Virginia House Makes Rolling Right Turn Reckless Driving

thenewspaper.com ^ | 02/15/2011 | n/a

[Lazamataz]

. If it takes extreme measures to stop the senseless killings, fine with me.

And therein lies the willingness to embrace totalitarianism. Let us take your affability to extreme measures, to ensure no rolling stops, to their extremes: You have no problem with a 2000+ dollar fine, I see. So how about a 10,000 dollar fine? How about forfeiture of a car? How about a mandatory year in jail? Ten years in prison okay with you? Cutting off a leg cool? How about the death penalty for a rolling stop? How about the killing of the entire immediate family for a rolling stop?

Excessive punishments are unconstitutional, for a reason. It is to prevent, in some small measure, tyranny.

I submit that a fine that would be the entire months earning power for an average man, for a single rolling stop, is excessive punishment.

[Arrowhead1952]

If the light is red, you DO NOT have the right-of-way.

You stop, make sure the path is clear, the turn right with caution.

I don't know if the law in Texas is the same as it was back in the mid 80s, but then it was illegal to enter an intersection on green, if the intersection still had traffic in it from a light change for other traffic.

I was shocked to hear that coming from a DPS trooper, but he explained it very well to the class. I still go to defensive driving every three years for the 10% insurance deduction.

[jacknhoo]

I would hardly call that totalitarianism...LOL. Tell me, do you support the death penalty?

[GreenAccord]

Pesky guidelines? Let’s stick to the topic at hand: Rolling stops at right on red or at stop signs.

Let’s try again...

My question was: if I have slowed to a crawl at an intersection, and am taking, oh, let’s say a four count by some observer’s viewpoint, but never actually fully ceased motion, is that worse than the other guy at the same intersection who’s brought his car to a full stop, but immediately jumps back on the accelerator within a second, or a one-count? That guy, according to a strict application of the rules has obeyed the letter of the law. However, common sense tells you that the roll-thru offered no worse (and really, superior) chance to assess traffic.

No one, especially me, would advocate that all I should have to do is slow down at intersections. But to simply state ‘if your car didn’t come to a complete stop, you’re in violation’ only equips traffic enforcement officials with a tool to dole out fines.

[beezdotcom]

Quit preaching, and use a little bit of discernment. There need not be another law to charge someone with reckless driving - using your own argument, they can already issue that citation for someone who egregiously commits a rolling stop.

Being an intelligent person, you will of course recognize the difference between a "rolling stop" at an intersection where all paths can be seen clearly, and no traffic is in sight - vs. such an action where it has clearly created a dangerous situation. In one case, you are citing for the bad habit - and in another, you are citing for the actual endangerment caused. If you see no difference between the two, then I assume you are also currently fighting to eliminate the legal differences between attempted murder, manslaughter, and 3rd/2nd/1st degree murder.

Once again, if you feel a special penalty is needed, fight for it in your own state, first, and stay out of mine.

[deks]

"I nearly slammed into the back of somebody..." but "...I had no need to slow down at all."

I don't follow your logic here. To me it always makes sense to slow down a bit at an intersection, knowing there's a good chance someone will pull out in front of me. Defensive driving.

[Norman Bates]

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.

So you support having the death penalty on the table for a crime where it's mostly her word against his? That's insane.

[NCLaw441]

I am only in support of the death penalty for a CONVICTION of rape, which requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. I don’t think he said/she said alone gets a rape conviction in these days of DNA and all. Many states had the death penalty for rape until the US Supreme Court canned it back in the 70s, I believe.

[Norman Bates]

So what if she consents and withdrawals her consent during the act? Or if the act if fully consensual and she later changes her story? That "conviction with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" is pure fluff. Innocent people get convicted for all sorts of things including rape.

[NCLaw441]

Innocent people get convicted for all sorts of things including rape.
****

You’re right. Let’s just toss the criminal law. Everyone fend for yourself.

[deks]

For the record, Virginia HB1993:

Although the bill was passed by the House, in a Senate committee on February 16 the bill was “Passed By Indefinitely” (i.e. if the committee takes no further action, the bill is dead). The current legislative session ends on February 26.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=111&typ=bil&val=HB1993