Results 1 to 4 of 4
01-06-08, 08:49 AM #1
Virginia's Lieutenant Governor calls on General Assembly to repeal speeding ticket tax
Virginia's lieutenant governor yesterday called on members of the General Assembly to unconditionally repeal the controversial speeding ticket tax that took effect last July. In a letter to lawmakers preparing for the 2008 session that opens on Wednesday, Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling (R) suggested that the concept of funding highways with ticket surcharges may have seemed like a good idea initially, but that it has been a disaster in practice.
"It is my belief that the abusive driver fees should be repealed," Bolling wrote. "While it may be possible to address some of the concerns that have been raised... through revisions to the 2007 legislation, I believe that would be a mistake."
Under current law, anyone convicted of driving either 20 MPH over the speed limit or 80 MPH on any road is subject to the remedial fees. On Interstate 85, which has a top legal speed of 70 MPH, a 10 MPH speeding ticket automatically becomes "reckless driving" which carries a mandatory remedial fee of $1050 in addition to a fine of up to $2500 imposed by a judge.
Bolling wrote that the public lost confidence in the program after learning that "less serious traffic offenses" were included and that the fees only applied to state residents. Bolling noted that as of November 30, the ticket tax only generated $2.8 million in revenue -- far short of the initial projections. The safety impact thus far has been equally unimpressive with traffic deaths hitting a 17-year high last year. Bolling put his weight behind legislation offered by Delegates Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg) and Lacey Putney (I-Bedford) and Senator Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax County).
The original architect of the abuser fees, state Delegate Dave Albo (R-Springfield), is lobbying to save the ticket tax. His proposal would expand the fees to include out-of-state drivers but eliminate them for certain minor infractions such as reckless failure to use a turn signal and speeding less than 25 MPH over the limit. It would, however, boost the maximum possible speeding penalty to $4420. This sum would be imposed in the form of a $120 tax on each mile-per-hour driven in excess of 25 MPH over the posted limit, with the total fine capped at $1920. This means driving 96 MPH in a 55 zone brings that hefty fee in addition to a court-imposed penalty of up to $2500. (View full text of proposed legislation, 64k PDF file)
Albo, a traffic lawyer, separately introduced legislation that would require anyone who fails to pay the abuser fee to be arrested, fingerprinted and photographed (view bill).
Text of the Lieutenant Governor's letter to members of the General Assembly:
January 3, 2008
I look forward to seeing you in Richmond next week and working with you during this year's legislative session to achieve our mutual goals.
One of the important issues we will consider this year is repeal or revision of the abusive driver fee legislation that was enacted by the General Assembly last year. I am writing to advise you of my belief that the abusive driver fee legislation should be repealed and to ask for your support of our efforts to accomplish this goal.
When the concept of abusive driver fees was first discussed several years ago, many of us felt it was a legitimate way to raise money for transportation construction. In addition, by applying these fees to the most serious traffic related offenses, we also felt it was a legitimate way to improve safety on Virginia's highways. This was also one of the things that the members of the General Assembly seemed to agree on, so it was appropriate to include this legislation in the 2007 transportation package.
Unfortunately, it has since become apparent that the legislation inadvertently applied the abusive driver fees to a number of less serious traffic related offenses, and the Governor's amendments, which exempted out of state drivers from the abusive driver fees, made the legislation terribly unpopular. Both of these problems with the legislation are unacceptable.
In addition, recent information provided by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission indicates that the abusive driver fees are not generating anywhere near the $60M a year we had been told they would generate. In fact, the fees only resulted in total collections of $2.8M through November 30th of 2007.
Given these considerations, it is my belief that the abusive driver fees should be repealed. While it may be possible to address some of the concerns that have been raised, such as those discussed above, through revisions to the 2007 legislation, I believe that would be a mistake. While this was the most noble of efforts, it simply has not worked out the way it was intended, and it has become terribly unpopular in the public eye. That is why I favor the total repeal of the abusive driver fees, as opposed to their modification.
I am pleased to report that Delegate Lacey Putney, Delegate Mark Cole and Senator Ken Cuccinelli have agreed to introduce legislation calling for repeal of the abusive driver fees. Other legislators will most likely introduce similar legislation. I encourage you to sign on as a co-patron of this legislation and give it your support during this year's legislative session.
Thank you for considering my views on this important issue. If you have any questions, or would like to share your feedback with me on this issue, please let me know.
Very Truly Yours,
WILLIAM T. BOLLING
Commonwealth of Virginia</I>
01-06-08, 09:09 AM #2
They need to repeal that "tax". Nearly $3600 for a 10mph over ticket. I write tickets to encourage safe driving practices not to generate revenue.
Meanwhile, fishing in Russia:
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." -- Frederic Bastiat
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter." Ernest Hemingway
The opinions given in my signatures & threads DO NOT reflect the opinions, views, policies, and/or procedures of my employing agency. They are my personal opinions only, thereby releasing my agency of any liability, or involvement in anything posted under the username "Five-0" on Officerresource.com
01-06-08, 09:44 AM #3
There has been so much crap going around about this since it started and I still dont know how it really works. If you ask 10 different people you get 10 different answers.
I thought that you had to have so many prior convictions before those fees kicked in........I agree with that concept. I also think it should apply to out of state drivers. But the way it is now I think it sucks."And don't go home, and don't go to eat, and don't play with yourself. It wouldn't look nice on my highway", Buford T. Justice
#1 Rule in Police: Sometimes its easier to ask Forgiveness than it is to ask Permission
No one knows what it's like
To be the bad man
To be the sad man
Behind blue eyes
01-06-08, 10:53 AM #4The Reason People Hate Cops & Causer of WarVerified LEO
- Join Date
- Northern VA
- Rep Power
Well, in theory, it's pretty simple.
If you are convicted of certain driving offenses (generally, those punished as a misdemeanor,like Reckless), the abusive driver fee is imposed by the court. You pay the court the first of three annual payments that day, and then you have to pay DMV the next two years as you renew your tags and/or license. (Since you could easily be convicted at a point you have 5 years till you renew your driver's license, I don't know what they do if you don't own a car...)
Since it's collected through DMV, it doesn't apply to non-residents. (Some folks have raised the issue of whether an illegal immigrant is a resident...) Which means that VA residents are being punished differently than non-VA residents for the same offense... (Anyone see an equal treatment argument here?)
However... In practice, some judges aren't imposing the fees at all. Some aren't imposing it consistently; I don't know if they're only doing it when they remember, or when someone has a bad record, or what.
H'mmm... sounds like another unequal treatment argument, huh? Why should one guy who got caught for his first offense driving 85 in a 65 get hit with several thousand in fees, while another guy, also getting his first ticket, for the same speed, draws a different judge and doesn't get the fees imposed?Voting against incumbents until we get a Congress that does its job.
TASER: almost as good as alcohol for teaching white boys to dance
"Don't suffer from PTSD -- Go out and cause it!"
-- Col. David Grossman, US Army, ret.
All opinions expressed are my own and are not official statements of my employer.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)