Posted on 01/20/2007 9:00:39 PM PST by TWohlford
Michigan's driver responsibility law faces criticism BY TIM MARTIN Associated Press Writer
LANSING — Michigan's 3-year-old driver responsibility law is taking some heat, and not just from angry motorists facing higher fines.
Some state lawmakers say they might consider changes to the program next year, in part because they question whether the extra fees have made Michigan roads any safer.
The driver responsibility program, which took effect in late 2003, adds an extra state fee onto certain traffic offenses. The law's intent was to punish drivers with more serious offenses, but it also was passed to help balance the strained state budget.
Under the law, those convicted of drunken driving pay a fee of $1,000 per year for two years. Driving without insurance tacks on an additional $200 annual charge. Driving with an expired license costs $150 per year for the two-year period.
Drivers who have accumulated seven or more points on their Michigan record also can face extra fees for lesser offenses such as speeding, improper turns and following other vehicles too closely.
A potential roadblock to scaling back or eliminating the program is the cash-strapped state budget. The driver responsibility program has brought in nearly $166 million for the state since fees began coming due in early 2004. That could lead to resistance to changes that could cut into the state's revenue at a time of looming budget deficits.
"It's certainly been effective at raising revenues for the state of Michigan," said Republican Rep. Tom Pearce of Rockford. "Has it done anything to impact safety in the state of Michigan as far as our roads? We're not hearing that. And that's my biggest concern."
After hearing a handful of judges and motorists complain about the program at a state House subcommittee meeting earlier this month, Pearce said he would consider measures to change the program. He plans to wait for more information and testimony from state departments before deciding how to proceed.
The state so far has collected roughly 40 percent of the fees that have been billed. Another 60 percent — about $257 million — so far has not been collected, in part because the offenders can't afford to pay. The state continues to try and collect payments if they aren't made on time, and drivers could have their licenses suspended if they don't pay.
Michigan judges appearing at a state House hearing told lawmakers the program is hurting low-income people while not bringing much benefit to the state. Some motorists drive without insurance because they can't afford it, which means they typically can't afford the driver responsibility fees if they're caught driving without insurance and fined.
District Judge Brian Oakley from Romulus said he would like to see the program go away completely.
The judges' testimony focused on people who come to court for driving on suspended licenses or without insurance.
No state study has been done to determine whether the program has had an effect on road safety in Michigan. Supporters of the original legislation modeled the plan after one in New Jersey, where reports suggested the program had helped improve road safety.
Sen. Jud Gilbert, R-Algonac, was one of the sponsors of legislation creating the Michigan plan. Gilbert said he would like to see a study done to determine if the program has contributed to road safety.
"The idea is to create an incentive to driving responsibly," Gilbert said.
But Gilbert acknowledged the program is "unpopular" and said he would be open to considering changes, including scaling it back.
Gilbert also said that state revenue is a concern. The program has not brought in as much money as originally projected, but every revenue source could be important if the state budget situation is as bleak as some are now projecting.
Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm has said the state may need to come up with at least $1 billion to balance this year's and next year's budget.
The scope of the budget problem will become more evident when the state's top economists meet next month for a revenue estimating conference.
"If Republican leaders in the Legislature want to propose changes, we would look at them," Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said. "But we are facing very challenging budget times."
You know, the GOP said they were gonna cut taxes, but then the put in bad laws like this. The GOP ran this state for 12 years of Engler, and 4 more years of running the Legislature, yet they added taxes like this one. No wonder they were voted out.
Sadly, this tax normally hits people who are simply too poor to pay for a fine. However, the Dems only stand up for poor people when there aren't tax monies to be lost.
There should be a "governing responsibility" law. Jennifer Granholm would be in the poor house.
not only does it violate being punished twice for the same offense. It is just a cash grab that will hit law abiding citizens the hardest.
"FEE" my backside.
How can they realistically expect 3-year-old drivers to be responsible? Damn Democrats! ;-)
Perhaps they need fewer judges from Romulus and more from Vulcan. That would be the logical thing to do.
And the 60% are caught in the legal system indefinitely. Of those who get suspended and can't pony up the three grand, I bet a lot of them end up driving anyhow.
These fees sound way out of line, almost "cruel and unusual".
About the interstate agreement deals...
My (Dem) State Senator has a staffer who got a DRT bill, for a ticket that she got in Washington DC! It seems that she didn't get it paid, her license suspended... well, anyway, she got nailed for a ticket in DC.
It would help the State treasury more if we simply took poor people out and shot them if they got in trouble w/ traffic laws. I mean, bullets are cheap, and we could clear out the welfare roles as well as the list of traffic offenders.
It is cases like that that show up why the GOP got voted out here. Over 16 years, the GOP cut taxes, but failed to downsize government, or make it more efficient, or diversify the economy so that we'd be immune to auto downturns. Over 16 years, the GOP allowed 75% of the State budget to be off-limits to the Legislature, mostly because the voters don't trust the Legislature. Worse yet, GOP lawmakers (including my local Rep) thought that they could be re-elected by bringing back the pork to their district.
"These fees sound way out of line, almost "cruel and unusual"."
That was pretty much the words used by the District Court judges association, when they last met.
My friend now lives on welfare, because she can't drive. The number one factor indicating poverty in Michigan is lack of access to a car. No car = no work = welfare.
No, you move closer to your place of employment. If you have to walk there then that's what you do. I'll bet if welfare and food stamps weren't available for your friend, that friend would find a way to get to work to earn the grocery money.
The irony of that statement is not lost on me. The state who's largest city is known as the Motor City has a problem with lack of access to cars. You'd think there would be plenty of old beaters around.
"No, you move closer to your place of employment."
Sorry, but that isn't possible in 95% of the State of Michigan. Since we were built on the idea of everyone having a car, there is virtually no public transportation, and certainly on place where one can walk to both work AND stores.
If you can point to a place in Michigan, please tell me. However, I'll show you a map of Michigan, and point out the other 95% or more.
I would imagine a lot of people will be leaving Michigan if it's livability is that bad. The congestion, parking and smog must really suck.
What a stinkin' liar RINO hypocrite thing to say.
If he meant not to sound like a RINO he would have said, "It hasn't done anything to impact safety in the state of Michigan therefore it ought to be abolished in spite of it being yet another state revenue enhancer that actually is a usurpation tax on our citizens that on top of all the other over-taxation in this state that drive them as taxpayers, out of the state."
Maybe people too poor to pay a $65 fine can't afford to buy insurance, either, and so shouldn't be driving.
Isn't this the sort of bad government that Robin Hood was fighting against? I can't believe that Americans allowed this to happen.
Under the law, those convicted of drunken driving pay a fee of $1,000 per year for two years. Driving without insurance tacks on an additional $200 annual charge. Driving with an expired license costs $150 per year for the two-year period. Drivers who have accumulated seven or more points on their Michigan record also can face extra fees for lesser offenses such as speeding, improper turns and following other vehicles too closely.
This is totally an instance of the rich robbing the poor. The law is unjust and unconstitutional. Grandholm do the right thing and abolish this law or step down. You’re hurting Michigan residents at a time when unemployment is at it’s highest in this state.
Sign the petition to have this law repealed here.
http://natebal.com/journal/2008/05/12/michigan-drivers-responsibility-law-an-unfair-act-during-hard-times/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.