New Virginia Traffic Fees Set to Wallop Motorists' Wallets

[Raza]

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.

It's a principle thing, David.

[Raza]

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.' 

Who decides who is a reasonable person?

Can I use the 10 Driving Commandments as an excuse?

"You see, your honor, as per commandment #10, I was driving as fast as I possibly could as part of my responsibility to other drivers, since it my responsibility is to help get others to their destination quickly.  I was tailgating that motorist because he cut off a pregnant woman, and commandment #9 says to protect vulnerable parties.  And I ran that car off the road because he was obviously drunk, and I was adhering to #6.  I was convincing him to not drive since he was not in a fit condition to do so."

Go after me, it's religious persecution!

[Tave]

I have a friend in MN who used to have an outrageous sound system/dvd combo. He had the kevlar 12" Audiobahns, and an amp to push them, along with a screen in his dash. We drove around in his Explorer one afternoon with a porn video CRANKED. The reactions of passing motorists (as well as any unfortunate soul on the side of the road) were priceless.

[Champ]

Awesome!

[James Young]

hounddog writes:

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?"

And just how do you determine that particular driver?s state of mind?  Or is this one of those ?I can tell that guy?s intentions from xx feet away? boasts, closely akin to gaining ?insight? by a couple of perfunctory posts?  Is 81 mph in an 80 mph zone ?wanton and willful,? or does it have to be 85 mph?

And. . . .

?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.?  -- NACar

hounddog responds:

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 sometimes it's just BS.  The names given legislation frequently have more to do with marketing than with truth in advertising.  Consider, for example, the ?Healthy Forests Initiative,? the intent and result of which was to open millions of acres of public forests to clear-cutting by timber companies or the ?Clean Skies Initiative,? which was intended to relax air pollution standards and dirtier air. 

If the intent of traffic legislation is safety as we are told day in and day out, then any legislation that diminishes the public safety is counterproductive and any ostensible safety-related legislation that diverts money for any other purpose is hypocritical.

Where ? exactly ? is the safety benefit of this legislation?  How ? exactly ? does it improve the three major safety measures?  If these cannot be identifed and measured, then the legislation is worse than worthless and must be rescinded.

[Tave]

What's with all the double posts today, James?

[James Young]

What's with all the double posts today, James?

My laptop and the site are giving me fits today.  I have had to renew several times and sometimes those actually post.

I'll try to clean 'em up as I go.

[hounddog]

Who decides who is a reasonable person?

Can I use the 10 Driving Commandments as an excuse?

"You see, your honor, as per commandment #10, I was driving as fast as I possibly could as part of my responsibility to other drivers, since it my responsibility is to help get others to their destination quickly.? I was tailgating that motorist because he cut off a pregnant woman, and commandment #9 says to protect vulnerable parties.? And I ran that car off the road because he was obviously drunk, and I was adhering to #6.? I was convincing him to not drive since he was not in a fit condition to do so."

Go after me, it's religious persecution!

On the road, the police.  Followed by the prosecutor who will read any criminal traffic reports.  Then the judge.  Lastly, any jury assigned to the case.   

Regarding the other, I wish you the best with this defense.   :P

[hounddog]

hounddog writes:

And just how do you determine that particular driver?s state of mind?? Or is this one of those ?I can tell that guy?s intentions from xx feet away? boasts, closely akin to gaining ?insight? by a couple of perfunctory posts?? Is 81 mph in an 80 mph zone ?wanton and willful,? or does it have to be 85 mph?

And. . . .

?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.?? -- NACar

hounddog responds:

And sometimes it's just BS.? The names given legislation frequently have more to do with marketing than with truth in advertising.? Consider, for example, the ?Healthy Forests Initiative,? the intent and result of which was to open millions of acres of public forests to clear-cutting by timber companies or the ?Clean Skies Initiative,? which was intended to relax air pollution standards and dirtier air.?

If the intent of traffic legislation is safety as we are told day in and day out, then any legislation that diminishes the public safety is counterproductive and any ostensible safety-related legislation that diverts money for any other purpose is hypocritical.

Where ? exactly ? is the safety benefit of this legislation?? How ? exactly ? does it improve the three major safety measures?? If these cannot be identifed and measured, then the legislation is worse than worthless and must be rescinded.

[James Young]

Hmmm.  You managed to say as much in that post as in all your others. . .

[hounddog]

Hmmm.? You managed to say as much in that post as in all your others. . .

Funny, I would have expected something more in the 'windbag' realm from you.  By the way, nice retort.

[James Young]

By the way, nice retort.

Thank you.

Funny, I would have expected something more in the 'windbag' realm from you.

The truth is often complex, requiring long, analytical answers complete with sources and support but unable to fit into the soundbites that have become the meme of modern media.  Cliches and slogans just don't cut it.

[Vinsanity]

Wow. Virginia sucks. Good thing there's absolutely no reason to go (or even worse, live) there in the first place.

Are Virginia's treasurers mismanaging the state's funds so badly that this is what they're driven to? My God, I don't think even West Virgina's that stupid (at least I haven't heard of them trying to pass bullshit traffic laws such as these)

[Colonel Cadillac]

Holy crap!

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.


They have gone too far.

[Colonel Cadillac]

^^ Failing to properly signal is a $250 fine! I hate it when people don't signal, but there are times when people just simply forget to do so. That would be a very pricey mistake.


Thank God I did not get into the University of Richmond.

[James Young]

Virginia has probably gone too far with this legerdemain of creative government funding and the repercussions could be severe.? Perhaps enforcement agencies in general and Virginia in particular can learn from new research in the world of business.? There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

In the new Harvard Business Review, (?Companies and the Customers That hate Them,? 6/2007), Gail MacGovern and Youngme Moon outline a study of companies whose predatory practices against extant customers has led to revolt of various kinds by those customers.? Revelations of similar practices should serve as warning to non-competitive governmental services as well, notwithstanding the different dynamic.?

The specific practices were installation of penalties for certain customer behavior that the companies themselves accepted or even encouraged, coupled with deliberate customer confusion or ignorance, over reliance on contracts replete with fine print.? Examples are credit card and ATM fees for out of service usage, over-credit-line, overdraft charges, etc.? Such penalties are very profitable (bank profits are up 67% in two years) but are loaded with pent-up hostility awaiting a trigger.? Such pent-up hostility could trigger a voters? revolution at the Virginia polls.

Companies look for specific signs; enforcement agencies should be similarly introspective:

1.   Are the most profitable customers those who have the most reason to be dissatisfied with us?
2.   Do we have rules that we want the customer to break because doing so generates profits?
3.   Do we make it difficult for customers to understand or abide by our rules, and do we actually help customers break rules?
4.   Do we depend on contracts to prevent customers from defecting?

#s 2, 3 and 4 apply particularly to enforcement agencies.? If contracts are critical to company profitability or financial viability, it?s a sign that the firm may be extracting value at the expense of customer satisfaction.

[dazzleman]

I wonder if this Virginia law will ignite a popular revolt against our general policy of setting speed limits on highways unnaturally low.

There hasn't really been a revolt against it so far because enforcement is sporadic, and the penalties have been a pin-prick in the grand scheme of things.

But laws that criminalize the behavior of the majority of the population, AND are punished with painful penalties usually don't last long or work out.

I think Virginia has gone too far on this one, and they may end up regretting it.  I don't think this law will work for them as intended.

[Raza]

I hope it does.  You're talking about massive fines (a few thousand dollars is a lot for pretty much anyone; imagine making 40K a year and trying to support a family, and then you get slapped with two grand in fines because you were running late to work one day and did 75 on the highway) for very minor infractions.  When driving to work, I set my cruise control somewhere between 15 and 20mph over the limit (calling 70 a "safe" speed at 55, meaning that if I see an enforcer, I can drop easily to something more reasonable and still return good times and near 30mpg).  I pass a lot of people, but I also get passed a lot.  People do that 5 days a week just trying to make ends meet.  And then because of bad luck you're stucking paying two weeks of post tax salary to the government? 

Fuck you, Virginia.

[dazzleman]

I hope it does.? You're talking about massive fines (a few thousand dollars is a lot for pretty much anyone; imagine making 40K a year and trying to support a family, and then you get slapped with two grand in fines because you were running late to work one day and did 75 on the highway) for very minor infractions.? When driving to work, I set my cruise control somewhere between 15 and 20mph over the limit (calling 70 a "safe" speed at 55, meaning that if I see an enforcer, I can drop easily to something more reasonable and still return good times and near 30mpg).? I pass a lot of people, but I also get passed a lot.? People do that 5 days a week just trying to make ends meet.? And then because of bad luck you're stucking paying two weeks of post tax salary to the government??

Fuck you, Virginia.

I agree.  My philosophy is that the punishment should fit the crime.

Far too often, when dealing with real criminals, the punishment is far less than what the crime calls for.  Here, we're talking about ball-breaking and painful punishments for people who may not even be doing anything dangerous.

I'm all for extremely harsh treatment of real criminals.  I'd have no problem with boiling them in oil.  But I don't favor harsh punishment of a guy who's doing maybe 75 mph on a road where you can safely do 80 mph.  It's just wrong, and doesn't advance the interests of justice or motorist safety.  I really can't stand the safety nazis, and their collaborators in government who want to use this flawed philosophy to swell the government's coffers so the politicians can buy votes.

[James Young]

I just learned that David Albo, who sponsored this bill, is a partner in the the firm, Albo and Oblon, LLP traffic law, and expects to receive a major influx of cases as citizens will fight penalties perceived to be excessive.  Just when we begin to believe that it's all done for our own safety, some d!ckweed comes along and verifies that, no!, it really is all about the money.   

[Eye of the Tiger]

I just learned that David Albo, who sponsored this bill, is a partner in the the firm, Albo and Oblon, LLP traffic law, and expects to receive a major influx of cases as citizens will fight penalties perceived to be excessive.? Just when we begin to believe that it's all done for our own safety, some d!ckweed comes along and verifies that, no!, it really is all about the money.? ?

What did I say? I said the apples look like rats. I knewed I smelled a rat. 

[dazzleman]

I just learned that David Albo, who sponsored this bill, is a partner in the the firm, Albo and Oblon, LLP traffic law, and expects to receive a major influx of cases as citizens will fight penalties perceived to be excessive.? Just when we begin to believe that it's all done for our own safety, some d!ckweed comes along and verifies that, no!, it really is all about the money.? ?

Who ever thought it was done for safety?  This is no surprise.  There will definitely be a major increase in people fighting tickets, rather than paying them, with this law.

[James Young]

Who ever thought it was done for safety?? This is no surprise.? There will definitely be a major increase in people fighting tickets, rather than paying them, with this law.

Sorry, I forgot to put in the [sarcasm]. . .[/sarcasm] brackets. 

[Eye of the Tiger]

Who ever thought it was done for safety? This is no surprise. There will definitely be a major increase in people fighting tickets, rather than paying them, with this law.

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.?

[dazzleman]

Sorry, I forgot to put in the [sarcasm]. . .[/sarcasm] brackets.?

I figured you were being sarcastic.  You of all people wouldn't have accepted that this was done for safety.  Clearly, it wasn't.

I really think this is just going too far.  I have no problem with the concept for serious offenses, but to do this for routine and non-dangerous offenses is unconscionable.

Government doesn't exist to torture its citizens.  It is supposed to serve good citizens, and I don't think that a person who drives at a safe speed that happens to be above the speed limit forfeits the claim of being a good citizen.  I hope the people of Virginia rebel against this crap.

[James Young]

Sweet Chocolate Jesus.   First, we have a state rep. sponsoring a bill using the authority of the state  and from which he will benefit.  Next thing you know, the insurance lobby will be calling to make insurance mandatory.  What?  Oh wait!  Nevermind.

[hounddog]

Well nothing came up on the quote, so bare with me.  I can only go by what is written in the article.  I was fully willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Apparently, I should not have trusted the politicians in Va.   

[Eye of the Tiger]

Well nothing came up on the quote, so bare with me.? I can only go by what is written in the article.? I was fully willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.? Apparently, I should not have trusted the politicians in Va.? ?

[hounddog]

Who knew?

[dazzleman]

Who knew?

Dude, I'm surprised a man of the world like yourself didn't see through this thing sooner....

Seriously though, I think you know me to be a pretty strong supporter of law enforcement.? I am not doctrinaire about this issue like some people.? But law enforcement goes off the track when the politicians pass laws that put law enforcement in opposition to the majority of the people it's supposed to be protecting.? And that's what this law does, through its draconian and lasting penalties for trivial offenses.?

Laws like this are not good for LEOs or those who support legitimate enforcement efforts against people who are a real problem on the road.? The guy who does 75 mph in a 65 mph zone and gets busted for it occasionally is not a real problem, and shouldn't have to pay thousands of dollars of fines and increased insurance costs over a period of years for such a trivial offense.? He could be a guy working his balls off to support a family on a middle class income, and this is a major kick in the nuts to him for really doing nothing significantly wrong.? The law should not be designed to break the balls of solid citizens for trivial offenses.? This law will also hit unevenly, disproportionately affecting the people who have to be out on the road driving for their occupations, as opposed to those who sit in an office.? If the government really needs the money that badly, it ought to pass a broad tax that hits everybody evenly according to income, which this does not.

Most people will suck up the occasional ticket for a non-dangerous violation without significant complaint so long as the punishment fits the crime, such as it is.? That's always been my attitude.? I'm a habitual speeder with a record of getting tickets every so often.? I've never paid a truly significant penalty for it, in the grand scheme of things (though I have been fined multiple times), and that's pretty much as it should be, since my offenses were never truly dangerous.? Many guys like me, with similar driving habits and driving records, are very strong supporters of law enforcement, despite the occasional tickets that we get, because we see the bigger picture and deeply appreciate the contribution that those who work in law enforcement make to society as a whole.?

But this law crosses the line, and endangers that implicit compact between imperfect but good citizens and law enforcement, which is also imperfect but good in most cases.? I have always argued that citizens need to cut LEOs some slack and take responsibility for their own actions when they have unwanted contact with the police (such as a traffic ticket), and I'll also make that same argument with respect to the way the law treats citizens.? There should not be onerous penalties against good citizens for trivial offenses.? The law needs to cut us a little slack too.? Guys like me should not hold it against law enforcement when we get penalized for a small offense in a way that is commensurate with the offense, but we should object to a penalty that inflicts a severe and lasting financial penalty for a trivial offense.

The final insult is that the government that passes this law is the same government that has been in the forefront of rewarding and subsidizing destructive behavior that is detrimental to society for so long, at the expense of better citizens.? This is just a further step in that direction, brought to us by the party that is supposed to oppose this sort of thing.

Think about it before you jump to the defense of such a law.