Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look, we all know the dangers of driving drunk and speeding. That is not what this is about; it’s about Government trying to get more revenue. Government uses safety as an excuse to raise fines and gain more revenue. Government does not care about my safety or your safety, they just want more of our money and over the years Government has increasingly used "safety" as a way to gain more revenue from its taxpayers. This is nothing but a smoke and mirror tactic. Virginia is trying to make up for revenue that is being wasted to begin with by increasing moving violation fines. Again, using "safety" as the excuse when in reality they are trying to make up for their lack of spending the taxpayers’ money wisely.
Here in Georgia the state built a highway that has a toll, Ga. 400. We (citizens) were told that the toll was going to be used to pay for the road. If I remember correctly the road was paid for 2 years after it opened, the toll still remains. Government has said it remains to pay for “improvements” and future widening. Anything and everything government does to improve our lives is going to cost us EXTRA. What happens to all the tax collected? Why must we pay for improvements that we already get taxed for?
Look at the school systems; take for example any small town that has a population increase. The town has more families moving to the town which causes the school system to have to build more schools. What always happens? The county ends up raising your sales tax or property taxes. Why? More families moving into the county = more tax collected which should be enough to fund more schools, but this is never the case. The county uses "education" as an excuse to yet again raise your taxes. In most cases the tax increase NEVER goes away once it is implemented. We are taxed enough!!! The money collected in taxes should be enough to fund all the BS we as taxpayers are paying for NOW. "Education and "safety" are used; I would have to guess it’s used 80% of the time by government as the excuse to raise fines and taxes. We as citizens just keep allowing it to happen time and time again.
Excellent post. Enough of these and I might renew my faith in the citizenry to not be so gullible and willing hostages to its elected leaders. Any new law, any new tax, surcharge, fee...QUESTION authority. It often goes back to nothing more than a simple need for increased revenue due to irresponsible spending. I will NEVER support any political candidate on the state, federal, and even oft times on the local level that proposes increasing taxes on anyone, even the rich. There is simply no need, as the real culprit is out-of-control spending and absurd contractual obligations never approved by me in the first place that feed the greedy fat-cat public unions. As for the drinking-and-driving issue, some of this is reflective of caving into emotional pleas (which is why I DESPISE the soccer-mom fragment of the voting bloc) as much as it has to do with revenue. Groups like MADD are well-intended most of the time, but when there is some of the "pushing of the envelope" by utilizing falsified and misleading stats, that is where I put my foot down.
The BAC limits are presumptive evidence of driving under the influence. A driver can be convicted with a lower BAC if the evidence supports impaired driving. If you had viewed the accidents I have, the term arbitrary would never have came up. The lower BAC levels are based on studies and stats from the National Highway Safety Institute, and a host of Unversity research projects.
If you can direct me to an objective, analytical study which demonstrates that the difference between 0.10 and 0.08 blood alcohol is a significant issue in identifying impairment, I would like to read it. As far as seeing horrific traffic fatalities, do you know if the driver had a blood alcohol rate between 0.08 and 0.10? Or was it just under the umbrella of drunk driving?
Traffic offenders face whopping additional fees that live on long after they've paid their fines. It's part of a growing 'driver responsibility' trend that targets chronic offenders.
By MSN Money staff and wires
Traffic patrols have long been known as roving tax collectors. But in Virginia, they really are collecting taxes.
Starting July 1, an array of traffic offenses, from expired licenses to speeding, come with a "civil remedial fee" attached. That means a motorist convicted of reckless driving (75 mph in a 55 zone would qualify) faces not only a fine of up to $2,500 and a year in jail, but a non-negotiable $350-a-year tax for three years. The law forbids judges from waiving or reducing the fee.
Virginia's new $3,550 speeding ticket - MSN Money (broken link)
[CUT - DO NOT REPOST COPYRIGHTED ARTICLES!]
The next big problem will be dealing with "felony evasion".
At this point, it's almost a given.
This of course puts innocent lives in danger, but who cares right?
It's the drivers fault. He should have stopped and accepted the $3500 ticket because he was wrong, lol.
This is what happens when folks don't consider the repercussions of their actions.
If you can direct me to an objective, analytical study which demonstrates that the difference between 0.10 and 0.08 blood alcohol is a significant issue in identifying impairment, I would like to read it. As far as seeing horrific traffic fatalities, do you know if the driver had a blood alcohol rate between 0.08 and 0.10? Or was it just under the umbrella of drunk driving?
I was the coordinator of our Major Crash Team, I am a certified Reconstruction expert. My team was called out on all fatalities, multiple/life threatening injuries, injuries involving commercial motor vehicles, and pedestrian fatalities/injuries. The drivers were always checked for BAC, alive or deceased. I have worked accidents with fatalities where the proximate cause of the accident involved a driver with BAC levels between .03 - .31%.
" Current studies have demonstrated that impairment at a BAC of .02% is measurable not only in laboratory studies of divided attention, as indicated by prior research, but in field investigations of fatal crashes. Attending to lane position, curves, intersections, traffic control devices, presence of other vehicles, etc., while driving is particularly difficult, even at relatively low levels of intoxication. A BAC of .02% can be obtained in most drinkers after approximately 2 standard drinks in an hour, depending upon various biological factors (e.g., body size, gender, rates of absorption and metabolism). At BACs well below .08-.10%, variability in lane position, increased brake use, decreased steering ability, gear changing and steering errors are commonly detected during closed course driving tests."
Rutgers University Center of Alcohol Studies - Online Facts: Driving While Impaired (http://alcoholstudies.rutgers.edu/onlinefacts/dwi.html - broken link)
Alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes kill someone every 31 minutes and nonfatally injure someone every two minutes(NHTSA 2006). Impaired Driving Facts - NCIPC
Anyone notice that it will now pay to hire a lawyer to fight your ticket? Nice way of the lawyers to generate more business for themselves.
The chief author of the bill is a lawyer for a firm that will reap millions from this.
Apparently conflict of interest is no longer an ethical concern for attorneys and legislators. How nice.
"When setting speed limits, care should be exercised that primary
consideration is given to safety, not revenue enhancement. Driver
perception of entrapment from speed limits set unreasonably low to
generate income erodes the credibility of traffic regulation.
Where the courts have broad discretion in assessing penalties for
speeding violations, inconsistent treatment of violations can lead to a
public perception that speed limit laws are arbitrary and capricious."
- National Tranportation Research Board (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr254.pdf)
Taken the above snippet and applying it in different scenario, but staying within the confine of the intent, I would like to share my thought. Leveraging the above example and applying it to the new VA law/statute; it is geared towards revenue as the primary factor which may or may not increase safety. However, inherently as supported by research from the National Transportation Research Board this type of activity has been shown to long erode the publics ability to conform to a normalized standard (i.e. speed limit of 55) and the end result is an overall decrease in safety (generically speaking fatalities and general injuries). Safety is a complex issue/solution that requires distinct and tailored solutions in deferent geographical localities and within municipalities, but most importantly requires a great majority (>85% let say for discussion sake) to adequately conform to be successful (read the PDF for more insight as to why I select this number).
I fail to see how this will increase any long term safety and I would question the longevity of this new expected revenue stream. If the higher fees do work as a deterrent, then by default this will mean a decreasing revenue stream which equates to a failed business model (Since the modus operandi is to generate consistent or even a growth revenue stream). If people as a whole have disregard for this new statute in the proportionate ratio they do today for existing statutes on traffic then I see how the revenue stream is viable, but inherently means that safety is taking a back seat and either A) safety will stay neutral or get worse as a function of revenue of the statute, but cannot get better otherwise the purpose of the new law is void as a revenue stream. Those on the legislative branch are business minded people (government is a form of business) and understand the basics of a revenue stream and wouldn’t waste their time passing a law that would fizzle out without some serious injection of capital into the government and perhaps their pockets. Notwithstanding, the business savvy of the legislative branch may not be astute as if it were government would be more efficient and maybe able to leverage the other business tactic to increase available capital be reducing operating costs instead of playing with the other end of the equation cash inflow / revenue.
Therefore, there is no true public service being done here in my assessment, but a disservice by those that are elected to perform public service on our behalf as the only outcome of this statute/law is to line the government with more of the money earned by the people and for those select few who may indirectly benefit from the externalities of the statute (i.e. law firms).
If you argue that public service is in fact being done here because the government now has more of a means to support other social programs that do benefit some or most of the public which to me is more redistribution of wealth (a.k.a. Marxian socialism) then this statute is up your alley and against the founding fathers of this constitution and ideals of this great nation.
If I remember correctly aren't radar detectors illegal in Virginia? Seems like I had to hide mine when I drove through a few years back.
Thats pretty hard core.
Yes, it is illegal to have a radar detector.
I did a project out there and my neighbor was a HP. I was talking with him one evening and he said that they had a Radar Detector Detector. I said, HUH? There's no such thing. He laughed and said, "What we do is station a couple of HP's on the side of the road. Then one of us gets up on a bridge and we hit the traffic going away from us with radar. Then we call the other guys and tell them which brake lights come on. They pull them over and 99% of the time, those cars have radar detectors." haha
So if you have one and it beeps, don't hit your brakes, just take your foot off the accelerator.
I did a project out there and my neighbor was a HP. I was talking with him one evening and he said that they had a Radar Detector Detector. I said, HUH? There's no such thing. He laughed and said, "What we do is station a couple of HP's on the side of the road. Then one of us gets up on a bridge and we hit the traffic going away from us with radar. Then we call the other guys and tell them which brake lights come on. They pull them over and 99% of the time, those cars have radar detectors." haha
So if you have one and it beeps, don't hit your brakes, just take your foot off the accelerator.
That is funny!
However, while that may be a joke by the HP, it may also be reality. What is not a joke tho' is that there really are detectors for 'radar detectors' [besides detectors for detectors trying to detect radar detectors... but that is another subject ]. If you've ever had a radar detector {RD} or been in a vehicle that had one, you may recall hearing an alarm, yet nobody was near you, besides either a building or another passenger vehicle... well, couple things: either the security system in the building or another RD triggered the RD within your car. Based on that, its not that difficult then to create a device that can 'hear' the electronic noise [RF - radio frequencies] that is being created by your RD - that device is then the RDD. However, as in so many other things in life and esp in electronics, this device is not foolproof, as there will be false positives, along w/ the fact that the device is not really that capable to pinpoint exactly which vehicle has a RD within it, just that one is possibly in the 'area', until it is quite close to your RD. One idea is to turn off your RD as soon as you hear the alarm, or are confident that the alarm is real - if the RD is off, the RDD can not find it. Of course, many HP's find it more satisfying to ticket a person that has a RD... Fun in this cat and mouse game... Such as jammers for radar, lasers,,,,
BTW, besides letting foot for the gas, also down-shift [if such can be done safe manner].
To Nirvana Guy, the Republicans control the state legislature(not for long I'm sure after this fiasco!!), not Democrats. We have now elected a democratic governor and new senator. The republican legistors(or should I say the lobby of big business) has stalled past needed highway construction for years and our state now can't afford to pay for needed construction without raising taxes(a bad word for republicans). We have the money for transportation but the republicans refused to spend it as they only want to protect "their" turf.
The new fines are meant to raise money to make it look like the republicans
are doing something about transportation--without raising taxes. These fines do not apply to any out of state drivers, only Virginians. It is hurting the middle class, poor or those who can't afford these fines. Doesn't this look exactly like what is happened in Washington? People, wake up out there!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read these studies......
but that is another subject 
]. If you've ever had a radar detector {RD} or been in a vehicle that had one, you may recall hearing an alarm, yet nobody was near you, besides either a building or another passenger vehicle... well, couple things: either the security system in the building or another RD triggered the RD within your car. Based on that, its not that difficult then to create a device that can 'hear' the electronic noise [RF - radio frequencies] that is being created by your RD - that device is then the RDD. However, as in so many other things in life and esp in electronics, this device is not foolproof, as there will be false positives, along w/ the fact that the device is not really that capable to pinpoint exactly which vehicle has a RD within it, just that one is possibly in the 'area', until it is quite close to your RD. One idea is to turn off your RD as soon as you hear the alarm, or are confident that the alarm is real - if the RD is off, the RDD can not find it. Of course, many HP's find it more satisfying to ticket a person that has a RD... 
Our state has gone crazy!!!
