any different than I do now, just like threatening me with confinscating my $300 radar detetector doesn't stop me from using in while I'm in Virginia, just like putting the number '65' on a sign doesn't stop the needle on my dash from pointing at '75'. I drive safely because I don't want to hurt anybody, myself, or my car, and because I generally don't want to be hassled. I consider myself to be a reasonably good person, able to make good choices without the interference of a legal system that punishes the masses for the mistakes of a few idiots.

<going off on a tangent...>

Consider a few years ago when I had to pay a hefty (to me) fee to get my license reinstated after it had suspended without my knowledge for three months. Believe it or not, this happened merely because I changed insurance companies, causing the DMV to assume I was driving uninsured.?Had I been pulled over by a cop during those three months, I could have very well spend a night in jail, paid an even greater fee, had my suspension extended for several more months and at the very least would have had my car towed away. All of this which would have had negative implications on my military career, and therefore the rest of my life. They didn't even care that their suspension notices most likely blew away in Hurrican Katrina along with a large portion of my wardrobe. They still made me pay the $100 reinstatement fee, even after proving to them that I had insurance the whole time. Fuck them.

[Rich]

If a person didn't speed/drive recklessly a person wouldn't have to pay the fine

This law doesn't bother me at all, speed limits on the other hand.....

[dazzleman]

I don't have a problem with severe penalties for actions that are actually dangerous, such as drunk driving, or a bona fide case of reckless driving, particularly if they are used against habitual violators.

But I think this law moves things in the wrong direction.? Over-punishment of minor offenses like routine speeding could have many unintended negative effects, one of which could be clogging up the courts as people will be much more likely to fight every ticket.? There's also the fact that these fines/fees will hit most at the people least able to pay them, for in many cases offenses that are not really serious.

I'm a strong law-and-order guy, but I think it's equally important to go after the right people, as opposed to over-punishing minor offenses like routine speeding.? ?To pass laws that essentially break the balls of mostly law-abiding citizens as a backdoor way to raise money just breeds more widespread disrespect for the law, and will have negative consequences that will outweigh any benefits to the state treasury, IMO.? If the state really needs the money that badly, they'd be better off getting it honestly.