Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248
Post Number: 779 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 9:59 am: | |
Va. Enacted Bad-Driver Fees Despite Red Flags http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07 /23/AR2007072301631.html?refer rer=email RICHMOND, July 23 -- Virginia lawmakers imposed steep new fees on bad drivers this year despite warning signs from states with similar programs that they cause a surge in unlicensed motorists and have crippling effects on the poor. The licenses of tens of thousands of motorists in New Jersey and Michigan have been suspended because they cannot afford the fees, and little evidence has emerged that such fines improve highway safety, according to state officials and studies. Numerous lawmakers, judges and social activists in both states have sought to either repeal the fees or make major changes in how they are collected. But once the programs are implemented, they are difficult to get rid of, because state lawmakers are unwilling to give up the revenue they raise, judges and lawmakers said. "I think it is a very destructive piece of legislation that is designed primarily for revenue purposes and is disguised as a highway safety measure," said William C. Buhl, a Circuit Court judge in Van Buren County, Mich. "In my opinion, it increases the dangers on the highways because it creates an enormous, growing pool of unlicensed motorists." |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1665 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 10:07 am: | |
"In February, Virginia...voted overwhelmingly to assess fees as high as $3,000, payable over three years, on felony and misdemeanor convictions for ...reckless and drunken driving." I seriously don't see how anyone could have an issue with that |
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1
Post Number: 9614 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 10:27 am: | |
You left out the words 'such as' which makes me wonder what other fees for what other offenses. As I see it you can't charge enough for drunk driving but that is just one piece. Reckless driving can be pretty broad but I would probably support that. Until one sees the entre schedule of fees it is hard to say it is fair or not. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2898 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 10:28 am: | |
Would you mind changing the thread title from "raping the poor" to "raping bad drivers"??? |
Dougw Member Username: Dougw
Post Number: 1815 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 11:48 am: | |
All the more reason why we need better mass transit in this region. Some people (i.e. bad drivers) just don't belong behind the wheel. As it is right now, they are forced to get back behind the wheel with suspended licenses/no insurance, because there are no good alternatives. |
Dannaroo Member Username: Dannaroo
Post Number: 97 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 12:40 pm: | |
DaninDC, I think Yvette is just pointing out what we all already know... that poor people are generally bad drivers and are therefore going to be more directly affected by this new legislation than those of us who are not poor (we are presumably not poor because we are better drivers). |
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus
Post Number: 1670 Registered: 06-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 12:59 pm: | |
JT1: It said the fines were limited to felonies and misdemeanor convictions...that's good enough for me |
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248
Post Number: 782 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 1:20 pm: | |
Dannaroo, I seriously like your sick sense of humor! Basically this law says, if you can afford it, you can keep breaking the law as much as you want to. Yep, nothing like good old democracy at work. Take from the poor and give to the rich! (P.S. Since JUDGES and POLICE oppose this policy, let's assume they know more about it than some of us do.) |
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch
Post Number: 2361 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 2:52 pm: | |
What a great country we live in that even the poor have cars. |
Trainman Member Username: Trainman
Post Number: 458 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 3:56 pm: | |
The poor need cars. The cars have won and the buses have lost. Livonia, MI U.S.A. is proof of this. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 1222 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 4:12 pm: | |
>What a great country we live in that even the poor have cars. Too bad they don't have insurance. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 2906 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 4:45 pm: | |
quote:What a great country we live in that even the poor have cars. What a great country we live in that even if you're poor, you have to own a car. |
Patrick Member Username: Patrick
Post Number: 4729 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 8:13 pm: | |
What a great country we live in that even if you're a fat kid your mother won't let you walk 2 blocks to school. |
Dabirch Member Username: Dabirch
Post Number: 2368 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 - 8:21 pm: | |
What a great country we live in that even those with educations and access to computers-- and some even with an innate knowledge of all things that we lesser Detroiter's can only dream of understanding -- don't get sarcasm. |
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248
Post Number: 783 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 12:10 am: | |
If you can't argue the merits, change the topic, right? |
Michmeister Member Username: Michmeister
Post Number: 211 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 1:06 am: | |
What a great country we live in that even the poor have cars. Hey, everyone needs a roof over their heads! How`s that for sarcasm? |
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1592 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 4:35 am: | |
I don't know all the ins and outs, but some of the states doing this type of stuff aren't doing it only for DUIs. They are doing it for things like speeding in construction zones (even when no workers are present). They are also levying heavy fees and fines above speeding tickets. For instance a $200 speeding ticket will then have a $500 "punishment penalty" if you go over 10mph over the limit, then it goes to $1000 the next time, etc. Add to it that they also then fine you for every point on your license. So you pay the $200, then the $500, then something like $100 for each point on your license. It gets to be just INSANE. This is a blatent money grab, and eventually citizens won't take it. Unfortunately it takes awhile. And before you start going off about how you just shouldn't speed, let me rebut that by saying EVERYONE speeds, and that nearly all speed limits are not based on any sort of study of any kind. They are set at some arbitrary level by local politicians (the same ones who put these fines into place) at a level designed not to increase safety or move traffic efficiently but only to bring in revenue through traffic speed violations. Plenty of studies out there that limits don't really matter, and changes in limits dont really affect accident rates or fatalities. We just all accept the speeding today because we all know the chances we'll get caught are low, we pay our couple hundred bucks to the man every few years we get pulled over, and we go on our way. When they start lowering limits, issuing extremely excessive fines, and start using photo radar to catch people, you bet people are going to start demanding a change to the system. We won't get getting raped every time we go 26 in a 25. And further proof it is about money and not safety?? Why can I PAY my way out of a ticket on my record? I take some BS "traffic safety class" online for 45 minutes. I pay the $25 fee for that. I then pay the fine, the administration fee, and then the get-out-of-a-ticket fee to the state/county/city as well, and POOF, ticket off my record. If it was about safety, wouldn't/shouldn't they want that on my record? Its all a bunch of BS. Total BS. |
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81
Post Number: 1593 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 4:40 am: | |
Indiana, and Mass recently introduced similar legislation. I think IL might be doing it too. Some readings: http://www.autoblog.com/2007/0 7/20/new-fines-for-teen-speede rs-in-ma-come-in-one-size-xxxl / http://www.autoblog.com/2007/0 5/27/welcome-to-indiana-home-o f-the-1-000-speeding-ticket-an d-that/ http://www.caranddriver.com/co lumns/10120/give-em-a-brake-wh at-they-want-are-your-bucks.ht ml |
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 2876 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 6:30 am: | |
As one of the few drivers on this board; based upon the driving habits of Michigan drivers that I've seen firsthand, I have absolutely no problem with people with bad driving skills/inconsiderate drivers getting dinged a little hard in the wallet regardless of their social status. |
Ramcharger Member Username: Ramcharger
Post Number: 384 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 7:50 am: | |
The constitutionally of Driver Responsibility Fees is questionable. It is up to the courts to impose penalties, not the Secretary of State. Besides, do you people really think that when a person is driving drunk that they care if they have a valid driver’s license? Draconian fees such as those imposed by the Michigan Secretary of State do nothing to make the roads safer; they just force more people to drive illegally and without insurance, thus making the roads less safe. |
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 2879 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 7:52 am: | |
If they want to pull a Paris Hilton/Lindsey Lohan move then I won't have any problems with having their vehicles confiscated, and sold if necessary, to remedy the above problem. |
Ramcharger Member Username: Ramcharger
Post Number: 385 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 7:53 am: | |
Mcp001 said...
quote:"As one of the few drivers on this board;" What makes you think that? |
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 2880 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 7:54 am: | |
Do you have a CDL? |
Ramcharger Member Username: Ramcharger
Post Number: 386 Registered: 05-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 7:55 am: | |
Yes |
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001
Post Number: 2881 Registered: 11-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 7:56 am: | |
Well, that's at least two of us then. |
Aarne_frobom Member Username: Aarne_frobom
Post Number: 60 Registered: 10-2005
| Posted on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 - 9:34 am: | |
The major problem with the Driver Responsibility Act is its "debtor's prison" feature: the $1,000 tax on conviction for operating without a license ($750 in Virginia). While there are $2,000 taxes on drunk driving, causing injury, and other severe violations, it's the suspended-license tax that makes this law so nasty. Here's how it works: A low-income driver gets a speeding ticket (not hard to do, as cities ramp up citation issuance to make up for diminished revenue sharing aid). The driver doesn't have the $130 or so to pay the fine, costs, and surtaxes, and ignores the citation instead of going to court to fight the ticket or plead for a low fine or a payment schedule. His license is suspended for failure to answer the ticket, costing him a $125 reinstatement fee if he wants it back. Now, the next time he's pulled over, he gets another $130 speeding ticket, another $130 ticket for the suspended license and, if the court enters a conviction for the suspended license, a $1,000 driver responsibility tax. (And, if his car was impounded because no one could legally drive it away, he's got to pay for the towing and cruelly-inflated storage charges, often $100/day.) Now our driver is maybe $1,500 in the red. If he also couldn't afford insurance, there are fines for that, too, and another tax of either $400 or $1,000, depending on how the traffic cop writes up the citation. When this law was passed, I expected that the inevitable opposition would come from urban drivers, but perhaps they never noticed the huge additional costs on top of Detroit car-insurance premiums. Instead, most of the complaint has come from rural drivers, who HAVE to keep driving in order to get to jobs and support themselves and their families. Repeated convictions can put these drivers many thousands of dollars in debt to the state as they try to get to their $8/hour jobs. And incidentally, many police cars now have automated devices that "run the plates" of every car the patrol car encounters, alerting the officer to cars registered to unlicensed or wanted drivers. |
Bob_cosgrove Member Username: Bob_cosgrove
Post Number: 561 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 3:30 am: | |
Aarne mentions the high cost of auto insurance in the inner city. I live in Detroit and until recently switching companies paid $3,600 per year in auto insurance. My girlfriend who lives less than 8 miles away in the center of Grosse Pointe, but 1/2 block from Detroit on Mack Avenue pays $900. I still pay over $3,000. We are both good drivers. I live in a Detroit Historic District, keep my car garaged every night and have had no claims. Having spent a career in life insurance, I understand well the purpose of any insurance is to spread the risk. Why not spread the risk over the whole state or a least the five county metropolitan area. This has been a failure of the Michigan State Insurance Commission for time immemorial. I know that may be unpopular with non-Detroiters, but Detroit is still our major city and with taxes on homes so high, it's just driving people from living in the city. Having moved here in 1965, I pay $3,300 in taxes thanks to the Headlee Amendment that limits my tax increase to inflation. Near neighbors who moved in in 1998 pay $14,000! And, they've had their home on the market for over two years and can't sell, but it isn't the asking price. Taxes and insurance are killing the city. Interesting, my homeowners insurance is very comparable to my girlfriend's in Grosse Pointe. Bob Cosgrove |
Diehard Member Username: Diehard
Post Number: 79 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Thursday, July 26, 2007 - 5:15 pm: | |
Don't they already fine the bejeezus out of a driver for the actual offenses? How can they justify throwing another round of fines at them even after they've cleared those up and jumped through all the hoops to get their licenses back? It definitely sounds like a money grab. But, as with DUIs, the political mindset today is "no punishment is harsh enough!" You won't find anyone in power who'll stand up against this. |
Umcs Member Username: Umcs
Post Number: 6 Registered: 06-2007
| Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 10:48 am: | |
The Sec. of State fines people who drive badly or without insurance and people complain that it is unfair? I don't buy it. I think it's just like anything else. People complain about the "government" because their being oppressed. How hard is it to slow down? Can't afford insurance on a new car? Buy an older one. If you still can't afford it because of rates, raise holy you know what with the government about that. The underlying problems are the issue here. I never understand why people don't actually attack the problem rather than a (misguided perhaps) solution. If those fees are honestly such a hardship, maybe the drivers who keep getting assessed might want to holler for mass transit instead of continuing to be a potential danger on the roads? |
Diehard Member Username: Diehard
Post Number: 81 Registered: 03-2005
| Posted on Friday, July 27, 2007 - 3:21 pm: | |
Umsc - they DO holler for better mass transit, and for lower insurance rates (see Bob Cosgrove's post above for what it costs in the city - outrageous), and have been for years, but nothing's come from it but a lot of hot air. Fining people for not being able to afford insurance in a metro area without reliable mass transit doesn't solve anything. It just piles on people for "driving while poor." |