  Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 409 Registered: 10-2006 |
Anybody know what is going on with the draconian Michigan Responsibility fee? 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. 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. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8051 Registered: 12-2003 |
Packing MORE fines on someone only exacerbates their problem. Delays severely their restoration to effective, productive citizens. It would be good for this to end. There are also fines for the restoring of your license after it has been suspended. I know three individuals who were UNable to afford it, but could NOT afford to not drive. So they ran as outlaws, forced by this properly described draconian law, until they could afford it. One of them has kept exactly to the letter of the law since, and his judge will not believe him. She refuses to allow any deviation from the harsh sentence served upon him. He is now sleeping at his office because he couldn't afford his apartment. He is one of the most ethical, honest, and moral people I know who happened to NOT be able to afford insurance the month he was stopped for a cracked tail-light driving home from a Piston's game through the Bloomfields. (DWB, absolutely NO doubt in my mind) One of them was caught for speeding and spent a month in jail. The disruption and stress in his life then sent him into the hospital. Now his little offense that he was MORE than willing to mend and grow to be better has turned into nearly a fifty thousand dollar debt...his customers have turned from him so his business is largely finished...and he is the MOST desperate I've ever seen him. Tell me what advice you might have for him today?! So yeah, in MY experience this law has done NO good, and turned three people into outlaws, hindering one's and ruining another's life. This is just those who are willing to admit it, too! Don't tell me it is just because of his one transgression. If anyone truly thinks destruction of a life that was ready, willing, and able to change to adapt is a GOOD thing...I cannot disagree any more sharply. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8052 Registered: 12-2003 |
So, I mis-spoke, of the three ONE has chosen to remain an inlaw. | ||
Esp Member Username: Esp Post Number: 19 Registered: 09-2005 |
Every Michigan driver should be made aware of this law. I've been educating everyone I know since I was hit with the fees. Most are completely unaware. Drunk or impaired driving are the most costly but fees range for most violations. Watch how you're driving, Michigan needs your money badly! | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 410 Registered: 10-2006 |
I thought double jeopardy was illegal. Punishing someone twice for the same offense is unheard of for murderers and rapists, but is acceptable for a TRAFFIC offense??? You would think that civil rights attorneys would be all over this.... | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 135 Registered: 08-2006 |
I am being screwed by this right now! For blowing a .09 I was sentenced to 1.5 years probation about $1800 dollars in court costs, $2000 d.r.f. $1400 for a lawyer. not including $15-30 a month for drug tests, $80x10 for "counseling", $50per month probation, plus when I do come up with this money I have a $125 reinstatement fee! Now after just one month without a driver I learned my lesson! now heres the fucked up part- After my first violation I asked the judge to just put me in jail so I could get on with my life and she wouldn't! I explained this punishment is more harm on my freinds and family than it is me. still nothing! I got sentenced to one week and continuation of my probation. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 136 Registered: 08-2006 |
you would think selective taxation would be illegal too | ||
Themax Member Username: Themax Post Number: 511 Registered: 09-2005 |
You can't fine drunk drivers enough. The fine for driving without insurance doesn't remedy the fact that a lot of people can't afford car insurance. Each situation has to be considered on its own merits. And yes, fines are a perfectly legal way to punish miscreants. It beats putting them all in prison. Some of you anti-tax people are too much. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2073 Registered: 07-2004 |
" I am being screwd by this right now"... well boo fucking hoo I don't feel one bit of sympathy for you or anyone else that drives drunk.And don't expect any sympathy elsewhere.Driving under the influence is right up there with fucking children in case you have not noticed the tenor and sentiment of society these days. Perhaps Beavis from this and other posts you might want to look at your substance use ;it might not be working anymore. I do agree that you should have been allowed to just do jail time rather than all the hoops you are being made to jump thru_ but when one gets caught in the judicial net one's life is not their own anymore. Gannon I feel for your friend. I hope things work out. | ||
Cheddar_bob Member Username: Cheddar_bob Post Number: 842 Registered: 10-2003 |
Yes Beavis, you're an asshole for drinking one beer too many. You should take citylover's advice because he's never had a problem with substance use. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2074 Registered: 07-2004 |
Whats your point cheddarbob? Had some legal problems as well? I never called anyone an asshole but you are making a good attempt at changing that.Beavis can/will do whatever he wants to do.I am pointing out that no fucking body is gonna feel sorry for him or agree that he is getting screwed.If you wanna take on the mothers of those killed in drunk driving or inebriated drivers or whatever level of alcohol in the blood is illegal these days go ahead; good luck. My past admissions here are also my experiences.Kinda like my going into the woods and coming back and telling you that you should not go in the woods. I have every right and it may even be helpful for me to tell you the woods aint safe.Your gonna do what you want in the end but at least you wil know the woods are not safe. | ||
Cheddar_bob Member Username: Cheddar_bob Post Number: 847 Registered: 10-2003 |
My point is that equating a BAC of .01 over the limit to molesting children is about as stupid an analogy as can be. And to be told that you're no better than a child fucker by someone who is an admitted law-breaker himself...well do I really need to explain it?  I'm sure he gets it. You shouldn't drink and drive. Got anymore sage advice Obi-Wan? | ||
Spaceboykelly Member Username: Spaceboykelly Post Number: 201 Registered: 04-2005 |
The Drivers Responsibility Law is complete bullshit. It is heavily biased against the lower-middle class. If lawmakers would like to make Michigan roads safer they should encourage better public/mass transit and inexpensive taxi shuttles from bars. | ||
Frank_c Member Username: Frank_c Post Number: 932 Registered: 10-2003 |
This is a great law, some people only understand or won't drive under the influence if it hits them in the pocket book, let them get high on there on time not on the road. Hey, we just don't want to share YOUR problem any more. For those that complain after being caught, grow up and take responsibility, hey take your complaints to the judge.......LOL | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2075 Registered: 07-2004 |
Cheddarbob perhaps you might read things with more deliberation before posting such venom. I said the sentiment of society today puts driving under the influence at about the same level as child molesting.I did not call anyone a child molester or imply anyone is a child molester.I do know that people are pissed and have had enough of people driving under the influence hence my point that it is scorned on about the same as child molesting.My response intially was to Beavis who admitted to an 0.9 so I am curious why you posted another figure. But taking your lower alcohol content, and your griping about it, again I have no sympathy. If you or anyone drives in that condition you take the chance of getting caught. As for me and my past forgive me or not but fuck off. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 867 Registered: 04-2006 |
A few years ago a guy killed an entire family in Farmington Hills because he was driving around loaded during the middle of the day. If a law like this stops another incident like that then it is a just law. What people fail to realize is that driving is a priviledge awarded and licensed by the State. | ||
Swillson Member Username: Swillson Post Number: 7 Registered: 11-2004 |
These fines are way too high. Lower income people are put in an impossible financial position which will take them years to recover from, if they ever do. As far as Beavis's statement, I think he was just being honest. He DID say .09, which is .01 above the legal limit. What the law doesn't take into account is that many people function perfectly well at this level. I think how a driver performs a field sobriety test should be taken into account when calling someone "drunk." I work at a hospital, and I have seen conditioned alcoholics walk and talk fine at a .4, a level that would literally kill a novice. If Beavis drinks with any regularity (though not necessarily an alcoholic), he is probably completely functional at .09. The state only lowered the legal limit from .10 to .08 because the federal government threatened to cut highway funds to any state that did not comply with their "recommendation" of .08 as the legal limit. | ||
Superduperman Member Username: Superduperman Post Number: 185 Registered: 01-2005 |
This so called law prevents nothing,if people were concerned with the law they wouldn't have broken the law in the first place. | ||
Crash_nyc Member Username: Crash_nyc Post Number: 744 Registered: 08-2004 |
A possible deterrent for some of the more well-heeled offenders would be to adopt an 'equal pain' principle for driving offenses: scaled fines based on personal income. Finland and Sweden have been doing this for awhile. In Finland one wealthy driver was slapped with a $71,400 speeding ticket for 18mph over the limit. I can't imagine what the fines would be for drunk driving. Hefty, for sure. The legal limit for drunk driving there is just .05 BAC. http://www.stayfreemagazine.or g/public/wsj_finland.html | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 791 Registered: 02-2006 |
quote: Easy solution. Don't get a DUI. Yes, like most of us, there have been times where I've driven when I was certainly over .08. But had I been pulled over and been arrested, I would have taken it like a man because I deserved it. Guilty is guilty, don't try to use socioeconomic status to weasel out of punishment. (Not directed at Beavis) | ||
Detroitteacher Member Username: Detroitteacher Post Number: 901 Registered: 06-2006 |
The way I figure it, if people can afford to go out and get drunk/high then they should be able to afford the fines. If one doesn't have money to pay one's insurance/fines then one certainly shouldn't have money to go out and drink/do drugs. Priorities are messed up in cases like this. People shouldn't go out and get drunk and drive, anyway. As a friend of someone killed by a drunk driver and having been hit by one myself, with my son in the car, I feel no pity/empathy for them and whatever punishment they get that prevents them from doing it again is a just punishment. | ||
Swillson Member Username: Swillson Post Number: 8 Registered: 11-2004 |
Focusonthed, I agree that guilty is guilty, but taking it like a man is a lot easier to do when you have the financial means to do so. Should the kids "take it like a man" when they don't get any Christmas presents, or the landlord "take it like a man" when he doesn't get his rent check? People do stupid stuff all the time, and these huge fines aren't just for drunk driving. I know a person who just didn't have her proof of insurance with her, and she had to pay a $125 fine and $200 a year for 2 years for "driver responsibility fees". She has young kids and is trying to put herself through college. It's a huge setback. I think Crash has a really great idea with the sliding scale. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2076 Registered: 07-2004 |
Thanks for pointing out that numerical distinction Swillson.It does not change my opinion . There is no sympathy in society for those that drink and drive. There will be no sliding scale or anything at all that appears sympathetic.That is the way society wants it because of so many people that have had experiences like Detroit teacher. On the driver responsiblity fees they are high and they are very punitive.District courts used to be more agreeable to giving advisement and reducing fines.Here in A2 that is not the case anymore; I am not sure about other district courts. I believe that most court have stopped those practices as well. Sorry to sound patronizing but the trick is simple: Don't get tickets. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8060 Registered: 12-2003 |
There is no sympathy in holier-than-thou society for anyone who fails in any way. Show me, please, where there is any leeway in law any longer for mere human tendencies and cyclical behavior. The fact that anything like 'third strike' and 'no tolerance' laws exist is proof that Mercy has left the legal institution. That's OK, it was just interning to see if that was the direction it wanted to spend the rest of its conceptual life...after the law exempted God, and any sort of godlike grace, it realized that it...too...was unwelcome in modern law. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2077 Registered: 07-2004 |
Practically speaking Gannon the legislature has taken the mercy factor away.Let's face it we have elected genuine dumbshits in Mich. Btw and again practically speaking the mercy and sympathy does exist when a sincere effort to change by those practicing human tendencies is exhibited.I aint saying they should change only that courts specifically are more lenient when they see evidence of it. I certainly don't consider myself holier than thou .I have never revealed here other then a traffic ticket if I have been in the legal system i.e. criminal system.I am only pointing out that as things are today there is little sympathy and little leeway.I think it is simpler to stay out of the fray rather then jump in and then lament how unmerciful things are. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8065 Registered: 12-2003 |
I understand that CL, but when the law adapts to include MORE individuals in its groping net...say when against MOST research and wisdom they reduce the blood alcohol level to a point where many will fail the test after ONE drink at ONE bar...when we ALL know every one of us can drive home from that...then we need to take a closer look. Statistics say otherwise, so it must be true? Depends on where you draw the line, always. Statistics tell the story you want them to tell, as long as you control the number crunching and analysis, news coverage, debate, and the rest. It always helps when you employ true heart-broken Angry Mothers in your quest, who is going to stand up to them?! NO, the law is going too far. We are not alone in voting in dumbshits...who chase after popularity by banding together to create celebrity-named laws instead of running their jurisdictions. Too many of 'em more concerned with re-election, paying back their supporters, and moving what seems to be the anti-citizen or anti-human agenda that we are ending up with here. We need to go back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights and start over. Plus, anyone ever study for their sobriety tests sober? If you've NEVER done a test, and you're anxious about being pulled over by a cop...you will fail them EVERY time. It will usually be against a hostile officer, there are very few who aren't 'war hardened'...by the time they finally will put on the lights and pull someone over, they HAVE to be ready for anything. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8066 Registered: 12-2003 |
I'm having a flashback to another time, CL. This isn't our first Sunday late-morning e-chat! Cannot remember what we were discussing then. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2415 Registered: 11-2003 |
The Driver Responsibility Fee was instituted as nothing more than a revenue generator for the state and nothing more. Given the state current economic malaise, I highly doubt that it will be actually repealed anytime soon. | ||
Themax Member Username: Themax Post Number: 516 Registered: 09-2005 |
The drunk driver laws are in response to the old defense of drunkenness that actually let people off with a slap on the wrist after they killed someone. The Finnish idea is great. Why should being rich entitle you to flout the law? | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 869 Registered: 04-2006 |
I agree 100 percent with Detroitteacher, if folks can afford the booze, they can afford the fines. What the hell is sone broke-ass guy doing getting drunk then driving? Its all a matter of screwed up priorities. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8070 Registered: 12-2003 |
Themax, Why? Because you've succeeded and can afford the finest attorneys (who golf with the judges) that money can buy. It's the American Way! Planner and Teacher...the unflinching moralists. People make mistakes every day. Why don't we just put all mistake makers in jail forever, they'll be out of our way then. Hell, we could lock up MOST of rush hour traffic on third-stikes! Why don't we provide better life-long education that teaches people how to recognize when enough is enough...in all aspect of life?! Oh yeah, because we need consumers to always be out-of-control so they can support the economy. I fear there is little true sympathy in legislature for the real losses from the RARE drunk driver who gets behind the wheel drunk out of his/her mind. Statistically over the entire adult population, drunks are NOT the majority, thankfully. Nor are true drug ADDICTS. We make such a fuss about these things, when the true solutions are WAY different than our slap 'em and jail 'em bullshit. Humans need to be taught moderation. They need to be encouraged daily towards moderation in all things. Not a ONE of us does this easily or willingly...although we are always quick to judge others who have our same tendencies. Is it THAT self-recognition and loathing that fuels these draconian laws?! Perhaps the lawmakes were dredging for income solutions and landed on this one because there would be so few arguments against it. Who wants to be found on the side of drunks, drug addicts, and others who apparently didn't learn as children how to behave?! IF they didn't learn it as children...or if they are STILL juvenile in their thought/emotion process...is it penalty or instruction they need? THE STATE LETS THIS GAME CONTINUE because it profits them, and mere humans may learn but STILL do a wrong thing when the stresses of life consume them. NOT a ONE of us hasn't done something at the lowest part of our lives that we wished we hadn't, and count ourselves lucky that we happened to NOT get caught that time. AFTER someone dies or is badly injured it is too late...the failures of parenting and society have already come to roost. The legal system seems designed TODAY to merely get as many people in the probation system on drug tests and tethers as possible...especially if you DARE misbehave. One client doctor of mine apparently used an UNapproved wrinkle-fill and was turned in by the company that sold the approved product. The stuff he was using was on it's way to approval, just not done yet. He got an $850,000 fine from the FDA...more from the Federal Government...THEN he has to visit a parole officer and give piss at least once a month for two years. HOW is THAT not illegal search and seizure? His offense was in NO way drug-consumption related...yet he is a slave to this system now. Bad, bad man...spank him forever for what is really a minor offense. HE took on the liability, but the extended penalty was much more than reasonable. | ||
Detroitteacher Member Username: Detroitteacher Post Number: 902 Registered: 06-2006 |
Gannon: I didn't say that we should do away with anyone who makes mistakes on the road. Everyone makes mistakes. I am saying that if one is intoxicated to the point of being unable to drive, thus being pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving, then that person should face the music. My point was that if someone who can't afford insurance is out drinking I am wondering where their priorities are. It's MUCH less expensive to consume alcoholic beverages at home and not go out driving. I'm sure the guy that killed my friend and the lady that hit me never intended to do any harm to anyone but they did. I have had a few drinks then driven home...my point is not that people shouldn't have a cocktail at dinner, my point is that if people are driving they should know their limits. Re-read my post. In no way was I making a die-hard "throw 'em all in jail" remark. If you can't afford to do the time or pay the fine, don't do the crime. I am sure if your loved one were hit, or God forbid killed, by a drunk driver you would NOT be singing the tune you are now. (Message edited by detroitteacher on January 28, 2007) | ||
Focusonthed Member Username: Focusonthed Post Number: 792 Registered: 02-2006 |
Regarding the validity of .08, I was once pulled over for suspicion of DUI (I was speeding near bars at 2:30am). I had been drinking, 3 drinks in the past hour, as I recall. I did all the tests, passed with flying colors...on to the breathalyzer. After 3 drinks in 1 hour, plus around 30 minutes until they got around to doing the test, etc, I blew a .025. I weighed around 140lbs at the time. | ||
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker Post Number: 814 Registered: 02-2004 |
Yeah i never drink and drive i always take the subway to the bars from hamtramck to ferndale. What a douchebag for not taking the effective and even cost effective options of our glorious public transportation we have in Detroit metro. | ||
Steelworker Member Username: Steelworker Post Number: 815 Registered: 02-2004 |
I mean come on you dont need a car in detroit area to live thats what all the subway and streetcars our for. Whats all this fuss about driving and fees. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2330 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: As someone who recently had his life screwed up by a drunk driver, I believe that your sentence was much too lenient. quote: Double jeopardy is when you are put on trial twice for the same offense. This is a two part punishment. It's constitutional. quote: Why was your friend driving out to a Pistons game if he didn't have auto insurance? quote: I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the penalty for molesting a child is just a tad bit higher than a large fine and some court ordered counseling. quote: Mercy still exists in Michigan's legal system. Once you have paid your debt to society, you're allowed to have your life back. Simply put, Michigan's driver responsiblity program is much more lenient on drunk drivers then drunk drivers are on their victims. quote: Back to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights??? Funny, I don't remember there being a constitutional right to drive drunk or to cause undo harm to your fellow citizens. quote: I've never felt a need to study for a sobriety test. The alphabet isn't that hard. I know to count and I've been walking in a straight line since I was still in diapers. As it is, I've been pulled over and subject to a field sobriety test 3 times in my 20 years of driving. I've never had a problem passing them. quote: Draconian? Okay - I'll tell you what. How about if I plow into you at 100 mph and then you tell me if a large fine is "draconian"? quote: Amen! Preach on, sister! (Message edited by fnemecek on January 28, 2007) | ||
Ravine Member Username: Ravine Post Number: 568 Registered: 01-2006 |
Let's keep in mind that the issue of whether or not the DrivRespFee is fair or appropriate is much different than the issue of whether or not it's fair or appropriate to drive while hammered. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 873 Registered: 04-2006 |
You know what gannon? Any other country they would lock you away for driving under the influence and throw away the key. People need to be responsible for their own actions. If they find the money to spend on booze, they should be able to find the money to be properly insured and be able to pony up the dough should they get pulled over. There are services out there that will come and get you, and drive you home in your own car for $50 if you find yourself to be too drunk to drive. If you can go out partying and boozing it up you should be able to part with $50 to keep you from committing a stupid act. If you're too drunk to be kept from doing a stupid act, then you are too drunk to drive and deserve any punitive amount that the police and courts dole out. There are thousands of people living in metro Detroit who realize they can't afford insurance or upkeep on a car so they get rid of their car and have to rely on the bus or cab it places. Why should anyone else be any different? If they need their car for work, they should dammed well make driving their number one priority and not be driving without insurance, or busted tail lights. | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 413 Registered: 10-2006 |
If you guys want to start a thread on drunk driving, have at it. This thread is regarding the status of the Drivers Responsibility Fee. And what the people of Michigan can do to repeal - or at least modify - this law. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2331 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the drivers responsiblity fee is the punishment for drunk driving and other wrong-doings. How can you separate the crime from the punishment? quote: Why in the world would you want to repeal this law? The only fault I can find with is that it is way too lenient. | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 682 Registered: 01-2005 |
The Driver's Responsibility fee kicks in when you are not drunk. Say a woman changes her handbag and is stopped for something and her proof of insurance is at home. Used to be that you would get the "no doc" ticket that would be forgiven when you showed up with the proof. No more. Now you still get a several hundred dollar fine for being irresponsible with your documents, even if you bring them later. | ||
Penelopetheduck Member Username: Penelopetheduck Post Number: 1 Registered: 09-2006 |
I got a ticket for not having *proof* of insurance, brought my insurance card to the court date and had the fine dismissed. I still paid $200 a year for the past two years. This isn't just an additional punishment for drunk drivers. This was a fundraising scheme, a way to keep the budget nominally balanced without repealing Engler's absurd tax cuts. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1693 Registered: 12-2003 |
Better to raise fees than taxes. | ||
Spaceboykelly Member Username: Spaceboykelly Post Number: 202 Registered: 04-2005 |
Okay, I don't think many of you have thought through why half of the people think the law is bullshit and the other half imply: "you deserve to be punished, no sympathy." While drunk drivers deserve to be punished the issue with the Driver's Responsibility Fee is that it disproportionately punishes the lower-middle-class and impoverished [and does so in a state where driving is almost necessary in many areas]. The problem in this is that the current law is not about keeping drunk drivers off the road. In fact, the state is probably becoming reliant upon drunk drivers for revenue... Anyway, several thousand dollars and a few hours in jail is not a big deal for an affluent person but it is for the urban poor, students, and low wage earners. Again, I insist that the state should encourage public/mass transit and if the state insists on such a law as the Driver's Responsibility Fee, then all of its monies should go toward that. Write your politicians. | ||
Frank_c Member Username: Frank_c Post Number: 941 Registered: 10-2003 |
I've heard some classics for not taking responsibity here. Like blaming the state for no presents under the Christmas tree, yeah right, YOU are the reason. These fines and time are minor compared to the cost to your families and society. Naysayers answer this. Have you ever had others in the car with you while driving drunk; How about your children, your wife or husband? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2333 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Outstanding argument. Let's a) keep the DRF the same for low to moderate-income drivers and b) raise it for affluent ones. quote: If there was leak in your roof 10 years ago, should we make it illegal for anyone to fix their roof? If you're in an accident and don't have your proof of insurance and registration with you, it makes it more difficult for the other party, their insurance company and the police to sort everything out later. The DRF that you pay is simply a way of a) reimbursing the state for those additional expenses and b) deterring you for making that mistake again. quote: I can live with that. | ||
1st_sgt Member Username: 1st_sgt Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2006 |
These laws and punishments don't seem too hard to me. If you were in the military and get a DUI (on or off base/post) (first offense) you not only can spend time in jail, pay large fines, large attorney fees and pay more for insurance, you are subjected to UCMJ action (They can take away your time, rank and pay), plus your driving privileges on post/base are revoked. Even if you keep your drivers license you have to park your vehicle outside the gate and walk (we call it "Humping")to and from your destinations. Like work, the hospital, PX-BX, the commissary ECT. Or even your home (if you live in quarters). Does this happen? Quite often, do we know the consequences, YES! It is a part of every safety briefing, given to every member before departing on a long weekend or leave. Do I agree with the punishment? Yes 100%. Drinking and driving is not worth the trouble. Do I drink? Not any more. Do I drive? Daily. | ||
Penelopetheduck Member Username: Penelopetheduck Post Number: 2 Registered: 09-2006 |
I'm not too torn up about drunk drivers paying extra fees but the fines do not just go for drunk drivers. They also punish people for say, leaving their wallet at home, to the tune of $700 over two years. | ||
Esp Member Username: Esp Post Number: 20 Registered: 09-2005 |
Here is the Driver Responsibility Fee brochure, off the MI state gov site, explaining the fees: http://www.michigan.gov/docume nts/DRBrochure_88983_7.pdf | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2337 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: From the brochure that Esp linked: quote: This brings a couple of questions to mind. Penelopetheduck, did you have valid insurance at the time you were ticketed? If so, did you present it to be the court before your appearance date? | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8093 Registered: 12-2003 |
Frank, I wasn't clear on my language. You are still in shock, and may never be a tolerant observer of this ever again. I have lost people to drunk drivers, two cousins that I was very close with in age and appearance. I cannot go to a Baranski family function without catching my aunts and uncles noticing their sons in me. The way the law is structured will never solve the problem, and will simply make MORE outlaws. There is a wide gulf of difference between someone who has had a few drinks and someone who is drunk and out-of-control behind the wheel. Unfortunate for you, you probably met one of the latter...do you have ANY idea what her BAC was?! .08 is too low a standard for such a high penalty, there is NO way anyone can argue me out of that position. Letting someone get away with a similar penalty as a .08 casual offender after they've had an accident...or much worse injured or killed another...is way out of balance or wisdom. It does NOT force people to think...the act of drinking is partaken to alleviate mere humans of that capacity...if even for a short duration or with minimal negative effect, USUALLY. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8094 Registered: 12-2003 |
1stSarge, You have proven to me the uselessness of law. Even with all of that stacked penalty...alcoholism in the military has been abolished, right?! | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8095 Registered: 12-2003 |
WELCOME, btw. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8096 Registered: 12-2003 |
_sj_, quote: They are one and the same when used in this fashion. | ||
Aarne_frobom Member Username: Aarne_frobom Post Number: 43 Registered: 10-2005 |
To answer the original question, here's what's happening with the convictions surtaxes, or "driver responsibility fees" that were enacted in 2003. The state House held a hearing late in the last legislature. It heard from several district- and circuit-court judges who said they have virtually "decriminalized" the offense of driving with a suspended license. Many judges will no longer enter even voluntary guilty pleas from persons driving while under suspension, because they know the $1,000 surtax for this offense will never by paid by a low-income person, and that person will never get his or her license back, and will have trouble getting a job to pay the accumulated fine and taxes. Judges really don't like sending undeserving persons down the spiral of despair engendered by these taxes. They also resent the legislature's intrusion on what is traditionally a judicial function: setting penalties. Setting aside the issue of drunk driving and other heinous offenses, here are the fees for more common violations: Driving with no insurance: $400 or $1,000, depending on which part of the law the officer writes on your citation. Driving with an expired license (as from forgetting to renew): $300. Driving with a suspended license (as from failure to pay a $125 speeding ticket): $1,000. District-court judges report that their dockets are crowded with persons who failure to pay speeding tickets, have their license suspended, and then are collared by police with automated license-plate-running software in their patrol cars. Their cars are impounded at high cost, they get another $125 fine, a $150 license-reinstatement fee, and a $1,000 surtax. If they keep driving, such as to a job, it happens again - and again. Many victims are in rural areas with no bus service, and where the local cops can easily spot them, or the car outside their house or trailer, if they keep driving. If they get a second job to pay all the fines or support their family, they're twice at risk of getting caught again. A bill (HB 4006) has been introduced to repeal these taxes, effective October 1, 2007. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 137 Registered: 08-2006 |
unbelievable! sorry I have not responded I've been In dundee on a job. cl- I don't want sympathy. Like I said i did the crime I will do the time. Unfortunetly they want money not time. yet somehow even though cl paints me as a rampant drus user with no regards to the well being of others I still manage to pass my monthly drug tests! | ||
1st_sgt Member Username: 1st_sgt Post Number: 12 Registered: 11-2006 |
Gannon, Thanks, The military has programs for taking care of alcoholism and they will discharge an individual if they are not treatable. They are sent back on the streets without supervision. But any normal drinker should think twice about getting behind the wheel even after one drink, or taking drugs, (legal or illegal) because no matter what they say they are impaired. (Not 100% under control). They should use a designated driver (they get served free soft drinks in my area) or use taxis, or busses. Here, if they call the MPs/ SPs or their chain of command they will be taken home with no questions asked. I can't feel sorry for someone that can't control their self enough to have a good time and not endanger other persons. A drunk should not: drive, carry a weapon, or discuss politics. These are all dangerous. Just my 2 cents worth. | ||
Spacemonkey Member Username: Spacemonkey Post Number: 143 Registered: 03-2006 |
I got a DUI last month, so I hope this fee is dropped. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8109 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: THAT is an unarguable statement, and I fully agree with you. We should ALL think before we get behind the wheel, even if we're tired. We also need to keep our passengers in line...and let those we're talking with on the phone know we're driving and they are secondary to that task. TOO many distractions...and too many getting behind the wheel impaired...whether by substances, or by their own stressed-out stretched-out selves. Since it is just that stress and stretch that brings some to drink or consume more than they can handle, it IS a strange conundrum and even MORE reason to NOT make it a revenue stream. quote: Wow. BEST solution available at first...so THEN the penalties you describe are actually JUST and REASONABLE...funny how such a little addition to the equation can yield an opposite reaction. SO, the penalty is for NOT taking the reasonable out...how do we affect something like THAT in civilian life?! Cheers, and props for your military service. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 138 Registered: 08-2006 |
This issue could go on forever with no real outcome. In short, I realize the error of my ways. Being behind the wheel intoxicated CAN effect more than just me. I could go on forever about other people who are just as dangerous but I won't. at least not now. I know carry a sleeping bag and pillow in my trunk. So if I've partied to much I sleep it off. So yes chedda I was just being honest I KNEW this would come under heavy fire. I do posts like this as part of my campaign that people who do drugs ARE NOT COMPLETELY USELESS OR HOPELESS. The same people who think it is all right to get shit faced, watch football, and stumble from bar to bar look down on me for drug use. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8110 Registered: 12-2003 |
Aarne_frobom, Welcome. Thank you for adding this very valuable two cents to the discussion. With ONE post, you have helped stunt a growing doubt about the usefulness of our legal system. I should have more faith in mere humans, but they have disappointed me for too long...especially when their groups become institutions. Cheers. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8111 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: So NOW we have running around on the streets UNsupervised untreatable addicts trained in at least a few of the fourteen easy ways to kill a person... | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 139 Registered: 08-2006 |
My other point is ALCOHOL when used excessivly IS THE MOST USELESS DRUG ON THIS PLANET! Whether you want to admit it or not YOU like it because YOU are programmed to. Despite all of the obvious dangers its legal!!?? It is one of the few drugs that will cause instant death from withdrawls. anyway I have to go to work will be back later... | ||
1st_sgt Member Username: 1st_sgt Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2006 |
Sad but true. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8114 Registered: 12-2003 |
Beavis1981, When you get to an FSC, lemme know, you've earned a pint. Yes, that is a contradiction from the direction of this thread, but I cannot and willnot supply you with the illegal stuff you'd rather ingest! CHEERS~! | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8115 Registered: 12-2003 |
Spaceboykelly, Just read your posts, and agree with you. Sorry for last month's trip...did you feel anywhere NEAR incapable before you turned the key, or were you surprised at your reading?! Anyone who gets popped by a breathalyzer should be able to get an immediate blood test with a two-hour follow-up at their expense to PROVE how inaccurate these devices can be...but to also teach themselves how alcohol seeps into the system over time. NO DOUBT that if Focusonthed had that same breathalyzer test taken a half hour later, they'd be singing a different tune. BTW, Spaceboy, I watched Fight Club again a few nights ago...did you have a speaking role in that, or were you in the fight crowd? That is such a powerful film. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2080 Registered: 07-2004 |
Why do so many here have trouble deciphering things i.e. posts that are not at all undecipherable. I refer to you Beavis.No where did I say you were a rampant drug user.I said you might want to look at your drug use.I based that on this thread and other threads where you refer to your drug use.It was merely a suggestion not a judgment. I also pointed out that society these days has no sympathy;nor do I.When you begin a post with how you are ...."getting screwed"......it implies you are looking for sympathy. I agree you should be allowed to simply do the jail time.Not only is it unfair to you but it is also unfair to the various twelve step programs that courts dump people into because they don't know what else to do. But when you expose yourself to the system by committing the offense you have admitted to you have people telling you what to do_ that sucks.........don't expose yourself to the judicial system. I am sure there are many people that don't have substance problems that are in your almost indentical situation;you may be one. All the more reason to not get caught up. Good luck. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 141 Registered: 08-2006 |
ok I'm back (i love coat-out days) For anybody thats curious heroin does not cause instant death from withdrawls. Neither does cocaine, pot,or meth. The only other thing that does is benzodiazepines AND THEY ARE LEGAL TOO. I just find hyporcrisy in the fact the same goverment that collects taxes on the sale of alcohol fines me for using it!!??? Why you ask because they tried to make it illegal and couldn't do it! Also ol g.w has sunk 6 billion into the war on drugs abd trust prices are at all time low for heroin and cocaine. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8129 Registered: 12-2003 |
It is curious how street prices drop when republicrites are in the executive office. Are they trying to buy the public, or simply distract them from what they're doing...making war on the world for the military/industrial complex's practise and profits. NO Cheers. | ||
Spacemonkey Member Username: Spacemonkey Post Number: 144 Registered: 03-2006 |
Gannon, I was in the fight crowd in FC, specifically in the Lou's Tavern basement scene right before Tyler gets beat up by Lou. Eh, I drank too much at a holiday party. I was too drunk to make any socially conscious decisions at that point about whether to drive or not. I just figured I'd be alright. Plus I was an emotional wreck about some personal issues and was driving to the airport to hop a plane to anywhere. Fortunately, I didn't hurt anyone. Just crashed my car by myself, then had the Taylor police beat the piss outta me as they arrested me. Went to the hospital to have my face stitched up. Blood was drawn there. They claimed I had a .32 BAC, but the paper work showing such has since disappeared. I pleaded guilty in court anyway. I was no doubt f-ed up beyond belief and was facing three assault and batteries, two against the cops (as I tried to defend myself from the beating), and such were dropped as I plead guilty. A male doc in the ER at Oakwood heritage Hospital in Taylor tortured me and broke my thumb by bending it backward to my wrist. Anyone else here had such trouble at that hospital? | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2081 Registered: 07-2004 |
If what you say is true you damn well better have Fieger on the line. | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 415 Registered: 10-2006 |
Aarne, thanks for the information. There are a few problems with some of the "claims" in this post. According to the news article: 1. The JUDGES think that the law is WRONG and are petitioning to have it repealed. 2. The CONGRESS AGREES WITH THE JUDGES, they are just too broke and/or greedy for the "fee" revenue to do the right thing. 3. Some people are not being told that if they show proof of insurance within a certain number of days, that the fee will be waived. I just "happened" to do extensive research over the internet and talked to a nice clerk at the court who just "happened" to walk me through how to fix the problem. Then I had to fight with the state for THREE MONTHS to make sure that they implemented the fix, because according to the clerk "They are being overwhelmed by this and don't have enough staff" to cover the flood of paperwork caused by this fee. Meanwhile because they don't have their sh*t together, this same State of Michigan suspended my license, which terminated my insurance policy, etc. which all had to be fixed by the State of Michigan (and myself) because of this BAD LAW - which further strains their already overworked staff. Is anybody else getting that this makes absolutely no sense??? | ||
Mckrackin Member Username: Mckrackin Post Number: 1 Registered: 01-2007 |
So I scanned over a good chunk of this and here are some points no one seems to get: 1.) This is not about punishing drunk drivers, it is about a budget deficit. The sponsor of this bill was Governor Granholm, in direct response to the huge deficit inherited from the previous administration. 2.) It is not a matter of will this be repealed, it is when! The Michigan Drivers Responsibility Act is completely unconstitutional, to understand this you have to see the difference between a fee and a fine. A fine is a punitive monetary amount, assessed by, and only by the judicial branch of the government. In this case the "DFR" is assessed by the secretary of state, not part of the court system. To get around this, the state of Michigan calls it a "fee", which would be a monetary amound assessed in return for a service. This brings up the question, "what is the service i am being charged a fee for?" When asked, a Sos representative stated that it was a fee for having a drivers license. Wrong answer, in many drunk driving convicitons, licenses are revoked, additionally a fee is also assessed for driving ON A REVOKED LICENSE! meaning no license, no fee. It is, if you go by definition, a fine assessed by a body that has no jurisdiction to assess a fine. So to summarize, if this is not assessed by the courts, and is not returned with a service, it is not really legal. Why has this not been already repealed? Simple, it is cheaper to pay the illegally assessed fine than to fight it, when you consider legal costs, damage to credit, and potential job concerns over garnishment. However, the ball is rolling, it will not be long. the big question for those who have dealt with this would be, "Will I be reimbursed for this illegally imposed punitive fine?", good question. 3.)Drunk driving penalties are not too lenient. It is a very emotional subject for some, but the bottom line is that the penalties are already quite stiff, when you consider the only person being hurt is the driver. Is he/she more likely to hurst someone else? Of course, alcohol is said to be a factor in over fifty percent of fatal car crashes(I've never seen the real number), but you are at the point of drunk driving arrest, penalizing someone for what they may do. Should they get in a car crash involving a fatality or sever injury, those penalties re the real harsh ones. At some point SOCIETY AS A WHOLE needs to decide how severely you penalize a citizen for something they may do. 4.) Do DRFs do anything to curb bad driving, remember this is not really about drunk driving, but bad driving? Anyone care to produce some facts on the amount of arrests for the DRA offenses since being put into effect? I don't have the numbers, but I can give you a good guess, my guess would be if anything they have gone up, which is not much of an indicator that this illegal and unconstitutional law is having any positive effect on saving drivers lives. At the end of the day, you need to go to the root of the problem, adding illegal fines that people cannot afford to pay anyways, further pushing them into a downward spiral, would not be the answer of any reasonable or rational person. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 1457 Registered: 12-2005 |
Mckrackin, I do believe that is the most well thought out first post I've ever seen. Welcome to the forum! | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 142 Registered: 08-2006 |
cl it just seems any chance you get to discredit me you do it. Just like my i'm getting screwed comment sounded like I was looking for sympathy. I was not I didn't say it was. But you inferred it any way. Same thing with your initial attacks. I inferred what I thought was your opinion of me. Gannon not sure what I did for the pint but thanks! | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 416 Registered: 10-2006 |
DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989). EIGHTH AMENDMENT of the United States Constitution, which is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, says: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2082 Registered: 07-2004 |
Beavis please give specific examples of my discrediting you. McKrackin you (welcome) make some very interesting points. I do wonder when this DRF things was established_ are you sure it was post Engler? On your point three forget about it.You may have some academic legal point but public sentiment will simply not allow it. In fact society has decided how severely those that drink and drive should be punished and we (society) are fine with it. Also it seems your point is a bit specious as the act of driving drunk or under whatever B.A.C number is designated too much to drive is an offense.What someone does during that offense is another charge i.e. causing an accident or fatality etc, etc. The evidence is overwhelming that those under the influence are likely to cause harm and damage, so much so that the law mandates punishment for the potential harm and damage that may be done. On point three I am curious what you base your guess on. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2083 Registered: 07-2004 |
Yvette unless you went before the court twice for the same charge i.e. two completely separate time with the first time being either an acquittal or guilty/ responsible or some sort of adjudication of the charge it is not double jeopardy.Simply put I believe and you can tell by my disjointed writing I aint no lawyer or legal mind double jeopardy exists so that the accused can not be tried over and over until found guilty. I am curious how many that have posted on this thread have direct experience(like Yvette)with this.I do not.Only because these laws did not exist the last time I received a traffic citation. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8130 Registered: 12-2003 |
CL, We are obviously NOT all 'fine' with the way alcohol-related tickets are issued and at what severity of saturation heavy fines are assessed...or this wouldn't be a sub-discussion in this thread! The law is "as is" only temporarily, if enough people cry foul. It WILL take a concerted effort, because the moralists and Angry Parents (and the occasional Warrendale resident) are UNflinching in their lump-sum assessment of ANY who would DARE take a drink then turn the keys to their cars. JUST because I agreed with anyone and everyone THINKING about whether they should drive after having even ONE drink...I do NOT agree that it is a crime to do so. I only agreed because it is always a good idea to consider your condition. One drink on a full stomach in a happy day will affect someone VERY differently than on an empty one and/or during a stressful or tiring day...along with a myriad other considerations. "Think before you drive" seems to be a much more effective slogan than "Don't (whatever)"...it is against human nature to agree to a negative. The statistics that went behind this law were bent to their ends, actually mostly driven by the Insurance lobby. I wouldn't be surprised to find a funding stream from them to Mothers Against Drunk Driving...it is bound to be a river! The BIG winners here are actually the Insurance companies, who gain yet another reason to raise our rates. Actuaries just LOVE another variable to tip the scales in their favor. You DO have a tendency to jump all over any discussion of any form of substance use or abuse...although you may not recognize the harshness of your tone. I think I've got much the same problem perhaps with some who take spirituality and muck it up with their understanding of religion. It just might be mere human nature to judge harshly anyone involved with that which used to control you...especially AFTER you had to be harsh with yourself in order to gain self control. It might be the ONLY way to break a cycle from within...and possibly the only true way to break a cycle at ALL...but it can lead to intolerance or a lessening of empathy. I certainly have to remind myself to relate with Karl...remembering that not quite ten years ago I was stuck in the same extreme hypocritical religiosity, although I had Rush Limbaugh to brainwash me the proper talking points instead of FoxsNews. Naw, I still stand that both of these laws, as written benefit many institutions, but not society nor the individual. It benefits the Government and Insurance Companies. Neither of them deserve excessive money for no reason, although BOTH seem to always want more. McCrackin, Great post. Welcome. | ||
Mckrackin Member Username: Mckrackin Post Number: 2 Registered: 01-2007 |
DRA went into effect in october of 2003. As to society deciding how severe/lenient a drunk driver should be punished, I'm not sure I buy that, that's like saying society decides the direction gun laws go, we don't, lobbyists do(MADD, etc). Furthermore, the point I was making in regards to leniency is that some within this thread have expressed a belief that the laws cannot be to severe, in there opinion, for such a heinous crime(I belive one person compared it to child molestation). My point is that anything more extreme than the existing, would border on to harsh, due to my belief that you are punishing someone for what they may do. I looked up the actual numbers, which can also be misleading as they do not say how much alcohol, only that it ws involved. The rate of crashes both those involving alcohol and not, have been on a mild decline, in Michigan, since 2000. Showing no negligible trend post DRA(2003)proves that this law has had no effect on accidents. Number of arrests has remained nearly the same. Here's something else the numbers show, don't believe everything you hear, alcohol is a factor in only 2 percent of the accisents in Wayne county, BUT of those two percent the chance of it being an injury or fatality is significantly higher. All of this supports the idea that this law is not only illegal and unconstitutional, but has zero effect on keeping our roads safer. What it does do is make the state money, which no law should be designed for(that's why we pay taxes). Perhaps our elected officials could look into spending our tax money more efficiently, and let the judges who get paid to dole out sentences(with the state recommendations in mind)do the assessing of fines. After all, not every circumstance is the same, treating it as such is fair to no one. Repealing the Drivers Responsibility Act is a no brainer, it is the right thing to do. A better discussion, i would think, is what would REALLY make roads safer? | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8134 Registered: 12-2003 |
Perhaps...MASS TRANSIT, so those who either cannot, will not, or should not be driving can continue being productive members of society. The more people we have working, the more income for the state...much better equation. On your recognition of the limits of the data, I think that might be the way we can spot INCLUSIVE statistics that seek to add many more individuals to these income streams. As you say, the numbers never say how much...just that there was even a MINOR relation of alcohol with the crash event...SAME with drugs used in conjunction with crime. It would be difficult for the reporting officer to make a significant specific determination, but it would be followed up with blood testing for best accuracy and a paper trail for prosecution. (come to think of it, do ANY of these breathalyzers put out receipts? What is the proof of their report outside a policeperson's eyeballs?) They are eager to lump these together to produce statistics that show enough relation to dupe the public into emotional states where logic cannot land. Sometimes it happens by accident. Thank you again for your clear analysis of the data. Cheers | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 144 Registered: 08-2006 |
Also if you guys have not heard they now employ ankle tethers that measure your blood alcohol. My freind did some research- the person that designed these and published the ONLY research avalible on their accuracy also owns part of the company that manufactors and sells them. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 145 Registered: 08-2006 |
Somebodys life- weather or not somebody goes to jail or violates probation is dependent on a horribly inacurate device. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2085 Registered: 07-2004 |
I would refute much of what you three say but I can't bring myself to tear down your little love in that you got going here....... | ||
Spacemonkey Member Username: Spacemonkey Post Number: 145 Registered: 03-2006 |
FACT: Old people driving kill more poeple than drunk drivers. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8160 Registered: 12-2003 |
Demonize the octogenarians...what're they gonna do, fight back?! Let's raid their savings to balance the state's budget! I'm SURE our Jenny would be proud that we're learning how to do this... | ||
Mckrackin Member Username: Mckrackin Post Number: 3 Registered: 01-2007 |
Alcohol is involved in roughly 30 percent of fatal crashes. There are stats on michigan.gov/mps for ages of drivers involved in crashes(I assume you are kidding but...) THe road test breathalyzer does not produce a receipt, however, standard process is to give a second at the station, which does(I think they make you sign off on it) There really isn't much you can say contrary to the majority of my statements as they are backed by statistics provided by the state of michigans web site. Now there is some room for question when I mention the level of alcohol in said fatal incidents. I would love to know the average BAC of the responsible driver(also keep in mind the stats do not say whether alcohol was in the responsible drivers body, either way, it slows your response time in response to a sober drivers poor driving decision.), and if this was factored into the states decision to lower the limit to .08. On a side note, most good attorneys will tell you, merely being over the limit is often hard to get a conviction on, you must generally be showing signs of impairment to really push it through, it is the reason why drunk driving tickets usually include three different offenses, just to make sure they get the conviction(OUIL, OWI, UBAL). Ah well, tired and bored. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2340 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Thanks, Gannon. I would be lying if I said that my recent experiences have absolutely no bearing on my opinions. I endeavor, however, to be rationale. quote: I disagree with you. Impairment begins with a BAC of .01. The relationship between said impairment and whether or not a driver is capable of driving in a reasonably safe manner depends on a multitude of variables. * Road conditions; * Speed of travel; * Time of day; * Driver's overall skill level; * Etc. The fundamental question behind any attempt to set a limit is: how much risk should the rest of the citizenry be exposed to? Since a drunk driver is exposing everyone else on the road to said risk without any advance warning, I argue that the standard should be set towards the low-end of the spectrum. quote: I disagree with your interpretation of the law. For starters, the fee is assessed with a service - the Secretary of State is giving you a drivers license. quote: If you're lucky, the drunk driver is the only person who is hurt. What happens when you're not lucky? Does the person you killed come back to life once the drunk driver sobers up? quote: Contrary to what some imply, the DRF does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment. Double jeopardy stems for the common law concept of res judicata, which means that once a matter is adjudicated it generally cannot be tried again. Being the second part of a two-part punishment is not the same as double jeopardy. As for the 8th Amendment, if the DRF were an excessive fine, that would be a concern. But it's not. quote: Not me. I think it makes perfect sense. If you had gotten into an accident when you didn't have your proof of insurance, you would have subjected a) the police, b) anyone that you hit and c) their insurance company to an extraordinary amount of work trying to track down your relevant information. The agony that you have experienced through the DRF is roughly proportional what you would have those three entities in the event of an accident. The punishment, therefore, fits the crime. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8168 Registered: 12-2003 |
Michigan is the ONLY no-fault insurance state LEFT in the union, aren't we? Thanks for the nod, F, I don't mean to rub that wound wrong...I'm arguing for TEACHING people...so perhaps a BAC meter for every car is what we should have? EVERY law is merely a feedback loop, it attempts to correct a problem AFTER it happened. IF this is as big a problem as you say, and I take the opposite stand but yield this for discussion, then we MUST provide FREE and EASY alternatives...just like our military, as described by 1stsarge above. OR we should abolish alcohol completely...and we've already found that to NOT be a practical solution. I don't WANT to live in a society where there are NO vents on the pressure cooker lid...without these social distractions, it will surely blow apart. That said, NOW, how do we get our solo-car pilots home safely after a night on the town? Not everyone is like me, I moved so I could WALK to my entertainment...even in the wintertime! IF we REALLY cared about lives, there would be money spent in advance...paid through the alcohol tax collection...on these free rides. SINCE we currently rely on personal responsibility, and we ALL know that goes out the window during times of extreme stress...which is likely WHEN someone might drink more than they should (like Jams noticed with me after my mother died)...then I conclude without a doubt that the current situation is untenable and must be COMPLETELY SCRAPPED. We cannot rely on personal responsibility for society's safety...it will ALWAYS FAIL. That is mere human nature. Nothing more, nothing less. We can get as angry as possible, and things will remain the same, as they obviously are now...except the state and insurance companies getting cash excessively for no solid substantial positive purpose and effect. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2087 Registered: 07-2004 |
Completely off topic and mostly for you Gannon.Here is a link to the idea of natural law.The Ava Maria law school is based on natural law ala St Thomas Aquinas_ for those that know this stuff already forgive my thread jacking http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc /thomism.htm | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8174 Registered: 12-2003 |
CL, That was good, I'm chewing on it now. Thanks. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2342 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: No, there are a total of 12 such jurisdictions. The others are Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, Mass., Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah and the District of Columbia. http://www.autoinsuranceindept h.com/no-fault-insurance.html | ||
Mckrackin Member Username: Mckrackin Post Number: 4 Registered: 01-2007 |
"I disagree with your interpretation of the law. For starters, the fee is assessed with a service - the Secretary of State is giving you a drivers license." It is not assessed with a service, you are assessed this "fee" whether you have a license or not. You are obviously Blinded by emotion on this issue and incapable of rational discussion on the matter. "extraordinary amount of work trying to track down your relevant information" It's a funny world you live in, extraordinary amount of work? How do you figure? If you don't have insurance, it is one thing, but not having proof? | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2343 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Blinded by emotion? Incapable of rational discussion? Not only are you ignorant, but you're also an ass. quote: Let's say that Kevin Harris (a name that randomly pulled out of the phone book) hits you with his car. Mr. Harris has his drivers license with him, but no proof of insurance. From his license, you know that he lives at 12125 Steel in Detroit, Michigan 48227 (address from the phone book). His drivers license number, for purposes of this illustration, is C 313 871 534 125. How do you file a claim against Mr. Harris' insurance company? He might tell you that he's insured by the XYZ Insurance company, but you have no way of knowing whether or not that's true. If he gives you bogus information because he doesn't want his rates to go up, you won't find that out until days after the collision. Tell me what insurance company (if any) Mr. Harris is insured by - or at least how you would go about filing a claim without that information - and then we can talk about which one of us is "blinded by emotion". quote: #1. The DRF is only assessed in cases involving someone operating a motor vehicle on public streets. #2. If you're doing so without a drivers license then that poses a whole different set of issues. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8201 Registered: 12-2003 |
I'm an ignorant ass, too, then. Sorry, F. As with ANY trauma, your fervor will wane in 12 months after a PROPER period of mourning and healing. We'll see how your tune follows the tempo and such then. FUNNY thing, NO-FAULT is supposed to cover our OWN asses in the event of an accident. SAYS SO ON THE PAGE YOU LINKED TO, F. Why would you need to find anyone else's insurance company in the case of an accident? (I know why, I am pointing out a huge flaw in the entire logic of using this sort of system as it is employed NOW, years after its sale to the public.) | ||
Mckrackin Member Username: Mckrackin Post Number: 5 Registered: 01-2007 |
None of your conclusions are supported by fact, but you state them as if they are. You state that it is a fee for having a license, but when shown otherwise you change your statement, yet have the audacity to claim I am ignorant and an ass? Interesting thought, based on your shallow view I am assuming you or someone close to you has been the victim of an auto accident related to alcohol, perhaps it was karma. As to your ignorant, unsupported opinions on the matter. The matter of no proof of insurance a.) Is already addressed by the court imposed fine, I don't see how tacking on an illegally imposed fine by the SOS rectifies the situation above, nor does it compensate for it. Further more, it is clear that this illegally imposed fine has nothing to do with accidents, but is more often handed out during routine traffic stops. Incidentally, I am sure you are aware that there are entirely different and far more severe fines associated with driving without insurance as opposed to proof of? The situation you speak of is a rare situation, as opposed to the frequency of said tickets, which are common. As to your retort below: "quote: It is not assessed with a service, you are assessed this "fee" whether you have a license or not. #1. The DRF is only assessed in cases involving someone operating a motor vehicle on public streets. #2. If you're doing so without a drivers license then that poses a whole different set of issues." You really don't even present an argument, just more idiocy, you stated that the fee is for having a license, I pointed out is not, end of story. When you can tell me what it is a fee for, you may have a point, but until then, you are an emotional little girl that is looking to pin a loss on people that had nothing to do with it. Here is the fact of the matter, the courts have the jurisdiction to penalize in the manner they see appropriate to the situation, taking that out of their hands is wrong from any perspective. I suggested a discussion on how to better handle the dangerous and irresposible behavior of drunk drivers, but your only interest seems to be in insults and biased opinions presented as facts. I presented facts, obtained from the state of michigan to back my argument, and you call this ignorance? Here is a opinion I will present as fact: You sound like an asshole. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2344 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Michigan's no-fault system is different. Drivers in Michigan are only required to carry enough coverage to take care of the damage that they do to others. If you want you're own damages paid for, you have to either a) carry collision coverage or b) go after the other driver. If you doubt me, read your policy carefully or talk to an insurance agent. quote: You got me. I'm part of a giant conspiracy. Every insurance agent and insurance company operating in Michigan is in on it. The police are, too. That's why if you check with any of them, they'll all tell you the same story. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2089 Registered: 07-2004 |
Regarding the drunk drivers and your suggestion that we discuss the issue here is my solution: Shoot the motherfuckers. Mckrakin you have claimed several time that an sos fine is illegal.What court has declared this so? | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8216 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: So...we get none of the actual benefits of the concept, along with WAY higher auto insurance rates. I get it. Screw 'em. Buy a used car, PL&PD minimums...SAVE the rest of what you WOULD'VE paid and collect a fine lump sum indeed. EVER since 9/11, they have fought and fought EVERY claim that I'm aware of...and whenever anyone NOW has even an unchargeable accident, they find a way to raise your rates enough to pay the claim back over time. Fuck 'em. Insurance companies are simply the leech on corporate capitalism's back...if our 20th century version of it weren't so damn profitable...there is NO WAY they could've developed into the fear-mongers that they are. My "liability" is merely considering how many ways they've figured out to profit from mere human fear and anxiety. CL, You just go on aiming at those 'drunk' drivers, just make sure you don't hit any merely impaired ones. There is a canyon of difference in what those two words denote. Next time anyone sees YOU doin' something they disagree with, I hope you hear the bullet before it hits. | ||
Mckrackin Member Username: Mckrackin Post Number: 6 Registered: 01-2007 |
"You got me. I'm part of a giant conspiracy. Every insurance agent and insurance company operating in Michigan is in on it. The police are, too. That's why if you check with any of them, they'll all tell you the same story." I'm not really sure what you are talking about, I wasn't aware the police or insurance agents had anything to do with the DRA? What story are they telling, that this act has made life easier for them? Better? Wait, do the insurance companies get reimbursed for the man hours it takes to track down those pesky no proof of insurance lawbreakers? I suppose that really would be tough, since their addresses aren't on their drivers license, wait, it is, damn it all to hell. I suppose no proof of insurance adds alot of time to the cop's work load to, he has to write out a ticket, hard work. I don't know how many police officers you know, but I know a few, they could all give a rat's ass about the DRA. At the end of the day it does one thing, make money for the state(Though sixty percent of the assessed "fees" have not, to this day been collected.). If you can show me one thread of proof that this law has any other positive effect, I'll give you a master debater trophy. | ||
Mckrackin Member Username: Mckrackin Post Number: 7 Registered: 01-2007 |
"Regarding the drunk drivers and your suggestion that we discuss the issue here is my solution: Shoot the motherfuckers. Mckrakin you have claimed several time that an sos fine is illegal.What court has declared this so?" Ah, the voice of reason, shooting people, a true resident of the 313. As to what court decided, your going to have to give me a few, I wrongly assumed everybody understood that only the courts could pass sentence on a criminal(All DUI related laws are a misdemeanor as well as driving on a suspended, no proof of insurance is a civil infraction which is handled by local government NOT state.). Honestly I haven't had to look up this info since my high school government class, it may take me a minute or two. Now I really have no great interest in defending drunk drivers, I just find the manner with which we, as Americans, have laid down and allowed the government to make us foot the bill for there lack of spending restraint a little disturbing. As to my thoughts on making things better, it really is a tough call. On one hand, there has to be a strong amount of personal responsibility, but on the other, as has been shown, good judgement rarely occurs when booze is involved. I see the beer and liquor companies making billions without admission that they are probably responsible for more deaths in the US than any other source. In the meantime the government demonizes tobacco, which only kills the user(I know second hand smoke, blah, blah). You have bars raking in money hand over fist, what is their job... to get people loaded. Show me a bar that adheres to the no sale to those intoxicated. Perhaps it would help to beef up these laws, and go after the sources. I'm not saying the individual is not responsible for his/her own actions, they should be, and if you ever looked up the penalties for DUI resulting in injury, they are very harsh, I'm saying that going after the individual will not make our roads any safer. And that, should be the end goal. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2345 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Sorry, but no. There is nothing in Michigan's Constitution to prohibit the executive branch from administering fines, provided they have been duly prescribed by law. There is a multitude of said punishments already in place. Late fees for not returning a library book on time. Additional fees for not filing your taxes promptly or accurately. There's a spoilage fee that is assessed by the Michigan Dept. of Agriculture against grocery stores that attempt to sell perishable food past the expiration date. A quick search of Michigan's Compiled Laws for the key word "fee" turns up 1,910 hits. All these are efforts by Legislature to levy additional punishments against those who break the law. The DRF is simply a continuation of this power. If you doubt me that there is nothing in the Constitution to mandate that only the courts may levy punishment, you are welcome to read the Constitution yourself. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(c4qpwy55smfwqx2zzhkqfkrs))/ mileg.aspx?page=getObject&obje ctName=mcl-Constitution | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2346 Registered: 12-2004 |
quote: Not quite. Michigan's system does have a couple of very powerful benefits that no one else has. For example, Michigan is the only state in the Union to mandate that insurance companies pay an unlimited amount for medical expenses that result from an auto injury. Every other state has a cap. Beyond that cap, the other 49 states would shove you onto the welfare rolls or make you go without medical benefits. Michigan also gives you up to a year to file a claim for medical benefits. In other states, you have you only have a few days. This is important because sometimes something that seems like "just an ache" turns out to be much more than that and you don't fully realize it until days or weeks later (depending on how stubborn you are about mentioning it to your doctor). Finally, Michigan is the only state that mandates coverage for passengers and pedestrians if they are hit by an uninsured driver. If you're in the other 49 states without your own health insurance, you're basically screwed. Full disclosure: Before pursuing a career doing freelance writing and video, I worked for 3 years as an insurance agent. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2092 Registered: 07-2004 |
I reside in the 734 Mckrakin.Putting your patronizing aside you declared a fine was illegal.That is a fee or the specific fine you are discussing here.I asked you a very simple question.What court has declared it illegal? Or has the atty general declared it illegal?I have already said I am not legally well versed.You imply that you are. So it seems rather then being a condescending jerk you might just answer the question. I am fairly certain either a judge, the atty general or the legislature are the only entities that can declares something illegal.In any case I know your simply saying something is illegal does not make it so_ so who declared this illegal> On my shoot the motherfucker comment I was being facetious.You and Gannon and few other seem to believe that society is willing to have a dialogue about the issue of drving under the influence of alcohol.I don't see it.I don't hear it on talk shows (radio, tv) or read it in mags or the paper.The only people I see are those directly affected i.e. the one's that got caught. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8240 Registered: 12-2003 |
FRANK, Let me give you an example of UNlimited medical benefits from our all so benevolent insurance industry. In September 1982, I was rear-ended in a hit-n-run on Telegraph Road south of Michigan Avenue. My injuries were soft-tissue, essentially WHOLE BACK whiplash from my tailbone to my skull. Throughout my excellent rehabilitation via the Blanzy Clinic in Southgate...one of the best Osteopathic clinics around in my opinion...my doctor warned me repeatedly to NOT continue my bone-headed youth-inspired insistence to continue my previous schedule that I was clearly in NO shape to attend. I barely made it through that semester at UofM-Dearborn, and dropped out abruptly from their engineering curriculum the next term due to the stress...after scoring some of the highest test scores ever on their materials engineering weed-out class. I would go to my job at Tech Hifi with barely enough energy to open the doors, take a few Tylenol-3s, then be available if anyone needed my assistant managership. There was NO way I could afford to miss that income. For all that struggle, I got an insurance company's aggressive stop policy, stacked with doctors that they paid to 'prove' that I was uninjured...because I could perform the duties I was previous to the accident. So, my last twenty-five years loss of nearly a dozen of more days per year from extreme arthritis in the CORE of my spine from my bottom to my top is my payment for believing an insurance company had MY best interests in their collective corporate capitalist mind. Fuck Insurance Companies. All of 'em. They own some of the choicest real estate in the land...they don't need any more of my money. I refuse to play their game. I will buy the absolute least of their product I can get away with. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8241 Registered: 12-2003 |
CL, You are merely witnessing the power of Angry Mothers. No one can be seen standing up to such loss and agony...why do you think Cindy Sheehan was elevated to the status she enjoys against the Iraq war-action?! It is tough enough reminding Frank that he might not be exactly rational in his assessment at the moment. YOU?! Not sure...there seems to be some over-reaction on your part too. Why shy from dialogue, why say we shouldn't talk about it here because none dare discuss it in public. This is one of the major benefits of nearly anonymous internet boards...we CAN air these views. Much worse to acquiesce to the status quo when it is SO obviously NOT working for us. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2093 Registered: 07-2004 |
Gannon I don't drink. so logically I don't drink and drive. So I don't have a stake in this at all.I am not unsympathetic to your point(s). I agree on the insurance industry.They are shitheads. I even looked some stuff up that supports you..............it's coming at the end of the thread. I am not completely opposed to making alcohol related laws less harsh to the non problem drinker.I am saying I believe the public at large is unsympathetic.And not without reason drinking related driving incidents have caused huge problems. Here is something _ http://209.85.165.104/search?q =cache:T6Aamj0zVT0J:www.abionl ine.org/downloads/InTheirOwnWo rds.pdf+have+stricter+laws+red uced+drunk+driving&hl=en&ct=cl nk&cd=8&gl=us | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8248 Registered: 12-2003 |
CL, Thanks for that...interesting. My stand is largely against the unwise use of law...and punishment of those who are redeemable that forces them across that point of no return. It is too easy to hide behind the law as currently written and accuse everyone of earning their fate because they stumbled beyond it through mere human nature. I am NOT against law culling those beyond redemption, and creating law that specifically keeps as FEW locked up outside productive society as possible. MOST of us do not wish to be outlaws, but the ever-creeping reach of law seems to seek to eliminate our freedoms...get everyone DNA tagged through arrest (as some court decided was OK today). Cheers! | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1701 Registered: 12-2003 |
quote: Maximum of $500. That is all you are entitled to. As far as I am concerned we do not do enough to protec | ||
Gotdetroit Member Username: Gotdetroit Post Number: 34 Registered: 12-2005 |
More fuel for the fire (or not) Was stopped for driving with a suspended license (long story, didn't know it was suspended...honestly). The cost: $250 in court costs (ticket, etc) $1,000 in fines over two years. $500 each year. License suspended for one month. Strict, not a restricted licence. $125 or something to reinstate my license. I had no criminal record, I didn't get pulled over for speeding, or driving drunk or anything. Cop just ran my plate while sitting behind me in traffic. He was bored. Tell me, really, does that sound reasonable to anybody? $250, and the $125 reinstatement fee, I could say was plenty. I struggled DAILY for the whole month to find a way to and from work (no busline, etc). It could have cost me my job. | ||
Gannon Member Username: Gannon Post Number: 8249 Registered: 12-2003 |
Welcome, Gotdetroit. You can be are our poster-child, unfortunately. EXACTLY what I've been speaking to...sorry you got hit by the technological-dragnet, even fueled by boredom. How is this anywhere NOT beyond illegal search?! What reason did this policeperson have to go through someone's legal records just because they crossed paths with them?! IF they were NOT in any other violation, the cop should be able to keep an eye on 'em, but NOT pull them over or cite them for anything outside his jurisdiction and perception. This has always been the case, when did they become able to not only call up a plate...but assume the driver was the registrant and that they had the ability and power to pull someone over for the plate information alone?! This is getting me sick. | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2100 Registered: 07-2004 |
Those are quick assumptions Gannon_ what was your license suspended for initially gotdetroit? | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2101 Registered: 07-2004 |
those are quick assumptions gannon........what was your license suspended for intially gotdetroit? | ||
Citylover Member Username: Citylover Post Number: 2102 Registered: 07-2004 |
those are quick assumptions gannon........what was your license suspended for intially gotdetroit? | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1703 Registered: 12-2003 |
Illegal search, you must be kidding me Gannon. That is a bit beyond a strecth | ||
Yvette248 Member Username: Yvette248 Post Number: 425 Registered: 10-2006 |
The cop "searched" his driving record for no apparent reason, i.e. "Probable Cause". I understand the outrage. It does seem to be overly Big Brother that a cop can just do a random search on you whenever he feels like it. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1714 Registered: 12-2003 |
Probable cause does not apply in this situation. The License Plate is in Public View. | ||
Beavis1981 Member Username: Beavis1981 Post Number: 167 Registered: 08-2006 |
last time I checked you get a lot of notice when your license is suspended. Usually about 3-4 warnings, 1 confirmation, and a couple follow-ups. This is not including the original offense and ticket. | ||
Mckrackin Member Username: Mckrackin Post Number: 26 Registered: 01-2007 |
BTW thanks for the link that proves an earlier statement of mine, I forgot to add it: "The rate of crashes both those involving alcohol and not, have been on a mild decline, in Michigan, since 2000. Showing no negligible trend post DRA(2003)proves that this law has had no effect on accidents." Does anyone other than the master of reading for comprehension have anything to say on the matter? Personally, I think that more accountability for the liquor industry is part of the answer, the bottom line is that alcohol is a drug, and the bars, distillers, and distributors are drug dealers. While a good chunk of responsibility should always be placed on the individual, at some point you have to make it a little more difficult to walk out of a pub seeing double and hop in your car to drive, because as any good drunk will tell you, alcohol makes people make poor decisions(often to the delight of ugly people). |
