So do we really have a drunk driving problem in Virginia if 99.9% of the offenders were sober during this crackdown. Wake up that MADD’s goal is prohibition.
If even 1 drunk driver is on the highways, we have a drunk driving problem. MADD does over-empahasize the problem, but drunk driving cannot be condoaned under any circumstances.
What the article didn’t comment on was how much money Virginia made in “civil remedial fees” for the traffic infractions. Reckless driving can cost you over $3,500 in fees. Even minor infractions have high fees ($900 for low tire tread).
All 100 seats of the Virginia Legislature are up for grabs in November. If Virginia drivers want to see these new fees go away (they went into effect July 1, 2007 to help raise money for Transportation and roads), then we need to send a message at the ballot box. Remember, the fees are only imposed on Virginia drivers; they do not apply to any out of state drivers who commit driving infractions on our roads.
OK, so with Ed’s line of thinking, all the cops in VA should concentrate on one town. They should go in there and search everyone’s home. As we know, at least 2% will have illegal drugs. If they catch just one of out a thousand homes having illegal drugs, then that is better than none. Who cares about privacy? Let’s say they were possible terrorists under the Patriot Act.
Thanks Junkie, now I can drive like a jerk in VA and not worry about it. Wooo-hooo! I will leave the alcohol at home and drive 90 in a 55. Am I more dangerous than a drunk driver? According to MADD, I am not. http://www.getmadd.com/
I don’t know how the law works in VA, but in California you are considered a “drunk driver” if you are over the “legal limit” of .08. (Now that’s an oxymoron! What’s legal about drinking and driving?!) I notice that there were 303 reckless driving cites on I-81 and 540 reckless driving cites on I-95 – quite possibly these were people “below” the “legal limit”.
WOW – why don’t we think of doing something like this in California?…it sure would be a wake-up call…..
You claim that MADD wants prohibition. Is this what they really want? Can you show me where they say this, or is it merely your opinion that they want prohibition? I will give you that MADD is very extremist in their claims and might embellish their numbers to prove their point, but I don’t think prohibition is their goal. Only safer highways and enforcement of driving laws. That’s not a bad thing, is it?
I agree with Joey. Point fingers if you want, but do you have proof that MADD wants prohibition? Do you have a website proving this claim? If not, you are just as bad as MADD by providing this misinformation.
James and MADD LIES probably hate MADD because they have been pulled over and arrested for DUI’s on multiple occasions. Drunk driving is a serious issue and people like James and M.L. almost seem to promote drinking and driving and in our line of work that’s sick.
It does seem that ML and James seem to be promoting drunk driving. I don’t get why they are so against MADD. I’ve seen the same stuff in many posts – “MADD lies! They want prohibition!” I don’t get the anger.
The simple fact is that society will never prevent 100% of drunk driving regardless of all the weekend blitzes the police do and all the clamoring MADD does. It’s unfortunate that the deviant 1% of the population can drive the process here. As one responder aptly pointed out, 99.9% of people are not problematic. It’s just like the “shoe bomber”…..one moron TRIES to use his shoe as an explosive and the whole world has to remove it’s shoes at the airport.
If society was serious about addressing the problem, you wouldn’t see repeat offenders. Our legal system is pathetic joke. I’m sure you’ve seen advertisements from attorneys who will help you “beat drunk driving charges”. It’s really not that difficult a problem to solve. Make the consequence severe enough to really discourage people from driving drunk. How about this. A “real” zero tolerance policy. You get convicted of drunk driving, you get a $5,000 fine, and have your vehicle impounded until you finish your mandatory 1 year jail sentence. Of course our spineless legal system won’t ever do the right thing. It would be a hardship on the drunks. So instead, we’ll let some poor family bear the hardship of dealing with a tragic death of a loved one.
So do we really have a drunk driving problem in Virginia if 99.9% of the offenders were sober during this crackdown. Wake up that MADD’s goal is prohibition.
If even 1 drunk driver is on the highways, we have a drunk driving problem. MADD does over-empahasize the problem, but drunk driving cannot be condoaned under any circumstances.
What the article didn’t comment on was how much money Virginia made in “civil remedial fees” for the traffic infractions. Reckless driving can cost you over $3,500 in fees. Even minor infractions have high fees ($900 for low tire tread).
All 100 seats of the Virginia Legislature are up for grabs in November. If Virginia drivers want to see these new fees go away (they went into effect July 1, 2007 to help raise money for Transportation and roads), then we need to send a message at the ballot box. Remember, the fees are only imposed on Virginia drivers; they do not apply to any out of state drivers who commit driving infractions on our roads.
OK, so with Ed’s line of thinking, all the cops in VA should concentrate on one town. They should go in there and search everyone’s home. As we know, at least 2% will have illegal drugs. If they catch just one of out a thousand homes having illegal drugs, then that is better than none. Who cares about privacy? Let’s say they were possible terrorists under the Patriot Act.
MADD is a joke. http://www.getmadd.com/
Thanks Junkie, now I can drive like a jerk in VA and not worry about it. Wooo-hooo! I will leave the alcohol at home and drive 90 in a 55. Am I more dangerous than a drunk driver? According to MADD, I am not.
http://www.getmadd.com/
I don’t know how the law works in VA, but in California you are considered a “drunk driver” if you are over the “legal limit” of .08. (Now that’s an oxymoron! What’s legal about drinking and driving?!) I notice that there were 303 reckless driving cites on I-81 and 540 reckless driving cites on I-95 – quite possibly these were people “below” the “legal limit”.
WOW – why don’t we think of doing something like this in California?…it sure would be a wake-up call…..
You claim that MADD wants prohibition. Is this what they really want? Can you show me where they say this, or is it merely your opinion that they want prohibition? I will give you that MADD is very extremist in their claims and might embellish their numbers to prove their point, but I don’t think prohibition is their goal. Only safer highways and enforcement of driving laws. That’s not a bad thing, is it?
I agree with Joey. Point fingers if you want, but do you have proof that MADD wants prohibition? Do you have a website proving this claim? If not, you are just as bad as MADD by providing this misinformation.
James and MADD LIES probably hate MADD because they have been pulled over and arrested for DUI’s on multiple occasions. Drunk driving is a serious issue and people like James and M.L. almost seem to promote drinking and driving and in our line of work that’s sick.
It does seem that ML and James seem to be promoting drunk driving. I don’t get why they are so against MADD. I’ve seen the same stuff in many posts – “MADD lies! They want prohibition!” I don’t get the anger.
The simple fact is that society will never prevent 100% of drunk driving regardless of all the weekend blitzes the police do and all the clamoring MADD does. It’s unfortunate that the deviant 1% of the population can drive the process here. As one responder aptly pointed out, 99.9% of people are not problematic. It’s just like the “shoe bomber”…..one moron TRIES to use his shoe as an explosive and the whole world has to remove it’s shoes at the airport.
If society was serious about addressing the problem, you wouldn’t see repeat offenders. Our legal system is pathetic joke. I’m sure you’ve seen advertisements from attorneys who will help you “beat drunk driving charges”. It’s really not that difficult a problem to solve. Make the consequence severe enough to really discourage people from driving drunk. How about this. A “real” zero tolerance policy. You get convicted of drunk driving, you get a $5,000 fine, and have your vehicle impounded until you finish your mandatory 1 year jail sentence. Of course our spineless legal system won’t ever do the right thing. It would be a hardship on the drunks. So instead, we’ll let some poor family bear the hardship of dealing with a tragic death of a loved one.