Author Topic: Traffic Tickest in VIRGINIA to have EXCESSIVE FINES Attached (Read 511 times)

rpm · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2007, 10:57:54 PM »

Virginia went downhill about 1865.

eagl · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2007, 11:06:52 PM »

I've got nothing against the DUI and leaving the scene fines, but I'd think those ought to be part of the basic law and sentencing guidelines rather than done as special cases. It's hard to argue against the revenue generation accusation when they bypass the usual legal process to highlight certain crimes for additional fines.

I have NO PROBLEM with setting fines and enforcement to directly modify undesirable behavior or arrest negative anti-social behavior trends (DUI comes to mind) but arbitrary fines on top of existing laws and guidelines isn't the right way to do that IMO.

That's why Lazs and I will agree to disagree on helmet laws... It's a known fact that helmet use directly decreases the costs incurred by our health care system, so helmet laws are a direct attempt to create a social change. The current push for seat belt use is the same. It is a highly targeted effort to adjust people's behavior because certain behaviors have strong negative social impacts. But broad-brush and arbitrary fine increases across a variety of offenses sounds like a way to increase revenue.

rpm · « **Reply #17 on:** June 22, 2007, 11:21:10 PM »

I wonder what they will do if you are not able to pay the fine. Imprisonment? Probation (with all it's little joys attached)? Maybe they will just suspend your license....wait a sec...

Odee · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2007, 06:58:13 AM »

Yah... these fines are added on to the normal fines...

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
You've got a point.
My sister lives in Va. And I go visit her a few times a year.
Va is the only place where I have experienced two things.

Traffic tieups do to the Sun "Sun delay"

And seen people riding their breaks while going UP hill

LOL I watermelon you not

watermelon man... I can show you 4 spots from Springfield to Fredericksburg where the "hammer lane" comes to a stop for absolutely no reason other than poor merging and lane changers.

And the rubber neckers! God forbid the cops got someone pulled over for a ticket, because 99% of the idiots on I-95 just feel they HAVE to slow down and see who it is!

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2007, 08:02:06 AM »

Who cares, just obey the law and it will never affect you.

lazs2 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2007, 09:03:52 AM »

eagl... we certainly do not agree on helmets and seatbelt laws. If you think that personal freedom should be tied to how much expense may be incurred by others and that laws should be passed to curb behavior that may cost money... we do not agree.

But... I also agree that everyone should be personaly responsible. I have insurance. I have vehicle and medical insurance.

What costs have your laws brought down? what are you doing with that huge rebate that everyone got when the helmet and seatbelt laws came in? did you buy a home with it? what are you doing with the huge reductions in medical insurance you are seeing every month?

Nooo... that is one of the reasons I am against national health... millions die because of alcohol or candy or fat in foods... a case can (and will be) made for banning all those things... they cost me money... as does hiking and swimming and a myriad of other things.

I am willing to state to my various insurance companies that I do not use seatbelts about half the time and that I do not wear a helmet and I am willing to pay extra (more than you) based on what they think it is worth.

I have put 50,000 miles on my lincoln and not worn the seatbelts once. I wear the seatbelt in the el camino and Healey.. both lap belts, all the time.

I have my reasons that, except for conversational reasons, are none of your nanny frigging business.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2007, 09:08:54 AM »

as for the other laws mentioned... the ones about driving without a licence or drunk driving have some merit.

The ones about turn signal or cell phone of whatever are insane. The crime is little unless it causes a problem... once the problem occurs then the fact that there was no signal or the guy was using a cell phone should be taken into account as a negligence matter.

An example would be... you are at a country road with no other car on the road in sight. you turn but don't use the signal and... horror of horror.. you are on the phone! A cop in an unmarked car is parked behind some trees and sees you.

What should the penalty be?

See the problem? you add all these multipliers and then you lose the ability to reason.

lazs