You Live In VA. Sell Your Scoot

[shadowofshoe]

Sorry All !!!
Just heard about your "driver responsibility fines". My understanding of your soon to be enforce laws is this:

15 miles over the speed limit, say 85 in a 70 will cost you 6pts. and OVER $3000.00 US.

You also must pay a pt. tax of about $700.00 per year as long as points are active(5 yrs in speed)

Not using a turn signal when required has simular penalties including the 6 points.

This fines do not apply to out-of-staters.

The reason given for these is REVENUE AND ONLY REVENUE !!

Y'all better start calling someone!!
Mike

[Ted Shred]

Sorry All !!!
Just heard about your "driver responsibility fines". My understanding of your soon to be enforce laws is this:

15 miles over the speed limit, say 85 in a 70 will cost you 6pts. and OVER $3000.00 US.

You also must pay a pt. tax of about $700.00 per year as long as points are active(5 yrs in speed)

Not using a turn signal when required has simular penalties including the 6 points.

This fines do not apply to out-of-staters.

The reason given for these is REVENUE AND ONLY REVENUE !!

Y'all better start calling someone!!
Mike

Can you cite a source for this story. I couldn't find any info...

[Ted Shred]

Sorry All !!!
Just heard about your "driver responsibility fines". My understanding of your soon to be enforce laws is this:

15 miles over the speed limit, say 85 in a 70 will cost you 6pts. and OVER $3000.00 US.

You also must pay a pt. tax of about $700.00 per year as long as points are active(5 yrs in speed)

Not using a turn signal when required has simular penalties including the 6 points.

This fines do not apply to out-of-staters.

The reason given for these is REVENUE AND ONLY REVENUE !!

Y'all better start calling someone!!
Mike

This AP story says the fines are for reckless driving and driving while suspended. Nothing about speeding and turn signals...


http://www.tricities.com/tristate/tri/news.apx.-content-articles-TRI-2007-06-24-0024.html

[mtrevelino]

I am trying to find the article. I remember reading something about it on Sunday or Monday. I thought that I read 20 miles over, not 15. I also do not remember any references to turn signals. Please paste a ling to the article.

[Ted Shred]

I am trying to find the article. I remember reading something about it on Sunday or Monday. I thought that I read 20 miles over, not 15. I also do not remember any references to turn signals. Please paste a ling to the article.

Do a google on "new virginia traffic law" and you will get quite a few. It does say reckles driving 20 mph over the limit. Whether the speeding is wreckless or not is usually up to the officer issuing the ticket...

[shadowofshoe]

This was reported by an AM guy in col. that normally has its facts right 610 WTVN John Corby.

It also was added by a politician that is a senior partner in a firm that specializes in traffic law.....Thats getting it on both ends !!

Mike
Tou could tell he was quoting something

[Dean_BMW]

Here is a link to the actual laws.... look on page 2 of the PDF in section 7

http://www.courts.state.va.us/publications/hb_3202.pdf

[Ted Shred]

Section "D" is pretty vague. Wonder what that applies to??




""(7) Fee schedule. The civil remedial fees are as follows:
(a) Driving on a suspended license: $250 to the court upon conviction, with two
additional payments of $250 each due to DMV, one within 14 months of conviction and
the other within 26 months of conviction.
(b) Reckless driving: $350 to the court upon conviction, with two additional payments of
$350 each due to DMV, one within 14 months of conviction and the other within 26
months of conviction.
(c) DUI and related offenses (§§ 18.2-266, -266.1, 46.2-341.24): $750 to the court upon
conviction, with two additional payments of $750 each due to DMV, one within 14
months of conviction and the other within 26 months of conviction.
(d) Other misdemeanors, “Any other misdemeanor conviction for a driving and/or motor
vehicle related violation of Title 18.2 or [Title 46.2] that is not included in one of the
preceding three subdivisions”: $300 to the court upon conviction, with two additional
payments of $300 each due to DMV, one within 14 months of conviction and the other
within 26 months of conviction.""

[shadowofshoe]

Notice the annual fees they are unbelievable why worry 'bout insurance fees???

Mike

[unleashd]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201781_pf.html

[thomas_l]

Looks like the "surcharges" for lesser violations only come into play for repeat offenders - those that exceed 8 points at any given time. The WP article says a speeding ticket is usually 4 points so you'd have to have two in the bag before a third had you paying the point tax.

Still just a sneaky way to generate revenue and create court and attorney jobs.

[Ron82much]

Since I've posted and came in on the "wrong" side of a one-sided argument, so here goes...

Wifey and I just got back from a week long vacation on the bike that took us from NH through PA, Maryland, West VA, Ky, and VA...the very region of which we speak. Along with me was my brother-in-law and a very good friend from Ontario and his wife. Every one of us agreed that, in regard to the highway portions, the most pleasant and lowest stress part of the journey was through VA. Over the several hundred miles of VA highway we saw LEOs about every 5 miles.

There were no idiots road racing, no flying by on the right and cutting across multiple lanes dangerously close to my front wheel, turn signals everywhere, and all traffic was within a reasonable margin over the limit. (we set our cruise control at 5 over by the GPS and were passed regularly). As far as we can tell from our short time in the state this effort is WONDERFUL! We saw a news clip on TV in our hotel and some muckety-muck from the state police explained that they were not after "reasonable" drivers but only those who they considered to be displaying dangerous driving behavior.

I, for one, applaud the effort and think stiff fines are a wonderful thing! Almost everywhere I go people treat traffic laws as suggestions. I had to teach my wife to count to 3 and then look both ways before proceeding THROUGH A GREEN LIGHT because not only do people regularly run a yellow but now it's OK to run a red light because it changed from yellow and you were too close to bother stopping! Speed limits? Fuggedaboutit...if you're already doing 10 or 15 over and someone gets behind you who wants to go even faster YOU are the jerk, even if there is no where to go to get out of the way...as if I should risk a ticket so you can get where you are going a few seconds sooner.

Far too many people consider tickets to be some kind of pay-to-play system and the they should be kept reasonable so that they can afford them! Folks...PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING THE FINES ARE BREAKING THE LAW! If you don't like the traffic laws then lobby to change them. If you want to ride triple digit speeds go to the track or get a second job to pay the fines.

Everyone who has the ability to drive in an environment where the laws are obeyed has the right to use the roads and use them safely. No one has the right to risk the lives and property of others for their own amusement by ignoring the rules of the road. And no one has the right to decide for themselves which laws to obey and which ones don't actually apply to them.

Fines are supposed to be a detterent, not the cost of doing business for the road racer...which is very likely the reason they are now so high...you're not supposed to find them affordable!



Looks like the "surcharges" for lesser violations only come into play for repeat offenders - those that exceed 8 points at any given time. The WP article says a speeding ticket is usually 4 points so you'd have to have two in the bag before a third had you paying the point tax.

Still just a sneaky way to generate revenue and create court and attorney jobs.

[juggler]

I agree with Ron.

[sanjaun2]

I think they should fence off a couple of states and put all the highway patrol in there. Then everyone who feels they need to be protected could move inside the fence and be safe. Now, If the leo's would target unsafe drivers (tailgators,redlight runners, and people who do not pay attention) Then I would be all for their "protection" Staking out highways looking for the masses of people going 10 over is not a threat to my safety or anyone elses.

[shadowofshoe]

Ron-

SORRY-can't agree with ya !!!

I am one who says the punishment should fit the crime......call me crazy!!!! I regularly speed- especially on back roads.....its one of the reasons I ride a bike.
But I am also highly attempting to be super-aware of my actions. SURE....ticket me for my excess.......BUT do not TAX me for an infraction, and don't overreach.
If you are that much of a traffic law fan-sell your LT. Cause it will cease to be fun!!


Mike

[jayjacobson]

Sorry All !!!
Just heard about your "driver responsibility fines". My understanding of your soon to be enforce laws is this:

15 miles over the speed limit, say 85 in a 70 will cost you 6pts. and OVER $3000.00 US.

You also must pay a pt. tax of about $700.00 per year as long as points are active(5 yrs in speed)

Not using a turn signal when required has simular penalties including the 6 points.

This fines do not apply to out-of-staters.

The reason given for these is REVENUE AND ONLY REVENUE !!
Mike, the sky is not really falling! The new fine schedule clearly targets reckless drivers and/or repeat offenders.

The purpose of such a fee schedule is to encourage reckless drivers and/or repeat offenders to modify their driving habits. It probably WILL NOT modify any driving habits--as these people do not have any common sense or self control.

The money generated by the fee schedule will merely help offset the millions of dollars in public property destruction and resources wasted by these clowns.

So, in the end, it will probably only be about the revenue. But, that's not always a bad thing.

[shadowofshoe]

I realize that the beginning post is flawed -such was my info!! But to use fines as punishments is OK but to continue to use them as revenue streams is wrong, did you look at those schedules ;yea I could afford it and won't ever get that far but if I was in a different situation it could be financially devastating .

Moreover my concern is the copycat affect where governmental agencies see a cash flow and must have it and improve on it .You stay tuned to a government near you!!

Mike

[dshealey]

I also agree with Ron.

Since moving from SoCal to eastern TN, I have slowed down a bit. Drivers here are much less likely to be much more than 5-7 MPH over the posted limit, and I have fallen into the same habits, so far. Actually it is not bad, less stress.

The worst thing here though is the almost total lack of merging ability! People slow down on the entrance ramps, and will actually STOP if not totally clear (to them) for them to merge. Coming from CA, I find this very dangerous. I have slowed down a little to let people merge from on ramps, only to have them keep slowing down as I do, waiting for me to pass so they can "safely" enter the highway. Frustrating, especially when I am behind one of these on an on-ramp! These people would probably die from fright in CA.

Equally frustrating is the fact that people on the highway will speed up if they see you attempting to merge, unlike CA where almost everyone will allow you to enter.

All in all, far more frustrating to drive here than in CA, even though it is a "slower pace". Slower but more dangerous.

[juggler]

Maybe I should elaborate.

These are strictly my personal opinions. I present them as such, and I accept full responsibility for them as such:

Fines for traffic law violations are meant to deter violations of those laws. As a punishment for the offender, they are meant to deter a repeat offense. For the non-offender, they are meant to deter the first offense. If people are still violating the laws, the fines (and other punishment (think: Paris Hilton's 23 days in the slammer for repeated DUIs on a suspended license)) are not high enough.

On the other hand, there will always be those who violate the law, no matter what the penalty is. In Medieval England, pickpockets were hanged. Hangings were great public events, and the whole town would turn out to watch them. Invariably, there would be pickpockets working the crowd.

If we, as a society, don't like the laws, we should work to change them. In the U.S., each and every one of us can participate in this process.


I frequently drive a few miles over the speed limit -- mostly to keep up with other traffic and to avoid getting run over. I have been driving for over a quarter of a century, and have *never* been stopped for speeding. On the other hand, if I thought the probability of being stopped was pretty good, and if the penalties were unpalatably high, I would be driving at or below the speed limit all the time. I have been in countries where this is the case. Honestly, I don't think they are any safer for it. They do seem to be more stressed out.


I believe it is immoral for a government at any level, from state to small town, to use traffic fines as a source of revenue. Especially if they rely on fines. I seem to recall reading at some point back that courts had declared it illegal or unconstitutional or something for any government to get more than 50(?) percent of its revenue from traffic fines.

I find it especially immoral for a county or town to deliberately lower the speed limit on a stretch of road and aggressively enforce the speed limit there for the purpose of generating revenue. There are several spots around here where that is the case. There is one road, a main arterial from the freeway into the business district where the street passes through three different incorporated cities. In two of them, the limit is 35 and 30. Through the one in the middle, the speed limit drops down to 25. One of the town's two cop cars is usually sitting behind a bush just beyond the speed limit sign. (Recently, the town has invested in a speed camera system, and I've heard that it "paid for itself" within a couple of weeks.)

These are my views. Play by the book... or change the book.


By the way, Brian, it kinda sounds like what you suggested is already happening, hence this heads-up about Virginia.

My impression was that when we raised the speed limit to 70 outside of urban areas in Washington, we just raised the speed limit to the speed most people were already driving.

And what we should be cracking down on are not people who drive fast, but people who drive dangerously. Fast is just a symptom of that.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003763307_webspeeding26m.html

[shadowofshoe]

(2) Purpose. The statute states the purpose of these fees is “to generate revenue
from drivers whose proven dangerous driving behavior places significant financial
burdens upon the Commonwealth

There was a town called New Rome on the very western edge of National road in columbus. They dropped the speed limit to 25 and the register never stopped ringing.
To the state of Ohio's credit-they dissolved the Township because of the underhanded financing.

Virginia is not the only state to access annual payments based on point accumulation but they have taken it to new levels. I bet 2 speeding tickets would cost alot-but for the life of me I can't figure out how much.
BTW-I have one speeding ticket active (in the Audi :confused: ) and it cost 90.00 for 68 in a 55. I think that is reasonable for a otherwise clean sheet.

Mike

[juggler]

(2) Purpose. The statute states the purpose of these fees is “to generate revenue from drivers whose proven dangerous driving behavior places significant financial burdens upon the CommonwealthWell, ya gotta give them credit for being honest. They could have been more mealy-mouthed and said the purpose was to "recoup" the financial burden...

My opinion (again)... it's okay to attempt to recover the costs incurred by lawbreakers -- it's better than forcing law-abiding taxpayers to shoulder the costs caused by scofflaws.

It's not okay to raise money just to increase the standard of living of the residents of a town by "taxing" those just passing through via an aggresively enforced speed-trap.


I also think it's perfectly legitimate to have increasing penalties for repeat offenses. The first offense should have a fine that says "wake-up call". Subsequent offenses should have fines that say "you are a chronic troublemaker and we're gonna make this hurt".


BTW, I live in a state that does not have a points system.

[juggler]

I'd be interested to know if other people think that this is parallel to the question of whether a state can justify helmet laws by arguing that it's in the state's interest for motorcyclists to wear helmets to alleviate the burden on society for having to care for someone who is a vegetable after a brain injury-inducing motorcyle crash.

[Ron82much]

Ron-

SORRY-can't agree with ya !!!

I am one who says the punishment should fit the crime......call me crazy!!!! I regularly speed- especially on back roads.....its one of the reasons I ride a bike.
But I am also highly attempting to be super-aware of my actions. SURE....ticket me for my excess.......BUT do not TAX me for an infraction, and don't overreach.
If you are that much of a traffic law fan-sell your LT. Cause it will cease to be fun!!


Mike

It's not that I'm a traffic law fan, it's more that I believe the roads have become insanely dangerous because the laws we have aren't being enforced and the majority of drivers seem to believe they can pick and choose which ones apply to them. If the only way to get people's attention is to create exorbidant fines then so be it. Virginia's approach is draconian to be sure, probably more expensive than it needs to be...but it's working very nicely.

I find it especially amusing when I hear many of the same people who ignore traffic laws call for zero tolerance against other kinds of law breakers (yes, if you ignore traffic laws you are a law-breaker). Calls resound across the land for mandatory sentencing, personal responsibility, stiffer penalties, etc. Right up and until the call hits close to home...then it's a lot of whining about how this particular law shouldn't apply to them. If everyone obeyed the laws to the letter (no one does or ever will...including me, I'm just not a hypocrite when it comes to the cost of being caught) there would be a small fraction of the deaths and damage that there is now.

My LT is plenty of fun no matter how I ride it, thank you very much. I don't need to endanger the lives and property of others in order to enjoy myself! Do you really believe that you could avoid a child in just the wrong place in the road when you're flying through blind curves in the twisties? Will it matter to you afterward why she were there? I doubt I would be alone in calling for jail time if you were riding in violation at the time.

Like I said, if you don't like the traffic laws then lobby to fix them, don't try to justify why you should be allowed to violate them. The road belongs to everyone and it is everyone's right to expect, just like in all other aspects of life, that society as a whole will obey it's own laws and those who don't will be punished. The true injustice is the number of people who get away without said punishment...be they Enron executives stealing pensions or street racers scaring the bejesus out of someone's grandmother.

[Ron82much]

I'd be interested to know if other people think that this is parallel to the question of whether a state can justify helmet laws by arguing that it's in the state's interest for motorcyclists to wear helmets to alleviate the burden on society for having to care for someone who is a vegetable after a brain injury-inducing motorcyle crash.

I'd be even more interested in knowing how many people think I should pay all kinds of extra money to occasionally ride without a helmet but that traffic law violations should be affordable...I'd be willing to bet that the overall "social burden" of traffic accidents makes the cost of helmetless riders microscopic by comparison AND that if everyone obeyed all traffic laws (and that includes the less definable ones like...pay attention, stupid) the number of accidents on the road would drop to a very small fraction of what it is today (and, not incidentally, my occasional ride sans chapeau would be MUCH safer;) ). I have made this exact argument in the past from the other side of the argument...funny, in how in a sport biker dominated newsgroup no one wants to talk about things from this point of view :)

[Ron82much]

I also agree with Ron.

Since moving from SoCal to eastern TN, I have slowed down a bit. Drivers here are much less likely to be much more than 5-7 MPH over the posted limit, and I have fallen into the same habits, so far. Actually it is not bad, less stress.

The worst thing here though is the almost total lack of merging ability! People slow down on the entrance ramps, and will actually STOP if not totally clear (to them) for them to merge. Coming from CA, I find this very dangerous. I have slowed down a little to let people merge from on ramps, only to have them keep slowing down as I do, waiting for me to pass so they can "safely" enter the highway. Frustrating, especially when I am behind one of these on an on-ramp! These people would probably die from fright in CA.

Equally frustrating is the fact that people on the highway will speed up if they see you attempting to merge, unlike CA where almost everyone will allow you to enter.

All in all, far more frustrating to drive here than in CA, even though it is a "slower pace". Slower but more dangerous.

That whole merging thing must be a mid-adlantic thing! Funny, but now that you've mentioned it we did notice that behavior when we were in the area. In New England the rule of thumb is "I Brake For Nothing". Maybe a publicity campaign on the meaning of "Yield" and "Merge" would help...ok, maybe not.

When I was in driving school they taught us that a simple definition of the rules regarding a "Yield" sign is that it is a stop sign you are allowed to run. I thought that was a pretty good way of putting it. "Merge" and "Merging Traffic" on the other hand means that the other guy is supposed to let you in (or you are supposed to let them in).

Here in New England they changed the rules on rotaries (roudabouts?) years back. When I first learned to drive the rule still was thatwhile you should slow down you NEVER stop while entering because it is a merging traffic situation and the driver in the roatry is required to let you in. Then they flipped it over to make the entering traffic yield...that changed over 20 years ago and they still have to post extra signs to remind people.

[grifscoots]

Do you really believe that you could avoid a child in just the wrong place in the road when you're flying through blind curves in the twisties? Will it matter to you afterward why she were there? Man, I hate it when leetle girls play in tweesties.

[fas]

Man, I hate it when leetle girls play in tweesties.

26 posts and no Joe input.

What is the world coming to these days?

VA is all about taking $$$ from the people and giving it to the system supported by the legal folks. That's what happens when you have so many law degrees per sq. ft. NHTSA has the data. Going slow does NOT reduce accident rates. Germany has the data too.

[Ron82much]

Man, I hate it when leetle girls play in tweesties.

Of course that always depends on how little they are and exaclty what is twisting ;)

[Ron82much]

26 posts and no Joe input.

What is the world coming to these days?

VA is all about taking $$$ from the people and giving it to the system supported by the legal folks. That's what happens when you have so many law degrees per sq. ft. NHTSA has the data. Going slow does NOT reduce accident rates. Germany has the data too.

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. It ain't just about going slow...it's about dangerous behavior...an idiot driving into you in a parking lot at 20mph can still do plenty of damage. I have never felt so safe on an extended highway ride as I did in VA a couple of weeks ago...they didn't seem to be enforcing speed limits below 10 over, we were diggin' the scenery and having a very pleasant touristy kind of a ride doing 5 over (cruising at about 70 by the GPS) while plenty of cars were passing us unmolested.

Speed just seems to be the main topic on this board because so many here apparently think they should be given a special pass to drive at near (or above) triple digit rates no matter the speed limits because they ride motorcycles and are "safe" about it...as if they had a right to use the roads as a playground. I like to ride fast from time to time too, I just don't try to pretend that I have any right to do so...although trying to be sensible about it, I'm violating the law and am prepared to hang my head in shame and take the punishment if caught. If the punishment is too high then I don't knowingly violate.

What we DIDN'T see much of was the Fast and Furious nutball NASCAR wannabe idiots flying along at near triple digit speeds crossing multiple lanes through holes in the traffic, bozos coming down on-ramps and flying across to the left lane without ever looking back, or nitwits making sudden lane changes without signals. As soon as we crossed into Maryland they were back. I would gladly trade the ability to ride like a nut for that feeling safety from others for myself and my family.

The irony is, as was eluded to in other posts on this thread, that the vast majority on this board who complain about efforts to protect people from other drivers seem pretty eager to limit MY right to risk only myself by taking away my choice to wear a helmet.

[grifscoots]

Of course that always depends on how little they are and exaclty what is twisting ;)Just remember, the bike goes where you look!:D

[Ron82much]

Just remember, the bike goes where you look!:D

I wasn't thinking about where the BIKE goes...Bwahahaha...good thing not EVERYTHING goes where you're looking, divorce is expensive ;)

[shadowofshoe]

My LT is plenty of fun no matter how I ride it, thank you very much. I don't need to endanger the lives and property of others in order to enjoy myself! Do you really believe that you could avoid a child in just the wrong place in the road when you're flying through blind curves in the twisties? Will it matter to you afterward why she were there? I doubt I would be alone in calling for jail time if you were riding in violation at the time.


I don't care how you ride-only that you enjoy your ride. That being said...don't try to group me in with morons doing 3 digit speeds-you don't know me or realize that my most precious person is on the back--- MY WIFE Mona.
Now that we understand that....My JOB is to look for the ladder around every blind curve the deer at dusk on the other side of that hill AND yes the stupid girl playing in traffic!!

Most twisties we ride have a 55 limit-you do that you WILL get hurt.
I am not a maniac but I/we wouldn't have this bike if we were not going to use its capabilities. You know I'm oldish and can only aggressively do twisties for so long then,unfortunately must slow down because of the high degree of concentration it requires. Sometimes when I start a ride after a long day I just go slow cause it seems safer.

SEE I am only as nuts as my friends will tell you I am.

Mike.....thinking 'bout tweesties!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jayjacobson]

....my concern is the copycat affect where governmental agencies see a cash flow and must have it and improve on it. You stay tuned to a government near you!!
....The statute states the purpose of these fees is “to generate revenue from drivers whose proven dangerous driving behavior places significant financial burdens upon the Commonwealth."
Well, ya gotta give them credit for being honest. They could have been more mealy-mouthed and said the purpose was to "recoup" the financial burden....
....it's okay to attempt to recover the costs incurred by lawbreakers -- it's better than forcing law-abiding taxpayers to shoulder the costs caused by scofflaws....
The yearly cost of the death and destruction, to the taxpayers, by wreckless drivers is staggering. Public and private property damage, EMS / police response and investigation, medical bills, etc. The destroyed lives and families....I have no problem at all with a vigirous pursuit of the responsible party both criminally and civilally. That being said, it is not the government's job or purpose to generate revenue for the latest pork projects!
I'd be interested to know if other people think that this is parallel to the question of whether a state can justify helmet laws by arguing that it's in the state's interest for motorcyclists to wear helmets to alleviate the burden on society for having to care for someone who is a vegetable after a brain injury-inducing motorcyle crash.
....The irony is, as was eluded to in other posts on this thread, that the vast majority on this board who complain about efforts to protect people from other drivers seem pretty eager to limit MY right to risk only myself by taking away my choice to wear a helmet.
STILL have no problem with you not wearing a helmet. The burden of you being a vegetable for the rest of your life on the public dole is miniscule compared to the death and destruction of wreckless drivers. How much damage are you going to do on your M/C?
....Do you really believe that you could avoid a child in just the wrong place in the road when you're flying through blind curves in the twisties? Will it matter to you afterward why she were there?
....My JOB is to look for the ladder around every blind curve; the deer at dusk on the other side of that hill AND, yes, the stupid girl playing in traffic!!
That's the problem with reckless driving (or riding): you're not allowing any margin for error. You're not allowing for the unexpected. There is no safety net. If you fail to plan, you can guarantee a plan for failure.
....Going slow does NOT reduce accident rates....
Absolutely correct! It does, however, dramatically reduce the death and destruction associated with said "accidents."

[grifscoots]

Hey Jay, you talk like death and destruction is a bad thang.

[fas]

Hey Jay, you talk like death and destruction is a bad thang.

Take the TV's/celll phones/pda's out of the cars and Jay will have less stress.

Personally, I do my aggressive riding on the Mid Ohio track and other closed race circuits where traffic is one way only, no red lights, and lots of runoff for those moments when my skill is not up to the task.

The recent case in England where the man driving his SUV was convicted of killing innocent people was tied to the fact that the impact time was recorded accurately by his Blackberry. He was texting, NOT DRIVING. Now hs is in jail and will be for the next 20 years.:dance:

Jay, I believe drivers who are NOT focused are far more dangerous than a focused driver who may exceed the speed limits that are set for blue hairs driving Buicks.

American judges need to wake up and send the phone/pda killers to the think tank.

[shadowofshoe]

Look All I Think I am not being understood(Poor misunderstood degenerate)

The point of the original post was the excesses of the ENTIRE Virginia package.
I am not in the corner of reckless drivers and the like and certainly don't feel I am reckless...Although it seems I "am that guy" in this thread. I've ridden with some around our forum and I bet they would say that I'm all about safe riding ,not only for us ,but especially others.
Y'all seemed to miss the part about 55 mph being stupid on most the roads we ride at many times.
SO YEA I speed sometimes ,but when houses show up and limit drops I follow it unlike many cages I see. We have such "wanderlust" that we rarely ride the same road twice!!

What does that do to riding style.....lets see blind summits crest almost a stop-same with blind corners do you all think I am stoopid??? to the point where I asked mona-"Do I ride like a wuss??"
(don't answer that)
SO----I speed sometimes,I like twisties and hills, try hard not to hurt myself OR anyone else and respect the rights of all those that are on, or around the road I'm on.
None of this changes my affinity for the feeling of SPEED (I know: a dirty word here) and handling. I know,from the replies in this thread I am the lone ranger that :
Thinks VA has gone too far.
Speeds and admits it wasn't by accident

SO in conclusion(for this post ) if I get pulled over I deal with my ticket..although I don't ever hold my head down -except in prayer. You can ride anywhere and find assholes to avoid and I agree most of them are on cell phones-Thus my very short cell conversations with anyone while driving in my cage and never even giving consideration to the technology on my scoot.

Mike

[shadowofshoe]

Jay BTW you gotta tell me how to do so many quotes :D :D :D

Mike

[grifscoots]

Jay BTW you gotta tell me how to do so many quotes :D :D :D

MikeHere's what I do: open bmwlt on a different tab, open this thread, copy the quote you want, toggle to the other tab and paste. Repeat with different quotes, answer the quotes you pasted and then submit.

[shadowofshoe]

Ohh that makes sense= Thank You !!
It'll be more fun (did I say that out loud??_


Mike

[jayjacobson]

Hey Jay, you talk like death and destruction is a bad thang.
Well, Grifmeister, if it wasn't for death and destruction, I'd be out of business! So, I guess it's ok.
Take the TV's/cell phones/pda's out of the cars and Jay will have less stress.

Jay, I believe drivers who are NOT focused are far more dangerous than a focused driver who may exceed the speed limits that are set for blue hairs driving Buicks
Impossible, Rob. I relieve my stress for 12 hours every night!....Any less stress and you're a mushroom.

Yes, you're are correct, speed, ALONE, is not a problem. BUT, on our crowded roadways, how many additional variables do we have to consider? Even have to watch out for the blue hairs, always driving too SLOW or on the SIDEWALK!
Jay BTW you gotta tell me how to do so many quotes :D :D :DMike
Well Mike, being the co-village idiot, it took me months to learn that.