Posted on 02/15/2011 6:56:54 AM PST by Ken H
Virginia passes bill imposing up to $2500 fine and possible jail time for boulevard stops.
The Virginia House of Delegates and a state Senate committee approved legislation that would make a rolling right-hand turn on a red light a reckless driving offense. On Thursday the Senate Transportation Committee unanimously approved a bill introduced by Delegate Bill Janis (R-Glen Allen) which the lower chamber had approved by a 67 to 31 margin on February 4.
"Any person who drives a motor vehicle in violation of Section 46.2-833 is guilty of reckless driving," House Bill 1993 states.
Under current law, Section 46.2-833, as referenced above, makes it an infraction either to turn right without stopping on a red light or to enter an intersection a fraction of a second after the light changes to red. The effect of the bill would be to change the penalty for a California stop into a class one misdemeanor carrying six license points, a fine of up to $2500, up to one year in jail and a six-month driver's license suspension. US Department of Transportation statistics show that rolling stops rarely cause accidents (view report).
This outcome is clearly contemplated by the House Courts of Justice Committee which amended the original version of the bill which only sought to impose the reckless penalty on anyone who "unintentionally causes the serious bodily injury or death of another" through red light running. The committee also struck a provision ensuring that the reckless penalty is not applied to infractions detected by a red light camera.
Virginia lawmakers are notorious for turning what other states treat as ordinary traffic infractions into serious misdemeanors. For example, the offense of driving as little as 10 MPH over the limit on some rural interstates may only be charged as reckless driving. Section 46.2-860 of the state code allows police to cite motorists who fail to use a turn signal with reckless driving. In an interview with TheNewspaper, senior Virginia State Police officials confirmed that there are no written guidelines covering offenses that can be treated either as infractions or as reckless driving, leaving police officers free to cite under the reckless statute at their discretion.
The issue came to light in 2007 when the state attempted to impose a mandatory $1050 tax on reckless driving convictions which turned out primarily to involve minor speeding offenses. A bicyclist in Newport News was charged with reckless driving for pedaling too fast. In practice, the state uses the reckless charge to discourage motorists from challenging citations by forcing a plea bargain that is favorable to the state.
A copy of House Bill 1993 in the version as passed by the House, followed by the original version, is available in a 10k PDF file at the source link below.
Change: sic semper tyrannis - to - imperium sine fine?
"Your just ran the stop-sign back there at the last intersection."
"Oh, come on pal, there wasn't a car within miles of me," countered the driver.
"Nevertheless sir, you are required to come to a complete stop, look both ways, and proceed with caution."
"You gotta be kidding me!" barked the offender. "I slowed down almost to a complete stop, saw no one within twenty miles, and proceeded with caution."
"That's beside the point, sir. You are supposed to come to a complete stop, and you didn't. Now if I may see your license and..."
"You've got a lot of time on your hands, PAL!" interrupted the belligerent motorist. "What's the matter, all the doughnut shops closed?"
"Sir, I'll overlook that last comment. Let me see your license and registration immediately!"
"I will – if you can tell me the difference between slowing down, and coming to a complete stop."
The police officer had enough, "Sir, I can do better than that." He opened the car door, dragged the obnoxious motorist out, and proceeded to methodically beat him over the head with his nightstick. "Now sir, would you like me to slow down or come to a complete stop?"
now what the H*ll is this? I had not been paying attention to the State Police wishlist this year. I guess we now need a VCDL for driving rights like the one we have for gun rights.
A “rolling stop,” is an OXYMORON it really is the practice of slowing as you enter an intersection in the HOPE that you could stop in time if another driver was in your path, and it is reckless.
It is hardly possible to stop a moving vehicle in time to prevent an accident.
It is nothing new, the illegality of running stop signs and red lights.
People need to learn how to drive. A red light means stop...not tap your breaks and slide around a corner. If it takes extreme measures to stop the senseless killings, fine with me. Personally, I learned that at about 5 years of age on my bicycle not to run red lights and stop signs and have never been the cause of a problem, since.
How many people need to get hurt or lose their lives because someone wants to avoid waiting a FEW SECONDS to turn.
If someone runs a red light or stop sign and hurts or kills your wife, husband, parent or children, who is that good for.
These are the exact kinds of accidents where people do get killed or maimed.
Even ambulance drivers are required to “stop.” Why, because it is so deadly...not only for other passengers of vehicles, but also pedestrians and bicyclists.
Two firefighters killed in wreck
http://www.martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm?ID=24604
Two children killed in Rogers County wreck
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100917_11_0_Tocide819870&allcom=1
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Statistics show that every 111 minutes one pedestrian is killed due to driving negligence, which is caused either due to running a stop sign or not giving the right of the way to pedestrians at a pedestrian crossing.
Out of all the traffic-related deaths that occurred in 1991, 2.6 percent of deaths were caused due to running of a stop sign. It is estimated that in United States, each year, around 5,000 pedestrians are killed and 64,000 injured. Many of the fatalities occur due to stop sign accidents and more fatalities occur in urban areas because of the sheer number of pedestrians and vehicles.
Between 1999 and 2000, 13,627 cars were involved in fatal car accidents. All these accidents were caused because the cars ran stop signs. This should give you an indication about how serious running stop signs can be not just for you, the driver, but also the pedestrian.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The bottom line is that stop signs and red lights are not yield signs and just like speeding at high rate or changing lanes erratically or slamming on your bakes for no reason, it IS reckless driving. Learn to drive or pay the price for risking everyone else’s lives for your own STUPIDITY.
Depends. I have been at intersections where I never actually 'locked' my wheels but had time to look both ways and pull out only after verifying no traffic was coming. It is not always reckless.
Pox on the ruling class!
The Philadelphia Rolling Stop.
Virginia has never met a draconian traffic law that it didn’t like. I remember, back in the 1980s, how the Virginia highway patrol would enforce the 55 mph speed limit by having two patrol cars drive side-by-side at 55 mph through several miles of I-77 as it passed through that state. Miles and miles of cars would be backed up behind them as they enforced with their rolling roadblock. It’s a wonder nobody ever shot at them!
Virginia remains the only state in the country in which you cannot have a radio in your car capable of receiving certain microwave frequencies (K-band, X-band, etc.)
This is probably to remove appeal of red light camera fines for right turns with out stopping for a red light at a deserted intersection in the middle of the night
What do my rotating wheels (whatever the rotational speed) have to do with the assessment as to the existence of oncoming or pedestrian traffic? If I can properly determine the existence (or lack thereof) of other motorists/foot traffic in 3 seconds of creeping at an intersection (I’m just making up an amount of time that isn’t zero), isn’t that the objective? Or does cessation of ANY movement qualify in your mind as THE sole determining factor as to whether a driver has properly checked for other traffic?
If some driver with a big, furry, sheepskin seat belt cover and those awesome over-the-glasses super-duper sunglasses is craning to see who’s coming from the left over his shoulder, does his stopped car mean he is taking the proper precaution at an intersection?
Or maybe, would you, (like me) prefer he *actually* look at and for any oncoming traffic before he proceeds?
Seems arbitrary to think that the mere fact that wheels have stopped rotating is the key element involved in assessing the right-of-way.
My comment was broader than the stop issue. What good comes from making penalties harsher? Do people obey b/c of it? Id say not and in the end wind up a slave for no reason. Drunk driving law is very strict but people keep doing it and the law still wasn’t able to save. The only ones who make out in the deal are the state and lawyers. So, while all you said was true how are stricter penalties going to solve the problem?
“If we do that, there is no need to worry about the highway patrol, whether lurking or not.”
Riiight...
***
There are two issues here. One has to do with an excessive charge for certain violations. On that issue, my comment stands— We’ve been warned, so take the risk, and the potential consequences. For example, I favor the death penalty for rape. Those who don’t like the death penalty for rape, if such a law were passed, would be well-served by not raping anyone. Traffic offenses, except for equipment violations (non-working brake light, e.g.) are willful conduct. If you don’t want the ticket for $500 for one mile an hour over the limit, don’t speed.
Some seem to be suggesting, and maybe correctly, that the highway patrol may be arresting people who are NOT actually violating the law. That is a completely different issue, and I support going after any police who do that. Do we have evidence of that in Virginia?
In neighboring Maryland, there’s a new law requiring oncoming drivers to move from the lane adjacent to a stopped emergency vehicle that is flashing.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
That is and has been a law in Virginia also.
However, common sense should tell you to slow down or get over if possible for ANYTHING parked on the shoulder.
I ‘resent’ the law BUT if you observe close enough, traffic does not tend to slow down - hell they don’t even get over for emergency vehicles any more and if you do, ‘they’ won’t hardly let you back into the lane you were in....
Well, by all means, let’s just remove all driving guidelines. I mean, those pesky double yellow lines sure do inconvenience those of us who would like to hug the inside left lane of a two lane highway on a left hand curve, eh!
I mean what really matters is that we didn’t actually hit anyone, right? So, why would we fine someone for crossing into oncoming traffic...do we REALLY think that deters someone from doing it?
I know many people who don’t drink and drive solely because of the stiff penalties...they really don’t believe they are a risk, but they refuse to lose their licenses and pay the huge fines and/or go to jail.
I believe you have brought up a good analogy...because the stiff laws DO reduce the risks.
Actually I have found that coming into a left hand curve hugging the left side is very beneficial to maintaining my speed and allows for a nice smooth acceleration out of the curve, and it also helps immensly for straightening out those pesky S curves. :-)
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.