Share
Yesterday, the Virginia Senate unanimously passed a bill that would repeal the state's abusive driver fees.
This follows last week's House of Delegates vote, which passed the bill by an overwhelming 95 votes to 2. The next day, the Senate Finance Committee voted unanimously to support the bill as well.
The bill included an amendment that would give a refund to drivers who already paid these fees.
In July 2007, these abusive driver fees were put in place for various traffic offenses, such as reckless and drunken driving, as part of a transportation-funding plan. The hope was for the Commonwealth to bring in $65 million every year through this new law.
Delegate David Albo (R-Fairfax), who sponsored the abusive-driver legislation, felt that the law had been a great way to fund highway maintenance.
"It's his belief that those who drive insane speeds or under the influence of alcohol ought to be penalized," said Seamus Owens, legislative assistant to Albo. "They ought to be responsible for helping to fund the roads that they chose to drive recklessly on."
Not only was the law projected to fall short of its $65 million goal, the public backlash against the fees caused Gov. Tim Kaine to ask lawmakers to repeal the fees during his State of the Commonwealth address earlier this month.
Virginians, who already answer to some of the strictest traffic laws in the nation, were enraged by these fees, which ranged from $750 to $3000. Many were also upset about the fact that the fees applied solely to Virginia drivers, an amendment that Kaine made last year when the bill got to his desk.
This amendment wasn't made known until after it was signed into law and didn't sit well with many delegates, especially Albo. Although he still supports the legislation, he voted to repeal the law because he wants it to include two things it currently lacks: application to out-of-state drivers and application to fewer, more serious offenders.
"He has never changed his mind," Owens said of Albo. "What has changed is the viability of this bill in the state of Virginia."
Although it looks as though the repeal will occur -- it still must be signed by Kaine -- one issue remains.
Karen Hult, political science professor at Virginia Tech, said that in terms of public policy, she's inclined to support these fees.
"There are all kinds of revenue needs," Hult said. "This is at least one of the possible ways to raise money without cutting any programs."
In addition to increasing revenue, lawmakers are interested in deterring drunk and reckless drivers. Corinne Geller, spokeswoman for the Virginia State Police, said it's impossible to tell whether or not these fees accomplished that.
"There are so many factors to consider," Geller said, referring to weather, number of troopers, and various events that took place over the year in Virginia. "There's no absolute yes or no."
For example, speeding tickets written by the Virginia State Police in July 2007 decreased 10 percent and reckless driving decreased 22 percent compared to July 2006. On the other hand, drunken driving increased 6 percent.
Geller said the Virginia State Police Department doesn't take a stand on the matter and that the abusive driver fees haven't changed their enforcement.
"We've always been aggressive toward deterring reckless and impaired drivers," Geller said. "And we'll continue to be."
Leave a comment 5 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
My problem isn't with the notion of deterring reckless and impaired drivers; it is with the definition of reckless employed by the state of Virginia. What arrogance the legislature demonstrates by telling us all the maximum non-reckless rate of speed, without providing the facts as to why 80mph is the magic number. I'll agree that reckless driving comes in many forms, but usually it's a combination of vehicle type, speed, road and traffic conditions, aggression, inattentiveness, and impairment. I would argue that when setting a speed threshold above which EVERY driver is considered reckless, regardless of these other factors, the limit should reflect the point at which a driver of an average modern car on a perfectly straight, perfectly flat, dry, open road in daylight is at a reasonable risk of losing control of the vehicle. This is certainly higher than 80mph. After all, even the most economical of tires are built to sustain speeds of at least 81mph, and the speedometer on my economical Civic tops out at over 140 (though I doubt it'd ever make it that high). So go ahead and pull over the Geo Metro going 80 and weaving through cars, and give the driver a reckless charge because he/she should know better. But for the pulled over Corvette driver going 80 down an interstate highway between Nowheresville and Blacksburg, a speeding ticket should suffice.
Reply to this Top
On the whole, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have speed limits in the first place. As you accurately point out, Jason, there's a lot more that goes into assessing the relative danger a particular driver is causing than simply how fast he is going. If I'm the only car on a straight highway, is it really reckless for me to drive at over 100MPH? I don't know. But the reason speed limits exist is twofold. First, they are a MAJOR source of revenue for individual states. Secondly, they exist by federal mandate - stats don't get highway funding from the feds if they don't have speed limits on their roads. It's a bogus deal - but it's how the law works.
Reply to this Top
The speed limits are set for several reasons. Some of these reasons include the designed safe speed of the road and the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Roads are given certain embankments based on what the engineer believes is best for the given area. Given this embankment and a common vehicle (center of mass, friction coefficient of tires, etc.), the road has a set maximum safe speed. Also, just because you have a vehicle and/or the skill to travel "safely" at a speed above what is posted does not mean that it is truly safe to you and others. If I am turning onto a road that has somewhat of a visual impairment (tree, curve, etc.), I may not see someone who is traveling above the speed limit and pull out in front of them. However, the speed limit can be designed to allow adequate time for me to see the other vehicle and avoid a collision. Also, above a certain motor RPM (which is proportional to speed and gear ratio) the engine loses efficiency, therefore causing the car to use more fuel. Therefore, I believe that enforcing speed limits helps to save the lives of others and the enviornment. I, like I believe Jason to be (correct me if I'm wrong), do not like laws that control what I do to myself (aka seat belt laws). But this law is for the protection of others' right to live.
Reply to this Top
Agreement all around, but I have a few clarifications. Remember, I'm arguing against 80mph as an ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM for the speed at which ALL DRIVING, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCE, becomes RECKLESS. H. Moore, you make valid points about road engineering and about engine efficiency. However, speeders are already "taxed" for speeding when they pay for more gasoline (it is taxed per gallon) at the pump, and I think we've all taken enough mild curves at speeds much in excess of the posted "maximum safe" speed to know that we're being misled. Also, Kyle, of course you're right about revenue generation. It took forever for the 55mph national speed limit to be repealed because states didn't want to lose federal highway funds. All I'm saying is my belief, from a public safety standpoint, that speed limits are superfluous. Studies have shown (sorry, I can't cite them at the moment) that over 80% of drivers actively assess road conditions and drive at safe speeds even in the absence of posted speed limits. I know WHY speed limits exist; my only point is that there are many fallacious arguments that surround HOW they are set.
Reply to this Top
Passage Focus,forward attack wash lovely wine victim later find persuade choice fully low report domestic currently off emerge reform take application rest meal mind catch row problem detail after although arise tall bear exhibition grow all after income wish if climb heat error addition open often everyone excellent otherwise corner shoe include yesterday from steal behind way speak capital nice this gun path number exchange destroy account touch mechanism winner appropriate full newspaper earth aid important accompany boy lord tell latter towards service legislation base propose mistake
Reply to this Top