Help Me Oppose the Driver "Responsibility" Act

[Richardksly]

Hi guys, you might not know that there are two different bills being considered in the Michigan congress that will repeal the Driver "Responsibility" Act. If you oppose the D.R.A. like I do then you can join me on my Facebook group here:
[www.facebook.com]

It will help you keep up on news and info regarding the D.R.A. and how to end it.

Or if you have never heard of the D.R.A. or want to read my arguments against it read my essay here:
[docs.google.com]

Thanks.

[DetroitPlanner]

Yeah last thing we need are responsible drivers on our roads!

Seriously, could you post a link to the bill? Could you describe why you find fault with it?

[Detroitnerd]

It's just a lame money grab and nothing more. Has nothing to do with "responsibility."

[Danny]

Help you oppose the driver responsibilty act. For heaven sakes no! It's time for people to drive and keep your eye on the road and watch for pedestrians and animals. It's moral way to save lives and you.

[antongast]

Yeah last thing we need are responsible drivers on our roads!

How does charging someone an extra fee on top of the fine they already owe for the ticket help make them more responsible?

[Detroitnerd]

I love those knee-jerk reactions. They need money, so they come up with a way to hit you with a fee on top of a fine, then they call it the Driver Responsibility Act. Try to say you're against the money grab, and then people say, "How can you be against 'driver responsibility'? You monster!"

[Django]

I couldnt agree more, this IS a blatant money grab. Seems like double jeopardy to me, charging you for a crime twice.

Ive been bitching about this DRA thing for years.

Thanks Richard

[SWMAP]

And the fee is not just for one year. I think you pay every year for three years.

[313hero]

I'm 100% down. How in the world are they allowed to give you a ticket for getting a ticket. isnt that what the ticket is for in the first damn place.

[Meddle]

Is this the same as financial responsibility where they take your license for things that don't have anything to do with driving?

[DetroitPlanner]

How does charging someone an extra fee on top of the fine they already owe for the ticket help make them more responsible?

I know this, its the poster who comes on here and does not defend is arguement or relate impacts to greater Detroit is what I don't like. Besides didn't this die two years ago?

[Richardksly]

Yeah last thing we need are responsible drivers on our roads!

Seriously, could you post a link to the bill? Could you describe why you find fault with it?

Read the entirety of my essay before you respond.

I reject that the D.R.A. has anything at all to do with driver responsibility. The "responsibility" angle is political public relations spin to make it sound palatable. "Surely you can't really be against responsibility?!" Is how the implication is posed. As surely as if it were called the "Pro-Puppies and Kitties Act of 2004". But in fact that's only a way of scapegoating the victims of the irresponsible lawmakers who want to squeeze blood from a stone.

"Responsibility" here is being used as one big package-deal. It's a mixture of some right and some wrong ideas with the intention of firing a bullet jettisoned after the sabot. So the only way to handle it is to dissect it and tear the two aspects apart.

What would "responsibility" as a safe driver properly entail? Piloting a car is an activity that is objectively potentially dangerous to the lives of other people. And so I think that it is right for there to be laws and police protections against driving while you aren't capable [[drugs, meds, booze, etc.). As well driving that legitimately endangers others, for example consciously choosing to barrel down a highway opposite traffic. Like I mention in my essay those such laws already exist and are properly enforced.

If a person is truly irresponsible they suffer the punishment of reality first [[e.g. injury, a ruined car, higher car/medical insurance). And then any corresponding punishments from justified laws [[e.g. a civil suit, jail time).

In the case of actual irresponsibility where a person has damaged property, injured others, or violated their rights there are proper government punishments under existing non D.R.A. laws. In those cases the particular people pay or are punished in a particular manner according to the particular facts of the case. For example a person who can be proved factually in court to have consciously driven their car with dangerous debris or parts falling into traffic which caused an accident. Such a person should pay the victims involved in relation to the scale of the costs and be punished with jail time in accordance with the accident and his negligence.

Driver "Responsibility" laws are the opposite. They summon up arbitrary fees unconnected to particular violations to be arbitrarily tacked on. And in most cases it is not even in relation to actual irresponsibility, only the bureaucratic hassle involved with obtaining the omniscient permission of government.

I am all in favor of responsibility which is why I am against the immorality of the Driver Responsibility Act. It prevents responsibility and perpetuates "irresponsibility" by labeling "irresponsibility" as being too poor to meet a demand by fiat for more loot.

[Detwa]

The name of it is so ridiculous too. It has nothing to do with responsibility at all. It's like a fee for getting a ticket - but then the ticket itself is a fee, and there's already additional fees attached to the ticket. And if you dont' pay the DR fee, your license can be suspended - you can't just pay the ticket, you have to pay the additional fees.

And yes, its a fee that you pay for like 3 years for thate ONE ticket. It's totally unfair.

I thought I had read that it was already being repealed next year?

[lilpup]

Sorry, no sympathy here for those whose irresponsible behavior gets them slapped with this fee.

[HistoryNotHisStory]

Help you oppose the driver responsibilty act. For heaven sakes no! It's time for people to drive and keep your eye on the road and watch for pedestrians and animals. It's moral way to save lives and you.

Being a great driver has nothing to do with the speed traps in the State.

Michigan is No. 1

[maxx]

Richard:

It sounds like you favor jail time over fines or fees. Our jails are already filled, and we shouldn't need to build more prisons. In some European countries, people are fined for felonies instead of getting prolonged prison time. GIven the way prisons tend to be run by inmates and just give felons the opportunity to exchange techniques and teach new felons, I'd say minimize jail time for nonviolent criminals.

[Gannon]

Sorry, no sympathy here for those whose irresponsible behavior gets them slapped with this fee.

Yeah, because I'm sure you drive the speed limit all the time. You never break a law. Un-huh.


Karmic whiplash is a motherfucker.


Sincerely,
John

[lilpup]

Yeah, because I'm sure you drive the speed limit all the time. You never break a law. Un-huh.


Karmic whiplash is a motherfucker.


Sincerely,
John

Yeah, it is and those who actually manage to incur the fee deserve it just for being too stupid to obey the law when at risk for getting it. It's not as if it kicks in after the first ticket for a moving violation.

[wolverine]

I think the only extra fee that should be payed by "irresponsible drivers" is a DUI. Know your limits. You drive drunk, you pay astronomical fees, and have your paycheck garnished a certain percentage for 20 years.

Want to drink alot? No problem, you can:

Walk
Take a bus
Take a train
Take a taxi

[Gannon]

Yeah, it is and those who actually manage to incur the fee deserve it just for being too stupid to obey the law when at risk for getting it. It's not as if it kicks in after the first ticket for a moving violation.

I'll take your ante and up it once more.


If police DIDN'T have a driver's entire driving record on their computer screen [[usually pulled before the lights go on for any stop), then THEY couldn't play judge and jury in the first place. A person with priors is MUCH more likely to be treated harshly before the ticket is even written.

Doesn't matter what the priors are, either. Cops should NEVER be allowed to make this judgement in the field. The ONLY information they should be given is if a person has had any form of violence in their past, especially against authority...and if it used in any personal crime.


That would eliminate favoritism...and again, this stupid misnamed fee is totally DOUBLE JEAPORDY...additional punishment that is not allowed to be mitigated in any way by the sentencing judge. I don't care the reasons, it is illegal and unethical...and totally regressive. Those who cannot afford the savvy attorneys get shafted with this much more than those in the whitbred suburbs.


Same with 'traffic school', too, btw. I got a ticket 20 years ago on one of the two-lane roads that cross I-75 near Clarkston during rush hour. Took it to court, since the cop was writing everyone who crossed the line...even though he'd have been of actual USE directing traffic and forcing those northbound to make a gap for the few turning onto the freeway onramp. Watched as the first ten people got shot down, since they only had a 'magistrate' who didn't have to power to deal. He got PISSED when I requested an actual judge.

Came back weeks later for that court date. Went, on my own, to visit the prosecutor before the session. She was a hard-ass, again shooting down the three poor folks asking for favors in front of me. JUST as I got my turn, some older gentleman she knew well poked his head in and made her laugh. Her demeanor 'corrected', she in mid-laugh asked what I wanted. I asked for school, and a year to prove this a fluke [[which it WASN'T, but I say that in total honesty).

The MAJORITY of people with tickets on both days of court were black. By far. When I made it to traffic school...can you guess how many people of color were in the room?! If you say NONE, you would be correct.


So...from that experience alone, I realize there is a terrible imbalance in what they call the Justice system in our land. Any packing on of fees above and beyond what has been working forever is usury, and should be illegal.



Cheers,
John

[lilpup]

I'll take your ante and up it once more.


If police DIDN'T have a driver's entire driving record on their computer screen [[usually pulled before the lights go on for any stop), then THEY couldn't play judge and jury in the first place. A person with priors is MUCH more likely to be treated harshly before the ticket is even written.

And how, exactly, are they identifying the driver before even flipping on the lights? License plates only identify the vehicle owner, not the driver. Kinda blows your premise there, hyperbole boy.

As far as the rest, who knows other than the fact that blacks represent an inordinate number of the impoverished around here and that works against getting a vehicle legally purchased, plated, and insured, leading to more enforceable infractions on the part of those who take the illegal shortcuts. Traffic school is for unsafe driving issues, not licensing and insurance issues.

[Gannon]

And how, exactly, are they identifying the driver before even flipping on the lights? License plates only identify the vehicle owner, not the driver. Kinda blows your premise there, hyperbole boy.

As far as the rest, who knows other than the fact that blacks represent an inordinate number of the impoverished around here and that works against getting a vehicle legally purchased, plated, and insured, leading to more enforceable infractions on the part of those who do the only thing they can to survive in this town with spotty public transportation, at best. Traffic school is for unsafe driving issues, not licensing and insurance issues.

Fixed it for you.


You're right that plate scans only indicate owner...

...although it doesn't take but a generous moment to realize the argument is about how much information the police officer has at their disposal once the driver's license is in hand...the rest is certainly valid.



Hyperbole, really?! I am sure I've not spoken anything that wasn't intended on being taken literally in this thread. I'm sure I've not exaggerated anything. Is it possible you are unaware of the meaning of this term?!

I'll help. Dictionary.com can be your friend.

hy·per·bo·le

   /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Show Spelled[hahy-pur-buh-lee]


noun Rhetoric. 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

Even there, you might mistake my saying you should go jump into the river as hyperbole. :-)

[Django]

So the city can fine you for speeding and now the state can fine you on top of that, whats next, the feds?
Lilpup, come on, I gotta ask, do you ever speed? have you ever been slapped with one of these tickets.

This is where my conservative values kick in as to wanting a small government and keeping them the fuck outta my business.

State law piggybacking on city law in order to make more money, Granholm did that dirt to us, now we have whats his name cutting movie tax credits and it seems every other ppl I talk to in the newly found Michigan film industry is outta work.

[lilpup]

Lilpup, come on, I gotta ask, do you ever speed? have you ever been slapped with one of these tickets.

Yes, I've gotten speeding tickets BUT I've never had more than four points on my record at any one time. The driver responsibility fee doesn't kick in until you get SEVEN points. SEVEN points is a lot. Even a reckless driving ticket is only six points. The last time I saw a list hitting a pedestrian was only six. It's not that tough to avoid getting seven points in a two year span.

[Richardksly]

Richard:

It sounds like you favor jail time over fines or fees. Our jails are already filled, and we shouldn't need to build more prisons. In some European countries, people are fined for felonies instead of getting prolonged prison time. GIven the way prisons tend to be run by inmates and just give felons the opportunity to exchange techniques and teach new felons, I'd say minimize jail time for nonviolent criminals.

I wouldn't say that per say. I favor punishment judged by the courts in accordance with the particular facts, rights violations, and damages involved. As against arbitrary and giant unpayable fees based on generic whim that goes to pay everyone and no one in particular in accordance with no actual rights violations or objective danger.


And as long as I'm checking the thread again please do join my Facebook group and help me support the DRA repeal.

I've recently learned of a new repeal bill HB48166 which would repeal the entire DRA as well as stop all payments due to the state to regain your license! That would be ideal lets make it happen finally.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...e=2011-HB-4816