A tax on speeding tickets?

[iateyourcheese]

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/971.asp

I don't understand how a state can tax a nonresident, but if this is the new fad then we're screwed.


One Connecticut motorist, who asked that his name not be used, discovered this after driving in October in Niagara Falls, New York. Despite being caught in what he considered a brazen speed trap -- the speed limit was 45 MPH where he was caught, but 55 MPH at the same location in the opposite direction -- he accepted the $155 fine for driving 72 MPH thinking by paying the matter would be settled.

Last week, however, the state of New York notified him that it now considers him an "at risk" driver and therefore he must either pay the state an annual $100 tax or a lump sum of $300.

And since many of you are from out that way...
With a 34-6 vote on Friday, the Virginia state Senate approved a "bad driver" tax championed by new governor Timothy M. Kaine (D) that is expected to net $67.2 million in the first year and a total of $401.4 million by 2010. The state House has not yet acted on the measure.

Are speeding tickets the new cigarette tax?

[blee]

I don't get it either. How can a state impose an annual fee on a non-resident? Is that even legal? :dunno:

As for the VA law...I wonder what exactly it entails. If it's like the NY law, VA just might surpass MD in driver-unfriendly suckitude.

[Plaz]

What bullshit. It will be interesting to see if this results in exponentially higher numbers of people demanding court time to challenge their tickets, thereby wiping out any revenue increases with court costs.

[John V]

VA just might surpass MD in driver-unfriendly suckitude.

:lol: As if that isn't already the case.

[lupinsea]

Um. . . it's beautiful out west and our roads aren't crap yet? :eeps:


http://homepage.mac.com/jgreening/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2005-08-24%2000.28.37%20-0700/Image-89477BC8146E11DA.jpg

[clyde]

What bullshit. It will be interesting to see if this results in exponentially higher numbers of people demanding court time to challenge their tickets, thereby wiping out any revenue increases with court costs.
You're kidding right? Court costs are a non-issue in this context. They will just up the court fees assessed to any case where the driver is convicted.

Donning my "I'm not a lawyer, but think I can act like a Constitutional expert on the interwebnets" hat, it would seem to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause if they do not assess the same fees to resident motorists. It also seems like it would hold much water against a challenge under the Commerce Clause either. :dunno:

[JST]

You're kidding right? Court costs are a non-issue in this context. They will just up the court fees assessed to any case where the driver is convicted.

Donning my "I'm not a lawyer, but think I can act like a Constitutional expert on the interwebnets" hat, it would seem to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause if they do not assess the same fees to resident motorists. It also seems like it would hold much water against a challenge under the Commerce Clause either. :dunno:

The dormant Commerce Clause challenge is the winner there.

[stuka]

So, someone like me would have already lost my license ten times over in the People's Republic of East Coast States, eh?

I take it that getting pulled over for 132+ in a 70 will probably land moi in somewhere unpleasant, eh?

How do you people stand this crap?

Really.

Last weekend, we stopped at the F car dealership on our way to Santa Barbara, which is 85 miles away, at 12. We got to Santa Barbara, had a leasurely lunch, walked around a few places there, then got home before 5. So I take it if we had East Coast style enforcement, I would have had my lunch somewhere else, and be back home the next day, eh?

That is so just unbe-f'ing-lievable.

[John V]

We "stand this crap" because of a couple things:

1) There are no highways out here where it is safe to go 132MPH.
2) If we want to go 132MPH we go to Summit Point or VIR. :dunno:

[FC]

We "stand this crap" because of a couple things:

1) There are no highways out here where it is safe to go 132MPH.
2) If we want to go 132MPH we go to Summit Point or VIR. :dunno:

Very true. Still, I could very safely do 100-110mph during half of my frequent 320-mile trip to Montreal. That could save me a good 30-45 minutes each way.

[John V]

Very true. Still, I could very safely do 100-110mph during half of my frequent 320-mile trip to Montreal. That could save me a good 30-45 minutes each way.

I should correct my statement: There are highways around here where traveling at those speeds WOULD be safe if there weren't drivers on the same highway doing 60MPH.

[stuka]

We "stand this crap" because of a couple things:

1) There are no highways out here where it is safe to go 132MPH.
2) If we want to go 132MPH we go to Summit Point or VIR. :dunno:

That is not the point. Being able to cover the LA to SFC 400 mile distance in 4 and half hours incluing fuel stops makes for efficient use of time.

Let's see:

400/70 = 5:45+20 = 6 Hours

400/90 = 4:25+20 = 4:45 Hour

400/100 = 4:00+20 = 4:20 Hour

Saving 4 hours round trip is a pretty big deal. But I guess that is just not possible over there when 80mph is misdemeanor reckless driving.:rolleyes:

[John V]

That is not the point. Being able to cover the LA to SFC 400 mile distance in 4 and half hours incluing fuel stops makes for efficient use of time.

Let's see:

400/70 = 5:45+20 = 6 Hours

400/90 = 4:25+20 = 4:45 Hour

400/100 = 4:00+20 = 4:20 Hour

Saving 4 hours round trip is a pretty big deal. But I guess that is just not possible over there when 80mph is misdemeanor reckless driving.:rolleyes:

You're completely missing the point - your argument is irrelevant. We don't live in an area where there are 400 miles of open interstate between two major cities. There are times when I-95 between baltimore and DC (4-5 lanes each direction where I am) is traveling at 90MPH and I feel like it's reasonably safe but that's only on the weekend at non-peak hours and it's still only 20 miles or so seperating the two beltways. 130 MPH, no way. At that point it IS reckless.

I find it hard to believe that if you were caught doing 130+ MPH on the freeway between SF and LA that you wouldn't be given a reckless driving ticket. :rolleyes:

[stuka]

You're completely missing the point - your argument is irrelevant. We don't live in an area where there are 400 miles of open interstate between two major cities. There are times when I-95 between baltimore and DC (4-5 lanes each direction where I am) is traveling at 90MPH and I feel like it's reasonably safe but that's only on the weekend at non-peak hours and it's still only 20 miles or so seperating the two beltways. 130 MPH, no way. At that point it IS reckless.

I find it hard to believe that if you were caught doing 130+ MPH on the freeway between SF and LA that you wouldn't be given a reckless driving ticket. :rolleyes:

You are wrong, and I'm too lazy toexplain. Try searching for 23103, 22348b, and stuka on bimmerfest. My posts there cover a good amount of info on why you are wrong.

And yes, I know people who have been stopped for that speed with 22348b and not 23103.

[John V]

Once again, missing the original point, which was not whether 20+ over is reckless in California.

Once again, for the reading-challenged:

We don't live in an area where there are 400 miles of open interstate between two major cities. There are times when I-95 between baltimore and DC (4-5 lanes each direction where I am) is traveling at 90MPH and I feel like it's reasonably safe but that's only on the weekend at non-peak hours and it's still only 20 miles or so seperating the two beltways. 130 MPH, no way. At that point it IS reckless.

[Sharp11]

You are wrong, and I'm too lazy toexplain. Try searching for 23103, 22348b, and stuka on bimmerfest. My posts there cover a good amount of info on why you are wrong.

And yes, I know people who have been stopped for that speed with 22348b and not 23103.

He's not wrong. If you're doing a 130 and a driver in front of you is doing 60, your closing speed is 70 mph.

That's just like approaching a stationary object at 70mph. Couple the high closing speed with the fact the driver you're approaching is likely not expecting you and you have a disaster on your hands.

It's true speed in and of itself doesn't kill, but studies show time and again (and common sense) it's speed differential that kills.

Your wish to "save time" is not the issue (take the plane), we don't live in a vacuum, we have to be aware of our surroundings.

Sheeeze....

Ed

[Plaz]

He's not wrong. If you're doing a 130 and a driver in front of you is doing 60, your closing speed is 70 mph.

That's just like approaching a stationary object at 70mph. Couple the high closing speed with the fact the driver you're approaching is likely not expecting you and you have a disaster on your hands.

Your wish to "save time" is not the issue, we don't live in a vacuum, we have to be aware of our surroundings.

Sheeeze....

Ed

Nobody goes 60 on the 5 through the central valley. If you're doing 85, you're going very slowly compared to the majority of traffic, in my experience.

I'd routinely go 100mph+ for a half an hour at a time on that road, and I'm nowhere near as speed-addicted as stuka.

[FC]

Nobody goes 60 on the 5 through the central valley. If you're doing 85, you're going very slowly compared to the majority of traffic, in my experience.

I'd routinely go 100mph+ for a half an hour at a time on that road, and I'm nowhere near as speed-addicted as stuka.

Heck, even in desolate NH/VT roads everyone does 75-85mph. There are some turns and twists I would not attempt at over 80mph without my wife being uncomfortable, but there are several lenghty sections where 100mph+ would not be uncomfortable. But you cannot sustain triple-digit speeds anywhere in the Northeast without it being irresponsible.

[John V]

It's true speed in and of itself doesn't kill, but studies show time and again (and common sense) it's speed differential that kills.

Your wish to "save time" is not the issue (take the plane), we don't live in a vacuum, we have to be aware of our surroundings.


:thumbup:

Heck, even in desolate NH/VT roads everyone does 75-85mph. There are some turns and twists I would not attempt at over 80mph without my wife being uncomfortable, but there are several lenghty sections where 100mph+ would not be uncomfortable. But you cannot sustain triple-digit speeds anywhere in the Northeast without it being irresponsible.

Right. I was giving stuka the benefit of the doubt that when he was doing 130+ he was on a straight, wide-open freeway with no traffic around. I actually kind of agree with him in that it's not particularly reckless to drive those speeds in that situation.

However the point is that there is NOWHERE around here that you could do that. Any of the connecting freeways (I-70 between PA and Baltimore, I-81 between Harrisburg and Hagerstown, I-95 between Baltimore and Philly or between DC and Richmond) are just too overcrowded for 130+.

I don't agree with Virginia's rubber-stamp definition of 20+ equalling recklessness, but the fact remains - the places stuka is going 130 don't exist here.

[Plaz]

I don't agree with Virginia's rubber-stamp definition of 20+ equalling recklessness, but the fact remains - the places stuka is going 130 don't exist here.

True.

Well, unless you count extreme northern Maine.

[ZBB]

Nobody goes 60 on the 5 through the central valley. If you're doing 85, you're going very slowly compared to the majority of traffic, in my experience.

I'd routinely go 100mph+ for a half an hour at a time on that road, and I'm nowhere near as speed-addicted as stuka.

I've done that drive about 5-6 times round trip. The posted limit is 70, the road has only the mildest of curves and is mostly flat, and there are literally no cities to slow you down.

If you're lucky and traffic is relatively light, you will find clusters of cars going 90-100 with relatively limited slow downs to get around someone going slow (ie 80)...

Although, I've found that traffic tends to get very heavy. Last time I did the trip (last August) it was rare to get above 85 for more than 2-3 minutes...

By the way -- and this is coming from a person that rarely gets his car more than 10 over the posted limit.

[lip277]

Nobody goes 60 on the 5 through the central valley. If you're doing 85, you're going very slowly compared to the majority of traffic, in my experience.

I'd routinely go 100mph+ for a half an hour at a time on that road, and I'm nowhere near as speed-addicted as stuka.


:lol:

The last time I drove down to the Bay Area... I was just cruising along at about 85ish on I5 near Williams (north of Sacto)... and passed a marked CHP car with out realizing it until I was literally even with him (it was an all white Ford CV but with only the door decals and rear deck lights).
He was going 75 or so and I just, uhhhh.... kept on going like I was before - maybe slowing down to 80... The CHP gal (as it turned out to be) didn't give me a second look.

[stuka]

I've done that drive about 5-6 times round trip. The posted limit is 70, the road has only the mildest of curves and is mostly flat, and there are literally no cities to slow you down.

The section where the 5 north and south bound are divided by a little valley and has no on or off ramp (inaccessible to the CHP) can be used for top speed testing if you get lucky and hit it at the right time with regards to traffic. Someone I know clocked in at 180 on that section.

[stuka]

True.

Well, unless you count extreme northern Maine.

So Plaz, how much was that mere 80mph ticket plus lawyer fees?

Don't you miss LA?

[Plaz]

So Plaz, how much was that mere 80mph ticket plus lawyer fees?

Don't you miss LA?

Ended up being about $800 total, IIRC. No points.

I have another court date next month for an NYC ticket from a year ago. :ack:

No more tickets since that one.

The overall driving experience in CA is one of the few things I do miss. I'm still glad we moved back, though.

[clyde]

I'm still glad we moved back, though.

:loco:

[John V]

:loco:

My brother lived in LA for 8 months on an assignment for work. He hated it. Always complaining about how poorly run the autocrosses were. :lol: