reckless driving in VA

[AMonger]

Virginia’s Gone Loopy (Again)… by Eric Peters

by Eric Peters
http://ericpetersautos.com/
​

This state – my state – has a thing for imposing grossly disproportionate-to-the-offense punishments. Oh, not on the cretins who murder, rape or even steal. It’s usually necessary to kill, rape or steal multiple times before my state begins to get cross-eyed.
But god help you if you get caught breaking the law… the traffic law, that is.
Virginia comes down hard, then.
Maybe because the “customers” pay better…
One of the favorite tools in Virginia’s kit is the “reckless driving” charge. On the face of it, to those unfamiliar with how things go down here, a reasonable assumption would be that you did something obviously run amok to get slapped with “reckless driving.” You know, 120 mph in a 45, weaving in and out like you were playing Frogger in your Fiesta. Drunk out of your mind, rooster-tailing through a soccer field full of kids. You get the idea.
Something, well, reckless. Where others were in real peril of bodily injury as a result of your actions. Something along those lines.
Not hardly. This is Virginia, after all. Here, you can get a “reckless driving” ticket for awful things like exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 20 mph. Back in the ’80s, when the 55 MPH max was still in force, I racked up half a dozen “reckless driving” tickets for doing 76–80 on the highway. Today – with the same highways posted 70 MPH, doing 76 or so is – at most – a very minor speeding ticket. I don’t expect to get a refund for all those years I paid double-tap insurance for having those “reckless driving” tickets on my DMV record.
But wait, there’s more.
A Republican *** clown (it’s always a Republican, isn’t it?) has brought forth a new “reckless driving” bear trap for you to get snared in. Richmond Republican Bill Janis thinks anyone who doesn’t come to an absolute dead stop before making a right on red should be cited for – you guessed it – reckless driving. His bill (HB 1993) also tosses in fines up to $2,500 for this offense and (yes, wait for it) jail time. Up to six months in the clink.
For a California Stop.
Best part? This is one of those situations where it’s at the cop’s discretion whether to charge you with being “reckless.” It could be that the intersection was obviously clear – no cars coming for miles – and thus, your California Stop, while maybe a technical violation of the statute, in no way threatened anyone’s safety. Let alone could be reasonably described as “reckless.” But get a dickhead cop who wants to make a point and you’ll get the cite. And that means, getting a lawyer – essential when it comes to a reckless driving beef. A court appearance is mandatory; you can’t just send a fine in via the mail. And if you lose, which you will without the help of your very own Johnnie Cochran – you know, someone like Bill Janis – it’s going to be a big deal. One that will continue to be a big deal for the next three years, at least. Because that’s the length of time that six-point demerit slap and the “reckless driving” charge smeared across your record will remain active. The nanosecond your insurance company finds out, you are assured of either having your premiums doubled – or your policy cancelled. A “reckless driving” conviction is cancer. You’re screwed.
And the most egregious part? The insurance company (and the courts) don’t care that you didn’t actually do anything reckless; that maybe there should be a distinction between committing a California Stop and something that sounds like (and might as well be) vehicular manslaughter or its slightly lesser brother.
Which brings up the issue of proportionality.
Fairly serious crimes – real crimes – often don’t carry with them such severe sanctions. For example, just this week in my home county, a loathsome cretin who forcibly kidnapped a young girl from her home and, with her partner, transported said minor girl across state lines to Pennsylvania for purposes you can no doubt imagine, received her sentence: One year in the clink. Yes, she received a “ten year” sentence – but nine were suspended. So, the actual punishment for kidnapping and (likely) child rape: One year. For a California stop? Six months.
Oh yeah: The kidnapping pederasts didn’t get socked with a $2,500 fine or lose their driving privileges, either.
The late great writer Sam Francis called this “anarcho-tyranny” – ordinary citizens facing increasingly severe and outlandish punishments over increasingly trivial/minor infractions; meanwhile, serious crime gets treated with kid gloves. Sam was onto something there.
“Law and order” Republicans like this Janis guy establish their macho-man credentials this way. We’re tough on crime, you see. Only, they’re not. They’re tough on us, tough on the Bill of Rights – tough on anything except defending liberty and reasonableness, the latter of which is a free society essential. Take it away and you’re left with a banana republic or something much darker than that, on the East German model.
That appears to be where we’re headed. Courtesy of guys like Bill Janis – who no doubt has an extra-large flag pin stuck on his lapel. Because he believes in freedom – and wants you to see it.
Update: Janis’ Bill has been tossed; but don’t expect this to be the end of it. To quote another Republican: He’ll be back.

 

[greg334]

OH here we go again - driving is a privilege not a right and the fine should be $5000, not $2500.

 

[TheRebel]

Virginia’s Gone Loopy (Again)… by Eric Peters
The insurance company (and the courts) don’t care that you didn’t actually do anything reckless;

Hey, it's much easier for a ... let's say cop, to pull you over and get you a ticket, than running for a real criminal, where the risk of being hurt or even killed, raises from 0.00001% to 40-50%... by the way, the police seems to be the third industry of the country after food industry and car makers... you better watch your driving than messing with them...

 

[AMonger]

OH here we go again - driving is a privilege not a right and the fine should be $5000, not $2500.

Yeah, here we go again.

Driving is absolutely, unequivocally a right, not a privilege, and even if that weren't the case, even if it were a privilege, that's not the issue here.

In this country, we have a maxim, a legal principle that says, "Let the punishment fit the crime." And $5000, or even $2500, doesn't fit the "crime." That was the point of the article.

Now back to rights vs. "privileges." The concept that we have mere privileges is not the American way. The government is not the arbiter of rights. Rights are. And out of our rights, we empower the government to exercise the powers with which we endowed them, none of which allow them to restrict driving.

On another thread, I pointed out how everything we can do is a right, not a privilege. Picking my nose is a right. No man may tell me I may not pick my nose. Petting my dog is a right. Putting on a blue shirt, or a green one, or a red one, is a right, as long as it's my shirt. It's my right to pick up the phone and order a pizza. I just can't compel Dominos to actually deliver it. If government decreed that I could, that would be a privilege.

That's relative to the Wisconsin union thugs' claims. Someone wrote in to USA Today saying that collective bargaining is a right rather than a privilege. He was partially correct. You can demand to be bargained with collectively, as did the cast of the TV show Friends years ago. They insisted that they all make the same and be signed to the same contracts and such. Making that demand was their right. However, it was not their right to compel NBC to agree to it or to any particular performance under the law. NBC had every right to tell them to take a hike if they wanted. They'd have been fools to do so, but they had that right. When government, otoh, through the force of law, compels any company to bargain collectively against their will or forbids them to permanently replace the strikers, that's a privilege granted to the union thugs, because it overrides one group's rights in favor of another's.

I'm curious as to the nature of the State's power to declare driving (or anything else) a privilege. From where do you claim they get the power to declare a human action a privilege? If they can declare driving a privilege, what else can they convert into a privilege? Petting my dog? Picking my nose? Putting butter on my toast? Painting my living room whatever color I want?

We are the arbiter of the government's powers, not the other way around.

 

[greg334]

Well I understand your point BUT the problem is these "rights" are restricted not for the enjoyment of seeing ourselves governed but rather for the protection of the public.

It is a privilege because we force it to be one, we allowed the government to regulate this in order to have a safe road way. You have to learn how to safely operate the vehicle, abide by basic rules which have to do with the dynamics of the vehicle and physics involved in those dynamics and carry proper insurance which ALL has nothing to do with someone's desire to be an idiot and not to protect them but innocent people who they may hurt or kill. The "right" is not an absolute "right" by any means like free speech or freedom of religion because it is limited by the natural desire of the people who want safe streets and don't want to have their cars/trucks damaged by idiots and fools or killed crossing the street.

IF this means that fines for excessive speeding are increase due to the fact that God has yet changed the dynamics of the vehicle and the physics involved, then that's alright with me because it means I don't have to worry about most people who could hurt me or someone I care about.

 

[AMonger]

It is a privilege because we force it to be one, we allowed the government to regulate this in order to have a safe road way. You have to learn how to safely operate the vehicle, abide by basic rules which have to do with the dynamics of the vehicle and physics involved in those dynamics and carry proper insurance which ALL has nothing to do with someone's desire to be an idiot and not to protect them but innocent people who they may hurt or kill. The "right" is not an absolute "right" by any means like free speech or freedom of religion because it is limited by the natural desire of the people who want safe streets and don't want to have their cars/trucks damaged by idiots and fools or killed crossing the street.

Turtle and I had this same discussion on another thread. In the end, we agreed that driving is a qualified right.

It's kind of like CCW permits. Many states used to have laws stating that the county sheriff or the state could issue a CW permit under certain circumstances. Many wouldn't, just because they didn't want to or didn't view carrying a firearm as a right. Then states started changing their laws to read that a permit shall be issued under certain circumstances, usually that the applicant demonstrates that he's not a criminal and/or demonstrates that he generally hits what he's aiming at.

That's kind of like driving: not an absolute right, but a qualified right. Show the state that you can safely operate a motor vehicle--you've gone through a course and can demonstrate physical control of a vehicle and that you have a reasonable grasp of the laws--and the license shall be issued. So a qualified right, but not a privilege. It's not like the old CW permit system in which your ability to have a license is at the whim of the sheriff or other bureaucrat.

 

[iceroadtrucker]

Thats not just the Half of VA.

How about the Luxery Tax for a Second Vehicle 1200.00 a year.

How about if you an Adult in NewPort News VA you got to have A bicycle License if you ride a bicycle.
thats a 500.00 fine if you dont.

Oh ya and if you Hold a CDL in VA and YOu Speed IN VA have fun your fine no matter what wont be below 1000.00

VA. SUXs.

Hunting Hmmm

 

[MarylandVan]

Just another cash grab

 

[Hightech_Hobo]

Not so sure whether it is a right or a privilege... but I do know it is an absolute necessity in todays world..

As to traffic laws being used for revenue generation, I have no doubt, and this was one of the major reasons for my moving from a straight to a van.

Before I get long winded...I guess I'll get of my "Soap box"...(hint, hint)

 

[Turtle]

Not so sure whether it is a right or a privilege... but I do know it is an absolute necessity in todays world..

Your world and my world, perhaps, but not in today's world. Just ask the Amish. For that matter, according to the US Census Bureau, in Manhattan 78% of the households there do not have a vehicle. In the Bronx, car-free households is 60%. In Brooklyn it's 54%. Only Queens and Staten Island have car-free minorities of 34% and 20% respectively. NYC overall it's 54% who do not own a vehicle. Ironic isn't it, that so much of New York's municipal resources are dedicated to automobile travel, when car owners are a minority.

But in cities large and small, there are people who go to work every day, go shopping and run their errands, all using public transportation, while never having owned or driven a car.

 

[Hightech_Hobo]

Turtle,

You have a point. When we were a more city based society public transit and walking were the way. The US started building the suburbs in the 50's based on our great road system and the availability of cheap automobiles. Thus the advent of Mega Malls, Strip shopping centers and huge parking lots.

Over the years...about 60 of them, we became a very mobile culture and until we start moving back to the city and build a reliable public transport system the ability to drive remains pretty much a necessity.

It would seem that the powers that be in Florida do not see a need to improve public transport as he is giving the several billion dollars for a high speed train back to the feds.

HT Hobo

 

[xiggi]

Your world and my world, perhaps, but not in today's world. Just ask the Amish. For that matter, according to the US Census Bureau, in Manhattan 78% of the households there do not have a vehicle. In the Bronx, car-free households is 60%. In Brooklyn it's 54%. Only Queens and Staten Island have car-free minorities of 34% and 20% respectively. NYC overall it's 54% who do not own a vehicle. Ironic isn't it, that so much of New York's municipal resources are dedicated to automobile travel, when car owners are a minority.

By land mass most of the country is still small towns or rural areas. Those people even if they do not own a car rely on someone who does to move them around. I guess where you live has a lot to do with how necessary having access to a car is.

 

[TheRebel]

Thats not just the Half of VA.

How about the Luxery Tax for a Second Vehicle 1200.00 a year.

How about if you an Adult in NewPort News VA you got to have A bicycle License if you ride a bicycle.
thats a 500.00 fine if you dont.

Oh ya and if you Hold a CDL in VA and YOu Speed IN VA have fun your fine no matter what wont be below 1000.00

VA. SUXs.

Hunting Hmmm

What kind of nazi ppl are ruling VA?

 

[highway star]

Driving is absolutely, unequivocally a right, not a privilege,

Where did you find that in the Bill of Rights?

 

[Turtle]

Driving is absolutely, unequivocally a right, not a privilege,

Where did you find that in the Bill of Rights?

The term "unequivocally" shouldn't be used here, as it literally means absolute, unqualified, and not subject to conditions or exceptions. The right to drive is, absolutely, subject to conditions or exceptions, and is more of a qualified right than it is a privilege.

Rights are inherent and cannot be taken away. Privileges can be taken away. The right to drive can be taken away, but not arbitrarily (as 6 immigrants versus the State of PA proved recently) and can only be taken away under certain circumstances. Like all other rights, the right to drive can only be taken away after due process, whereas privileges can be taken away arbitrarily.

By the same token, you are granted the right to drive under certain circumstances. Getting the right to drive, and losing it, are both based upon the same things, namely the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle upon public roads.

Once you qualify for the right to drive, by showing you can safely operate a motor vehicle, you cannot lose that right unless you prove you are unable to safely operate a motor vehicle. And based upon the court's repeated loathing to permanently revoke a driver's license even for some of the more egregious and/or repeated traffic offenses, it would seem the qualified right to drive is just that, more of a right than it is a privilege.

Driving was (briefly) at one time an unqualified right, then they started requiring a license to operate a motor vehicle, and then it became a privilege, but because of court rulings and other factors it has become a de facto qualified right.

The Constitution guarantees the right of movement. The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common right which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some will use the above argument as reason to get rid of any and all restrictions on driving, including driver's licensing and requiring one to demonstrate the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, but while personal liberty largely consists of the right of movement, it is restrained by the rights of others in society as necessary for the welfare of all other citizens, and is thus a qualified right.

Court rulings have cemented the idea that you may move about using the mode of transportation of your own choosing. You have an absolute right to drive, but it is a qualified right when you want to do so on public roads. Free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants (the government) using ordinary transportation of the day, but society at large has demanded that you be able to operate the ordinary transportation of the day in a safe manner.

 

[aristotle]

Constitutional rights are those recognized by law. That said, government cannot create rights. Government can only acknowledge them. Inherent or natural rights are universally true but not universally acknowledged.

 

[Turtle]

Constitutional rights are those recognized by law. That said, government cannot create rights. Government can only acknowledge them. Inherent or natural rights are universally true but not universally acknowledged.

Of course the government can create rights. They do it all the time. The history of human society can be marked by the granting of rights to a people by the government, rights that in most cases were fought for and won by the people, going back to the Magna Carta, and nearly 1000 years before that, the Constitution of Medina. Natural rights (inherent, inalienable) are universal, such as the right to life, but there are plenty of legal rights (civil or statutory rights) that come from society and government. The right to vote, for example, or the right of due process, freedom of association and assembly, and the statutory rights ensuring things like free speech and a free press are free of unwarranted infringement by the government. Once granted, same as with driving, these rights cannot be taken away except under certain narrow circumstances.

 

[aristotle]

Voting "rights" stem from the natural right of free thought or the exercise of free expression. Voting is in one sense an expression of free speech. The natural right to speak up or cast support for a leader or idea. Natural rights exist independently of government. Legal rights are government's acknowledgement of rights. Whether a natural right is legally sanctioned or suppressed, it exists for all people at all times. Legal rights exist at the whim of a government. Voting predates all recorded human history. Cavemen going into battle or on a big-game hunt had to make a decision by consensus which modern people would recognize as a vote.

 

[Turtle]

I don't disagree with any of the above, except the last two sentences. By definition, since it was prehistory, one cannot know for sure. One can assume such decisions were by consensus, but it could equally be assumed that cavemen did not sit around and debate issues such as big game hunts or the prospect of going into battle, and then reaching a nice, polite consensus. It could be argued that, based on recorded human history and that of basic human nature, there was someone in charge, likely the biggest and meanest, who told people what to do. And they did it.

 

[aristotle]

I don't disagree with any of the above, except the last two sentences. By definition, since it was prehistory, one cannot know for sure. One can assume such decisions were by consensus, but it could equally be assumed that cavemen did not sit around and debate issues such as big game hunts or the prospect of going into battle, and then reaching a nice, polite consensus. It could be argued that, based on recorded human history and that of basic human nature, there was someone in charge, likely the biggest and meanest, who told people what to do. And they did it.

Biggie-Meanie had to sleep at some point; thus, he needed a modicum of popular support. Survival has always required cooperation of the group. Coercive cooperation or cooperation by consensus? I imagine both were practiced then as now. One prefers to think social orders built around a consensus model wins out, but it remains unproven.