Drive for safer roads gains speed (Will flipping the middle finger cost you $1,000?)

Home News Tribune ^ | 06.15.07 | MICHAEL RISPOLI

[Coleus]

A variety of driving restrictions were advanced Thursday by lawmakers in three separate committees aimed at improving road safety in New Jersey and increasing driver accountability.  A proposed ban on text messaging while driving was expanded to include language upgrading the existing ban on talking on a hand-held cell phone while driving to a primary offense. That would give police the authority, for the first time, to pull drivers over even if they're not seen committing any other offense.  "This is a phenomenon that is exploding," said Assemblyman Paul Moriarty, D-Gloucester, sponsor of the texting-ban proposal. "It is highly dangerous, and we need to control it."

Critics have said the new texting law is unnecessary, as officers can already ticket drivers for driving carelessly regardless of what causes the activity.  Valerie Brown, legislative counsel and director for the New Jersey State Bar Association, said the bill does not "recognize the fact that the current statutes are really the best way to achieve what the Legislature wants to do."  Both ideas passed the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee unanimously.  In order to deal with intersections with high traffic violations, Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Middlesex, is sponsoring a bill allowing municipalities to apply for a two-year pilot program in which cameras would be installed at traffic lights to catch traffic violators.  Both the driver and owner of the cars would be liable for the violation, but the owner could be exempt if the driver is found using the car without consent. Violations would not result in issuing points to the license. Law enforcement officials would be able to review the tapes and photos to determine if a summons should be issued.

These systems have come under fire in many cities where they've been installed. The Minnesota Supreme Court in April said the program offers the accused less due-process protection than drivers pulled over by police officers and therefore is unconstitutional. A representative from Redflex Traffic Systems, a company providing these cameras, testified before the committee Thursday. Redflex has been named in several lawsuits in other states. In Albuquerque, N.M., citizens said the cameras violate due process laws.  Some states have used camera systems to net significant profits from tickets issued to drivers. Recently, lawmakers in some states have passed measures to limit profit, instead diverting funds into trauma or pedestrian safety accounts.

Wisniewski said the program is designed only to improve public safety and that existing fines for running a red light would not increase to maximize profit.  "Just because other municipalities did it that way, not every town here will have to," said Wisniewski. The bill passed with one vote against it, cast by Assemblyman Brian Rumpf, R-Ocean, who worried about the specter of cameras watching for traffic violators. "I can't help but think this sets up a Big Brother mentality," Rumpf said.  A separate bill that gained wide support in the Assembly Judiciary Committee would create a specific offense for "road rage," which it defines as excessive speeding, improper or erratic lane changes, tailgating, improper passing, failing to yield, ignoring traffic signals or audible verbal threats or gestures done in anger or intimidation committed simultaneously or in succession.

A first offense would carry a 30-day suspension, up to $1,000 in fines and a requirement to attend anger-management classes. Subsequent offenses carry $3,000 fines and suspension up to 120 days. If the accident involves severe physical harm to another person, it could result in up to five years in jail.  "Drivers who put their own selfish needs before the safety of the public must be held accountable," said Assemblywoman Linda Greenstein, D-Middlesex, sponsor of the measure. The proposal stems from a 2005 incident in Hamilton. Jessica Rogers, then 16, was paralyzed from the chest down when the car she was riding in crashed into a utility pole after chasing down another car that had cut off the first vehicle. The driver in Rogers' car received six months in jail and five years probation.   Rogers said because of the prevalence of aggressive driving, penalties need to be stricter.  "Too many people, including people in this room right now I'm sure, have done it at least once — getting mad at someone who has cut them off," said Rogers.

[BipolarBob]

Ruh-roh. Look for selective enforcement coming to a state near you.

[samm1148]

Of course the people who drive like whackos out of one of the Mad Max movies won’t have ANYTHING done to them. They use their cars like weapons and we aren’t allowed to take matters into our own hands.

[The Iceman Cometh]

Isn't this pretty much how government works these days?

People are (fill in the blank) and "we need to control it."

[Coleus]

it also reminds me of hate-crime or thought-crime legislation. If someone flips the bird at you, are they just mad at you for cutting them off or is it a sign that you want to run them off the road and cause harm to body and property? How does a law enforcement officer or the person in the other car know what a person is thinking? this law is ridiculous.

[Joann37]

The road rage regulation makes sense, but it should be accompanied by a regulation that gives a similar penalty for those who can’t seem to operate a turn signal. Besides being angered when a cell phone yakker ties up traffic by driving too slow, failure to signal is probably the second rudest thing that people do.

[Dinsdale]

You just need to be more multicultural.

In New Guinea the single fingered fertility gesture means 'May you have many sons!' It's the nicest gesture you can give someone and they believe it has great spiritual power. You wouldn't flip-off anybody but a close friend of family member.

[Duck Fan]

“Both the driver and owner of the cars would be liable for the violation,.........”

WTF. If I was a business owner, would I be liable for employee violations while they are using company cars? Total BS.

[snarkpup]

Besides being angered when a cell phone yakker ties up traffic by driving too slow, failure to signal is probably the second rudest thing that people do.

I can beat those. How about people who go off the roadway to pass on the right when the car being passed is in the rightmost lane and signaling a right turn? Fortunately, I haven't seen this practice since leaving Illinois.

[goodnesswins]

tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..tax..

[sarasmom]

I’m still looking to replace the best bumper sticker I ever had:

QUIT HONKING!
I’M RELOADING.

It was extremely effective as a passive defense against the usual rude,thoughtless and self-centered angry driver.
Would I be ticketed for having that on my car?

Rather than create a new stream of revenue, why not just take away driving privileges, for a time, from careless and aggressive drivers?
Since the police are never around when you need them, why not set up a complaint system for drivers who have been the victims of road rage and careless drivers, so people can e-mail the complaint, and after X number of complaints against a tag number, require the police to issue a warning to the offender?

Or just issue responsible drivers laser guided, short range electromagnetic pulse generators.

[Nik Naym]

“why not just take away driving privileges,”

They are NOT privileges. Quit drinking the kool aid already!

I have a RIGHT to drive on any public road, and as long as I endanger no one and obey the laws, no one has the right to take my RIGHTS to drive away. And if they want to restrict or take away a right, they must use DUE PROCESS.

They want us us to believe the “privilege” B.S. so they can skip due process. And people just keep playing along and supporting this revolting concept.

As a citizen and taxpayer they are MY roads, and it IS my right to use them.

[familyop]

They need to crack down on drivers who change lanes to the right while making left turns. Illegal lane changes in general are a problem.

[familyop]

"or audible verbal threats or gestures done in anger or intimidation committed simultaneously or in succession."

That's a good idea. And good drivers should always have video cameras and cell phones in their cars to make sure that the spoiled rotten hotheads are arrested. It's easier than confronting (like a drill sergeant) one of the childish hotheads outside of their car and seeing them babble and then grovel (done that more than once). Before the 1980s, drivers who gestured like that at other drivers were stomped. Now we do things in other ways (witnesses, evidence, courts,...). Why let them get your blood pressure up? Like spoiled kids, that's what they're addicted to doing--trying to ruin another drivers day.

[lowbridge]

Is that a thousand per finger or per incident?

Here's what I think of that law: ‹^› ‹(•¿•)› ‹^›

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

It was obvious that the dumb law about using a phone while driving would fail.
Now the birdbrains want to make it “a primary offense”

Also, the criminal who is driving in a crazy manner will go free, while the person who makes a sign will be arrested!

[CGTRWK]

Besides being angered when a cell phone yakker ties up traffic by driving too slow, failure to signal is probably the second rudest thing that people do.

I think signalling and then not turning is even worse. It is already a given that other cars around you will maneuver without signalling. But when geezers who shouldn't be off residental streets drive for miles with their left turn signal on (and then merge right without signalling or looking) they contribute even more to traffic entropy than the non-signallers.

And yet the only enforcement that I ever see taking place is 75 in a 55 revenue stops on limited access highways that would be posted 85 by any reasonable standard.

[Coleus]

They need to crack down on drivers who change lanes to the right while making left turns. Illegal lane changes in general are a problem. >>>

I agree but that has nothing to do with the other law they are trying to pass, the one about “gestures” where you can be fined $1,000 and imprisoned for 30 days for a “thought” crime.

[Coleus]

The road rage regulation makes sense, >>

we already have plenty of laws on the book for tailgating, careless driving, reckless driving, etc. this is overkill. Does your state have such a law enforcing road rage?

[familyop]

I understand. But in another time, I saw hippies beaten for displaying that finger at conservative people, and the beatings were generally upheld and respected in such cases. :-)

BTW, laws against “disturbing the peace” were also enforced back then. Under those laws, in some states, rightful citizens were allowed to either punch such liberaltarian violaters in their faces (barring serious injuries) or have them arrested (if the victims of name-calling and the like were old).