Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Kaiser Soze wrote:Jail time for going 75 in a 55? That's pretty effing insane. I know it's a minimum, but just the thought that it's a possibility depending on what crusty old judge you get is scary.

Yikes.

Again.

Maximum penalty. Not minimum.

They chose the maximum penalty for reckless driving and combined it with the minimum requirement for a reckless driving ticket. Now you're all freaking out.

Use your brains.

Septimus wrote:A year in jail for 75 mph?

Kaiser Soze wrote:Jail time for going 75 in a 55?

i guess that's the price for the privilege of going twenty over...

jonnythan wrote:

Kaiser Soze wrote:Jail time for going 75 in a 55? That's pretty effing insane. I know it's a minimum, but just the thought that it's a possibility depending on what crusty old judge you get is scary.

Yikes.

Again.

Maximum penalty. Not minimum.

They chose the maximum penalty for reckless driving and combined it with the minimum requirement for a reckless driving ticket. Now you're all freaking out.

Use your brains.

I know man, I meant that 20 over is the minimum for being considered reckless... sorry for not being more clear. I didn't mean to get your panties all in a bunch and make you hostile.

Relax jonny, it's Friday.

"and they simply need the money"

This is the part that p*sses me off to no end. If the offender is being charged something as punishment, that's one thing, but simply because they "need the money", that's complete BS. I understand that the jail time example is a max/min comparison, but it's still BS to even relate the two together. I believe that people that cause wrecks or are driving dangerously (and I'm sorry, but 75 in a 55 is NOT dangerous) should be given harsh punishments, but some of this cr*p is rediculous.

And for those that talk about how many "cagers" cause accidents with bike because they drive too fast, that's a BS argument because I see just as bad of habits on motorcycles as I do in cars. Moreso, in fact. You rarely EVER see a car doing a wheelie down the interstate at 90 miles an hour in the middle of traffic, now do you?

beardking wrote:"and they simply need the money"

This is the part that p*sses me off to no end. If the offender is being charged something as punishment, that's one thing, but simply because they "need the money", that's complete BS.

they have to raise money for roads. it was either raise the fees for everyone or target a specific audience. in this case, the law makers decided to target a specific audience.

beardking wrote: . . . and I'm sorry, but 75 in a 55 is NOT dangerous . . .

i would disagree... maybe you're capable of safely driving 75 in a 55, but there are plenty of people that can't - and shouldn't. how about the 16 year old that just got his license yesterday?? would you consider him NOT dangerous going 75 in a 55?? and maybe you're thinking interstate. we have some pretty windy roads around here that are 55. in the past four months, there have been no less that 5 accidents and one death (all within two miles of my house) because people were going faster than 55. and believe it or not, alcohol wasn't a factor in any of the accidents.

besides, the 75 in a 55 was an example of reckless driving, which is 20 over. say the speed limit in your neighborhood is 25. would you consider it NOT dangerous for some driver to be going through your neighborhood at 45?? i think it's hard to make the blanket statement that 75 in a 55 is NOT dangerous...

The law affects reckless driving speeding and its a law about habitual offenders.

Right now in VA there are lots and lots of habitual offenders who get slapped on the wrist and continued on. We run and arrest so many revoked drivers and suspended drivers its not funny. DUI's are a joke to some of these people.

There is also a law that is going to fine people for having more then -7 points on their license (starting after today once they accumulated it) and they will pay 75 bucks per point up to 700 a year until their points clear up.

The law itself is a civil penalty fee and several other states have it. If convicted of the offense you will have to pay it. A judge can not lower the amount you have to pay.

Yeah its a way to generate more revenue but the average person won't be touched by it.

[quote="anarchy]i think it's hard to make the blanket statement that 75 in a 55 is NOT dangerous...[/quote]

I believe that it's just as hard to make a blanket statement that 75 in a 55 IS dangerous. Blanket statements are naturally useless. It could quite possibly be totally safe for someone to be doing 45 in my neighborhood even if the city/state/whatever decided that 25 should be the speed limit. There are numerous areas in my city that go from 45 down to 35 with no noticable change in the conditions. No churches, schools, or daycare centers. Still 2 lanes both ways. Nothing different before or after, but because someone arbitrarily chose to make this one are a different speed than the other, I could quite possibly be given a hefty fine.

I'm not saying that speeding shouldn't be punished, and every time I get caught for speeding, I'm quick to pay my ticket because I know I deserve it. But I think trying to TAX the h*ll out of your citizens just because they go faster is wrong. If the city/state/whatever needs the money for new roads, then the entire citizenry should be responsible for that bill. Or better yet, only those with registered ownership of cars, because it seems kind of stupid to me to charge people that don't have cars a tax on something that they don't necessarily use. Just like I have a HUGE problem with the large amount of money I pay into the government every year to support the local schools. I have no kids and I plan on keeping it that way, therefore I should not have to pay for something I don't use.

beardking wrote:I believe that it's just as hard to make a blanket statement that 75 in a 55 IS dangerous.

No one is saying that. It's at both the officers and the judges discretion on whether or not you're being thrown in jail. However, I think we can all concede that 20 over the speed limit has quite a bit of potential to be dangerous. Especially in a residential neighborhood or on twisty roads.

This is the reason why I'm sticking with my SC drivers license and registering my bike in SC. I'm a student in VA and as long as I don't have a job I don't need to change my license. *cough cough*

The moment they tell me I have to switch I'm moving back down to SC. End of story.

That'll be one less person paying taxes for them.

However, I hardly ever go more than 10mph over the speed limit, especially in neighborhoods (no more than 5mph over). The only time I would go 20 over is if I'm passing someone or if the speed limit changes dramatically for some reason.

two things stuck out to me.

1 - they need the money. no they don't. they need to look at how to spend less. i don't know of a single government entity that spends well. they all over spend and never think about the people they're taking the money from. in my house, if we don't have the money we have to spend less in other areas. how is it that the government never does that?

2 - it's only a select few that will have to pay this... you know it's funny, that's how income taxes started. the government sold it to the whole country saying that only rich city folk were going to have to pay income taxes. now we all do.

personally, i think some of it is a little excisive. i grew up in chesapeake, va. 64, 664, 264, all of those are very easy to speed on. especially the hampton/newport news side. enjoy the added taxes and the "discression" of the cop and judge.

edit: i'm not saying people should be allowed to brake the law. don't read it as that. i'm just saying if you're serious about these laws being inforced, then inforce them. don't use them as an excuse to steel more money from the public.