Speed II - Citizen Revolt

[MikeK]

Kaine: fees only for Va. motorists
GOP lawmakers' bill had included out-of-state drivers

Tuesday, Jul 17, 2007 - 12:09 AM

By TYLER WHITLEY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's office was behind the exclusion of out-of-state motorists from new hefty driving fees that have generated considerable outrage around the state.

Republican members of the General Assembly have taken most of the heat, but their original transportation bill in this year's General Assembly session included out-of-state motorists.

Kaine spokesman Kevin Hall said that as the bill was being reviewed, "we received an awful lot of advice from people who had concerns about the practical issue in attempting to collect a fee from an out-of-state driver."

Del. David B. Albo, R-Fairfax, a leading proponent of the fees, said the legislature could not impose fines -- which can be levied on out-of-state motorists and collected -- rather than fees, because under the Virginia Constitution, fines go to the Literary Fund for educational purposes.

Non-Virginia motorists were dropped when Kaine proposed 65 amendments to the Republican-sponsored legislation. The Kaine substitute bill was adopted April 4 at the assembly's reconvened session.

The legislation passed the House of Delegates 85-15 and the Senate 29-10. Both the governor and the legislative branch were eager to enact a bill that, for the first time in 21 years, would provide substantial new funding for roads and mass transit.

The fees, part of a $3 billion transportation package, are designed to raise about $65 million a year. The money goes to highway maintenance.

Kaine's spokesman said the governor also proposed some changes to the Republican legislation that would help motorists, including -- for the purpose of levying some of the fees -- starting July 1 with no demerit points assessed against Virginia motorists. The Republican bill would have continued demerit points from previous years, Hall said. The legislation went into effect July 1.

"We feel Virginians' concerns," said Hall, who added that Kaine would work with the assembly next year in trying to find a way to include out-of-state motorists.

Del. H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, the House majority leader, was conciliatory.

"I think he probably was advised that it would be difficult to collect," he said.

"It might have been better for all of us if he had left it in the bill," he added.

The fees cover not only serious driving offenses but many misdemeanors. For instance, a reckless-driving conviction mandates $1,050 in fees over a three-year period -- as does a misdemeanor conviction for failure to give a proper signal.

Any felony conviction results in $3,000 in fees, in three annual payments, on top of court-imposed penalties. Most misdemeanors, including driving with "below-standard tires," amount to $900.

The fees have stirred outrage and an online petition drive that has garnered close to 100,000 signatures. Petitioners appear most upset that the fees apply only to in-state motorists.

Republicans yesterday were not trying to make an issue of Kaine's role in the transportation package. Like Griffith, many feel that fees imposed on out-of-state motorists, if not unconstitutional, are at least uncollectable.

"If I could find a way to get out-of-state motorists, I'd do it," Albo said.

But he said the fees are based on demerit points, issued for bad driving. Virginia has no authority to assess points on out-of-state drivers, he said.

Albo and others have been promoting bad-driver fees for three years. Kaine endorsed them last year and again this year in his State of the Commonwealth address.
Contact Tyler Whitley at (804) 649-6780 or twhitley@timesdispatch.com.

Go Back
News | Sports | Entertainment/Living | Shopping/Classifieds | Weather | Opinion | Obituaries | Services/Contact Us
© 2007, Media General Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms & Conditions | Site Map
-- Part of the GatewayVa Network --
webmaster@inrich.com
A RealCities Network Site

And of course traffic is bumper to bumper because no one wants to speed (except for out of Staters).

I doubt the two are related.

[Bill Glasheen]

And of course traffic is bumper to bumper because no one wants to speed (except for out of Staters).

I doubt the two are related.

Actually Ben has a point, Mike. I've talked about this in great detail on other threads.

Traffic engineers and lawmakers who haven't done their homework often find themsevles creating gridlock in the name of safety. And that gridlock paradoxically makes a bad safety situation worse rather than better. Oops!

Ben is describing very important safety issues.

1) The bill is decreasing the distance between drivers, thereby increasing the risk of an accident.

2) The bill is creating myriad problems from speed differences to high risk behavior such as rapid lane changes and tailgating. Whenever you force a speed limit away from the 85th percentile of the prevailing speed, bad things happen. The evidence on this is overwhelming.

Richmond got it right when they increased the speed coming into town and widened the lanes in the "mixing bowl." I've driven that I-64 East trek now for 15 years. The improvement is nothing short of dramatic. Gridlock is gone. Traffic flows smoothly. Distances between cars have increased. Time on road has decreased. Lane switching is almost nonexistant. My gas mileage has improved. And stress levels have gone WAY down.

A lawyer with a conflict of interest (Albro) is the last person you want playing traffic engineer via laws and taxes.

What do you want? Do you want to save lives, improve traffic flow, reduce gas consumption, and lower stress, or do you want to collect more fees and abuse drivers whose behavior you don't like? That's the way I see it. Read the comments on the petition; I am not alone.

- Bill

[MikeK]

Bill, Can you give evidence that the bill is causing all you've reported?

[Bill Glasheen]

Bill, Can you give evidence that the bill is causing all you've reported?

As a self-described "driver", I make it a point to understand about these situations, Mike. I love driving. I love good cars. I take my driving seriously to the point that I gave up drinking. (Most important reason is as an example to my boys).

To start with, I've read literature on varying speed limits and the consequences. Any good researcher who understands first principles should be able to predict the results of change on a system.

The best evidence can be found in the unsolicited comments from the over 100,000 signees on the petition, Mike. They reinforce what Ben just told you. That's why I supported his claim. There is page after page after page of it. And if you hadn't noticed, I've been reading. The comments are passionate, informative, and in some cases highly entertaining.

I fully understand the thought process behind the decision to impose this law. However, I don't think appropriate consideration was given to the fact that these new laws are dangerous. In the past two weeks I have witnessed numerous "near collisions" involving people with out of state tags. People with Virginia tags are obeying the posted speed limit and the out of state drivers appear to be frustrated and dart in and out of traffic, speeding and tailgating. I drive up and down Interstate I-95 and didn't think it could be anymore dangerous than it already was. I was wrong!

Laurie's comments dovetail beautifully with those of researchers on the field of speed management.

Is this rigorous evidence? Of course not. It is one of many, many anecdotes on the petition.

Is there ANY evidence that the bill is improving traffic safety? Well... We're all waiting. Pages upon pages of this testimony trumps the contrary point of view at this point in time.

- Bill

[MikeK]

Bill, Can you give evidence that the bill is causing all you've reported?

As a self-described "driver", I make it a point to understand about these situations, Mike. I love driving. I love good cars. I take my driving seriously to the point that I gave up drinking. (Most important reason is as an example to my boys).

To start with, I've read literature on varying speed limits and the consequences. Any good researcher who understands first principles should be able to predict the results of change on a system.

The best evidence can be found in the unsolicited comments from the over 100,000 signees on the petition, Mike. They reinforce what Ben just told you. That's why I supported his claim. There is page after page after page of it. And if you hadn't noticed, I've been reading. The comments are passionate, informative, and in some cases highly entertaining.- Bill

So I'd take that as "no".

[Bill Glasheen]

So I'd take that as "no".

I gave you direct testimony from the petition site, Mike. I can supply her full name and place of residence if you like (PM). There's plenty more just like it. Testimony IS evidence.

Why would you ask this question about "evidence" in the first place? What part of what I posted did you not understand? You have absolutely baffled me.

And do you have anything better to counter this? All (100%) evidence I have seen so far points to this law being a safety disaster.

On another thread, I posted a review paper of articles on the subject of speed management. It was fairly in-depth, and supported my assertion that maintaining a consistent speed was very important.

- Bill

[MikeK]

Gubnor Timmy and his butt buddy Billy Howell show bipartisanship. I've heard that these aren't fines that will be applied to Timmy's roads for NOVA scheme, but fees which will go toward his pre-school for all children of VA scheme. Does this mean there is another shoe that will be dropped?

Political leaders defend fees

Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 - 04:31 PM Updated: 05:08 PM


Politics makes for strange car-poolers.

The state's Democratic governor, Timothy M. Kaine, and the Republican speaker of the House, William Howell, this afternoon defended steep new fines for crummy drivers. The pair isn't ruling out changes, but not until the General Assembly returns to Richmond in January.

There's been a huge uproar over the fines, some of which could cost Virginia motorists thousands of dollars for traffic offenses. The fines are projected to generate about $65 million, and are part of $3 billion program to improve roads and rails.

Particularly gauling to critics of the penalties: they apply only to in-state motorists. Kaine and Howell and other legislators say that was done because they believe it's easier to collect fines from Virginians than residents of other states.

However, Kaine and others say they'll use the run-up to the 2008 General Assembly to look into ways to extend the fines to non-Virginians. Meantime, members of both parties say the law, as written, will promote highway safety.

Kaine and Howell were joined by other General Assembly GOP leaders. No Democratic legislative leaders attended, prompting a reporter to ask Kaine whether that means some in his party plan to make an issue of the fines in the fall campaign.

For more on this story, read tomorrow's Times-Dispatch.

[Bill Glasheen]

I've heard that these aren't fines that will be applied to Timmy's roads for NOVA scheme, but fees which will go toward his pre-school for all children of VA scheme.

You heard wrong.

The whole deal with the "fees" is because the Virginia state constitution dictates that traffic "fines" must go to the State Literary Fund. So with most of the car tax killed by a previous Republican administration, they snuck in these fees to ante up $65 million for their $3 billion transportation program. It's basically a hidden tax to replace a tax killed by Gilmore et al.

Of course once money gets into the hands of politicians, you just never know whose pork barrel project it'll end up funding.

- Bill

Source: Richmond Times Dispatch

[Bill Glasheen]

What I love when politicians have done something monumentally stupid is that you find friends from all walks of life. This article in the local Richmond paper is fascinating in terms of which groups are rallying the troups, and what sectors of society are being affected in the most heinous ways. And isn't it strange that some of the possible consequences of the law hark back to the days of discrimination in the south where blacks used civil disobedience to flood the jails with themselves and their children - just to make a point.

This reminds me quite a bit about something else that really, really bothers me. That would be taxes on tobacco. Why? We all know tobacco is evil, right? You've heard me rail about it, right? Well... What happens when the gravy train starts to dry? Well... Government makes sure that Big Tobacco is able to survive. They too get addicted to tobacco, only in a perverse way. An incentive is created whereby government needs and wants people to smoke so they can get all these fees.

The obscene part of this whole thing is that it's an unabashed attempt to raise revenue. They've even estimated the amount of revenue they want to generate. So what happens if you're falling short or the highway programs get a bit over budget? Why you just set up another one of these 4-day events Virginia likes to do where they give away literally thousands of tickets in short order. Can you say ca-ching?

In other words, government needs people to drive badly to make their highway funds budget. Please tell me what bonehead came up with an incentive like that.

- Bill

Fees face challenges in courts
Petition filed in Henrico questions application of law

Saturday, Jul 21, 2007 - 01:05 AM Updated: 02:25 AM

While state lawmakers try to stem fallout from new hefty traffic-violation fees, attorneys are preparing legal challenges in local courts, which will be ground zero for a battle over the fairness of the law.

Two local attorneys have filed a suit in Henrico County General District Court challenging the constitutionality of the law, which went into effect July 1.

Under the legislation, in-state drivers convicted of certain misdemeanor and felony traffic offenses must pay "civil remedial fees" that can cost thousands of dollars. The first drivers ticketed under the law are expected to show up on local court dockets in the next few weeks.

Now that motorists face fees of up to $3,000 over three years for a felony driving conviction, area attorneys expect fewer drivers to write a check for the fine and more to hire lawyers to fight the charge. For traffic-court prosecutors and judges, that means a larger caseload, more deals to work out and more trials.

Also, several lawyers warn that a potential problem is what happens once courts begin imposing the fees on people who cannot pay.

They will land in already crowded jails. And taking care of inmates is expensive.

"That's the people who face an adverse consequence from this -- poor people," said G. Manoli Loupassi, former Richmond City Council president who handles traffic cases as a defense attorney. Loupassi is challenging incumbent Del. Katherine B. Waddell, I-Richmond, for the 68th District House seat this year.

Richmond attorneys Esther Windmueller and Craig Cooley filed a petition in Henrico General District Court arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it applies only to in-state drivers. They contend it violates the Equal Protection Clause.

That clause, part of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prohibits states from denying any person in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

On Tuesday, the same morning Windmueller is scheduled to address that filing, she has a client due in court on a driving on a suspended-license charge. That case is one of the first in the state to go in front of a judge since the fees took effect and Windmueller plans to challenge the law. If convicted, the driver faces a fee of $250 a year for three years.

The state attorney general's office will send an attorney to argue a motion to dismiss the claim that the law is unconstitutional, according to J. Tucker Martin, spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell.

Other courts are waiting to see what will happen with the first case, Windmueller said.

"If we prevail in Henrico, then I suspect that other judges in those jurisdictions may, in making their rulings, follow the reasoning of the first judges that rule on it," she said.

Richmond city courts probably will not see their first case for several weeks, said Elizabeth Hobbs, supervising assistant commonwealth's attorney for the traffic division. She said that court has not had any defense motions filed, but as things stand, she expects to see additional traffic cases being tried and in turn, a heavier caseload.

"I think that's a very reasonable likelihood -- people having more at jeopardy will be more likely to contest charges that they would just take in stride prior to these fees," she said.

The General Assembly approved the stiffer fees as part of its mammoth transportation package. The bill that went to Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's office levied the same fees to in-state and out-of-state drivers. Kaine changed the bill to omit out-of-state drivers over practical concerns of collecting the fees from non-Virginia drivers.

Lawmakers approved the final version of the legislation. Kaine's revisions were adopted at the assembly's spring session in April. The legislation passed the House of Delegates, 85-15, and the Senate 29-10.

An increasing number of lawmakers are calling for a special session to tweak the law, but Republicans and Kaine on Thursday said they will wait until the 2008 General Assembly session starts in January to address changes. Republican proponents of the bill say the fees are mired in misinformation and that safe drivers should have no fear.

Until then, the courts will hash it out. Loupassi said the constitutionality of the law is something he is looking into for his clients.

"Obviously it's going to be an issue, by the simple fact that you've got a situation where similarly situated people are being treated differently," he said.

House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, told reporters at the Thursday news conference that he thinks the state courts would rule that it is constitutional to limit the penalties to Virginians. Griffith is a lawyer who handles traffic cases.

As of Friday, more than 143,000 people had signed an online petition supporting a repeal of the fees, and lawmakers were still stewing over holding a summer session. Lawyers were mulling arguments for their cases and courts are watching for the first rulings.

"The sky is not falling," Loupassi said. "We have a very resilient system."

- Richmond Times Dispatch

[benzocaine]

On Tuesday, the same morning Windmueller is scheduled to address that filing, she has a client due in court on a driving on a suspended-license charge. That case is one of the first in the state to go in front of a judge since the fees took effect and Windmueller plans to challenge the law. If convicted, the driver faces a fee of $250 a year for three years.

What ***** is that an average Lawyer will run you about 200.00 an hour. If this poor person fighting the new fines may not only have to pay the fines , but may have to pay a lawyer as well.

[Bill Glasheen]

Ben

I'm willing to bet that a few lawyers will take a case like this on pro bono. One early, well-publicized victory like this will set you up for life.


................ This is an outrage!

As for those add-on fees in the thousands of dollars (on top of the fines), well people would be foolish NOT to fight. Expect some courtroom constipation in the near future - unless the law gets ruled unconstitutional.

- Bill

[MikeK]

List of laws and fees

Friday, Jul 20, 2007 - 08:28 PM


$250
# Driving after license suspended/revoked or in violation of terms of restricted license, based upon 18.2-272 (see statute for applicable reasons for suspension).
# Driving when license revoked or suspended.
# Driving on suspended or revoked license before providing required proof of financial responsibility.
# Driving a commercial motor vehicle while disqualified, when privilege to drive a commercial motor vehicle has been suspended or revoked, or when ordered out of service.
# Misdemeanor driving when license revoked for multiple DUI offenses or in violation of terms of restricted license issued after multiple DUI offenses.

$300
# Unauthorized use of motor vehicle - misdemeanor (value of vehicle $200 or less).
# Enter or set in motion vehicle without owners consent with intent to commit crime.
# Refusal to take a blood or breath test, 2nd offense.
# Refusal to take a blood or breath test, 3rd offense.
# Consuming alcoholic beverage while driving.
# driving motor vehicle without license.
# Knowingly authorizing a person whose license has been suspended for alcohol/ drug-related reason to drive motor vehicle.
# Driving without required license endorsement(s) for motorcycle, school bus or commercial motor vehicle.
# Driving in violation of restrictions on license with respect to the type of, or special mechanical control devices required on, a motor vehicle, or any other restrictions applicable to the licensee as the department may determine.
# Driving in violation of learner’s permit restrictions.
# Operating school bus without required license.
# Driving commercial motor vehicle - more than one operator’s license.
# Driving commercial motor vehicle without a valid commercial driver’s license or in violation of license restrictions or limitations.
# Violating commercial driver’s instruction permit.
# Operating commercial motor vehicle without required endorsement(s).
# Using a commercial motor vehicle in commission of a felony involving manufacturing, distributing or dispensing a controlled substance.
# Illegal use of a driver’s license - displaying or possessing fictitious, cancelled, revoked, suspended, or altered driver’s license; lending or knowingly permitting the use of one’s license by person not entitled thereto; displaying or representing as own a driver’s license not issued to person; reproducing driver’s license, permit, or special identification card issued by the department with the intent to commit an illegal act; and failing or refusing to surrender suspended, cancelled, or revoked driver’s license.
# Authorizing or knowingly permitting a motor vehicle owned or under one’s control to be driven by a person who has no right to drive.
# Misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle after being determined or adjudicated to be an habitual offender.
# Failing to notify law enforcement officer of an accident resulting in injury or death.
# Operating vehicle which is overweight or before payment of required registration fee, or refusal to have vehicle weighed.
# Operating or permitting the operation of an uninsured motor vehicle.
# Hauling prohibited cargo through tunnel.
# Disregarding police signal to stop; eluding or attempting to elude law enforcement officer in vehicle - misdemeanor.
# Stopping a vehicle to impede travel; blocking access to service area; damaging vehicle in commerce; threatening, harming or assaulting driver transporting property for hire.
# Reckless driving - passing or overtaking moving emergency vehicle giving audible signal and with activated warning lights.
# Aiding and abetting racing.
# Misdemeanor failing to stop at scene of accident. Misdemeanor if property damage $1,000 or less.
# Failing to report accident without injury but with damage to unattended property or vehicle.
# Improperly operating or riding motorcycle
# Failing to reduce speed or yield right of way when approaching stationary emergency vehicle displaying emergency lights.
# Failing to stop for pedestrian with guide dog or white cane.
# Selling below-standard tires; operating a motor vehicle with below-standard tires.
# Operating vehicle on public highway with obscene video image visible outside vehicle.
# Operating a motor vehicle equipped with operational nitrous oxide device.
# Operating school bus without warning device or without using warning device.
# Operating school bus without safety belt while bus in motion.
# Excess weight/height/size/speed on a restricted highway.
# Failing to discontinue operating overweight vehicle.
# Failing or refusing to drive vehicle to weigh station at direction of law enforcement officer.
# Violating size and weight permit. $350
# Misdemeanor general reckless driving - driving a vehicle recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - operating a vehicle not under proper control or with inadequate/improperly adjusted brakes.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - passing on crest of hill or curve in highway.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - driving when vehicle loaded so as to obstruct view to front or side or to interfere with driver’s control of vehicle.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - passing two vehicles abreast.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - driving two vehicles abreast in same lane.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - passing at railroad crossing or highway intersection.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - passing stopped school bus.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - failing to give adequate and timely signals of intention to turn, partly turn, slow down or stop.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - exceeding a reasonable speed under the circumstances and traffic conditions existing at the time, regardless of any posted speed limit.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - speeding 20 mph or more above speed limit or in excess of 80 mph.

$350
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - failing to stop when entering highway.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - operating any motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person on any driveway or premises of a church, school, recreational facility, or business property open to the public; or on the premises of any industrial establishment providing parking space for customers, patrons, or employees; or on any highway under construction or not yet open to the public.
# Misdemeanor reckless driving - racing.
# Aggressive driving; aggressive driving with intent to injure another.

$750
# Driving while intoxicated/under the influence, alcohol and/or drugs, 1st offense.
# Driving while intoxicated/under the influence, alcohol and/or drugs, 2nd offense.
# Person under 21 driving after illegally consuming alcohol.
# Driving a commercial motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .04 or more.
# Driving a commercial motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more, 1st offense.
# Driving a commercial motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more, 2nd offense.
# Driving a commercial motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or more, 3rd offense.
# Driving a commercial motor vehicle with specified blood level from drugs (see statute for specific levels).
# Driving a commercial motor vehicle under the influence drugs and/or alcohol, 1st offense.
# Driving a commercial motor vehicle under the influence drugs and/or alcohol, 2nd offense.
# Driving a commercial motor vehicle under the influence drugs and/or alcohol, 3rd offense.

$1,000
# Voluntary manslaughter by motor vehicle.
# Involuntary manslaughter by motor vehicle.
# Involuntary manslaughter as a result of driving under the influence.
# Aggravated involuntary manslaughter as a result of driving under the influence - showing reckless disregard for human life.
# Maiming as a result of driving while intoxicated.
# Unauthorized use of motor vehicle - felony (value of vehicle more than $200).
# Driving while intoxicated/under the influence, alcohol and/or drugs, 3rd or subsequent offense.
# Felony driving after license suspended/revoked or in violation of terms of restricted license, based upon 18.2-272 (see statute for applicable reasons for suspension). Felony if 3rd violation in 10 yrs.
# Felony operating a motor vehicle after being determined or adjudicated to be an habitual offender. Felony if endangering life, limb or property; second or subsequent offense; or other enhancing conditions as specified in 46.2-357 (see statute for specific conditions).
# Felony driving when revoked for multiple DUI offenses or in violation of terms of restricted license issued after multiple DUI offenses. Felony if endangering life, limb or property; second or subsequent offense; or other enhancing conditions as specified in 46.2-391 (d) (2) and (3). (see statute for specific conditions.)
# Disregarding police signal to stop. Felony if interfering with or endangering the operation of the law enforcement vehicle or endangering a person.
# Felony general reckless driving - driving a vehicle recklessly or at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - operating a vehicle not under proper control or with inadequate/improperly adjusted brakes. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - passing on crest of hill or curve in highway. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - driving when vehicle loaded so to obstruct view to front or side or to interfere with driver’s control of vehicle. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - passing two vehicles abreast. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - driving two vehicles abreast in same lane. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - passing at railroad crossing or highway intersection. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - passing stopped school bus. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - failing to give adequate and timely signals of intention to turn, partly turn, slow down or stop. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - exceeding a reasonable speed under the circumstances and traffic conditions existing at the time, regardless of any posted speed limit. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - speeding 20 mph or more above speed limit or in excess of 80 mph. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - failing to stop when entering highway. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - operating any motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person on any driveway or premises of a church, school, recreational facility, or business property open to the public; or on the premises of any industrial establishment providing parking space for customers, patrons, or employees; or on any highway under construction or not yet open to the public. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony reckless driving - racing. Felony if offense (i) committed when driving without a valid operator’s license due to a suspension or revocation for a moving violation and (ii) caused the death of another as the sole and proximate result of the reckless driving.
# Felony injuring person or causing death while racing.
# Felony failing to stop at scene of accident. Felony if accident resulted in injury to or death of a person or if property damage exceeded $1,000.
# Operating a vehicle with device designed to create smoke screen or installing such device.

Go Back
News | Sports | Entertainment/Living | Shopping/Classifieds | Weather | Opinion | Obituaries | Services/Contact Us
© 2007, Media General Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms & Conditions | Site Map
-- Part of the GatewayVa Network --
webmaster@inrich.com
A RealCities Network Site

[Bill Glasheen]

That's a very misleading post.

Those fees are YEARLY fees. They go on for 3 years.

The law goes even farther though. There's some goodies in there for insurance companies, such as holding on to your driving points (in the record) for many more years. This gives insurance companies an excuse to charge you more - as if they didn't already have a reason to do so.

It'll all get very interesting whenever taxpayers out there have their sons reach driving age...

You think you won't ever have one of those charges against you? Guess again. Two years ago I was stopped at an Interstate exit (Glenside south off of I-64 East). A woman directly in front of me proceeded out into traffic (right turn) at a red light. She stopped, panicked, and backed up - into me. It totally destroyed the front of my van. At first she came out of her car and was so apologetic, saying it was all her fault. Then she got on her phone while I was waiting for police to come. Then she came out of her car and asked if we could settle it w/o the police. No way... They're on their way, ma'am.

The short of it is that someone on the other end of that phone line convinced her to lie. After the officer interviewed her in private, she was told to leave, and I was charged with reckless driving. The officer was concerned about my boys, and how I almost hurt them. My poor boys. That poor woman...



It took several court appearances to settle. Fortunately when it came time for my son to testify (I arranged that just to embarass her...), she broke down and did a sobbing confession in court. The judge found me "innocent."

I was one straight face away from a very serious conviction for something I didn't do.

I don't wish bad things on anyone. But many people take a lot for granted on this earth. There are good reasons why we should never trust government. When it gets so bad that LEOs are charged with levying taxes at their whim, government has REALLY overstepped it's bounds.

But don't ever ask me what I REALLY think...

- Bill

[TSDguy]

Forgive me I haven't followed the thread for a few pages, so I have some catching up to do. In the meantime, I'm curious. Bill: how do you feel about police auctions? I was watching a show on the History Channel where customs officers said services were funded by auctioning off criminal possessions. I saw a connection to your claim that the new speeding tickets were a tax.

[Bill Glasheen]

I'm a bit more ambivalent about that. There really isn't the same relatively guaranteed revenue generation with that kind of work (e.g. assets seized in drug raids) as there is with the traffic "fees." The seizures are real hit-and-miss. And generally the assets seized are turned right back into the law enforcement effort. This isn't money given to politicians for pork barrel projects.

The state made no bones about the fact that they built in X millions of dollars into this budget with these fees. If they fall short of their revenue, they just run another one of those 4-day, 9000 ticket raids on I-95 and I-81 like they do several times a year here. (See Operation Air, Land, and Speed)

Big difference.

- Bill