[dsenette]

I know the law targets chronic offenders but man lets not get too carried away,

that's the point i don't like about the whole concept of this law...it's like a mandadory minimum sentence....if it's the first speeding ticket you've ever gotten...or at least the first one of the year....you're not a repeat offender (unless it's january 1st and the last one you got was on december 31st).....so y ou shouldn't get the punishment of a repeat offender...these "civil fees" should only get applied after X amount of points accumulate

[Advertisements]

The EU Parliament's environment committee is considering a proposal to ban all cars capable of exceeding 100 mph (162 km/hour) from 2013. The proposal, put forward by LibDem MEP Chris Davies, is based on the arguments that cars that go faster than 100 mph are "over-engineered to a ridiculous degree", and that for safety reasons, they need to be heavier, and hence to burn more fuel.

Davies' proposal is contained in a draft report of the committee, and may be approved after further discussion later this month

http://uk.news.yahoo...te-d1d76f9.html

[Retired Tech]

The EU Parliament's environment committee is considering a proposal to ban all cars capable of exceeding 100 mph (162 km/hour) from 2013. The proposal, put forward by LibDem MEP Chris Davies, is based on the arguments that cars that go faster than 100 mph are "over-engineered to a ridiculous degree", and that for safety reasons, they need to be heavier, and hence to burn more fuel.

Davies' proposal is contained in a draft report of the committee, and may be approved after further discussion later this month

http://uk.news.yahoo...te-d1d76f9.html

[dsenette]

that's one of the thngs that's always bugged me....the car can go 120...but there's no where you can drive it that fast....the only times i can see where the extra power would be warranted is with trucks that people use to tow things like boats and campers and such...if it wasn't capable of going over 100 while it's not towing anything..there's little chance it could go 70 when it is towing something

[admin]

It has nothing to do with fines for traffic violations, it has everything to do with tax collections. You can bet other states are following this closely, and will be considering similar fees if there's no revolt.

A couple of other things I've heard about this that bother me. The officer doesn't tell you how much the "fine" is at the time of the violation, instead you have to wait for a mailing. I guess this saves the officers abuse, and even potential harm. How big of an increase do you think there will be eluding officers? People that wouldn't run from a $100 speeding ticket, may consider it for $2,500.

Finally, this puts a lot of responsibiliy on the officers. I'm sure they're always cautious, but they will want to be very sure they have issued the citation correctly. I'm sure they'll also be spending a lot more time in court as people hire lawyers and contest the violations. The stakes are too high not too.

[jaxisland]

Finally, this puts a lot of responsibiliy on the officers. I'm sure they're always cautious, but they will want to be very sure they have issued the citation correctly. I'm sure they'll also be spending a lot more time in court as people hire lawyers and contest the violations. The stakes are too high not too.

I know that in my locale to argue a ticket can take a minimum of 2 and upwards of 5 appearences in court to resolve the issue. That is time that the ticketee loses from family / work plus cost of representation. BUT I think the most important part is what admin, said, The officers will be spending more time in court, taking them off the streets and burdening them more with what I will call "less important" issues.

I know I would rather have officers out there looking for the nasty people who do nasty things in this world, then sitting in traffic court with someone who was doing 50 mph in a 45.

So this raises the question, do you think that cops are going to be less likely to give out the smaller tickets due to the time?

[Zakilla]

I've driven in Florida. 120mph may be required just to maintain pace with traffic flow. They're nuts. 90+ mph seems to be the average Interstate speed.

I totaly agree, there's no such thing as a speed limit there you just make it up as you go...

I live in Virginia and drive down to NC all the time to visit family and lets just say the police here don't play.

On another note if you want too speed just come over here to Germany with me . Theres nothing like crusin at 200 km/h.

[sari]

It has nothing to do with fines for traffic violations, it has everything to do with tax collections. You can bet other states are following this closely, and will be considering similar fees if there's no revolt.

Actually, there are some states with similar programs, and it appears they've backfired.

Virginia lawmakers imposed steep new fees on bad drivers this year despite warning signs from states with similar programs that they cause a surge in unlicensed motorists and have crippling effects on the poor.

The licenses of tens of thousands of motorists in New Jersey and Michigan have been suspended because they cannot afford the fees, and little evidence has emerged that such fines improve highway safety, according to state officials and studies.

Numerous lawmakers, judges and social activists in both states have sought to either repeal the fees or make major changes in how they are collected. But once the programs are implemented, they are difficult to get rid of, because state lawmakers are unwilling to give up the revenue they raise, judges and lawmakers said.

"I think it is a very destructive piece of legislation that is designed primarily for revenue purposes and is disguised as a highway safety measure," said William C. Buhl, a Circuit Court judge in Van Buren County, Mich. "In my opinion, it increases the dangers on the highways because it creates an enormous, growing pool of unlicensed motorists."

From today's Washington Post.

[stettybet0]

I live in Virginia, and recently got my permit this month. One side of this law that I haven't seen discussed here:
We have a huge surplus in Virginia, yet we still do this because we don't want to use the surplus. What's the point of having a surplus if we can't use it? Also, this money is going toward traffic projects in No. VA, and although I'm from No. VA, it seems unfair for the folks in the rest of Virginia, as the money is all going toward the No. VA roads.