justpaddlek1 said:
Tighten it up with some really stiff fines and a 3 strikes and your out rule for major offense with any 12 month period and I would be OK with that. Maybe we should cane the crap out of the repeat offenders.....bet that would make 'em think twice next time.
My home state (Illinois) already has that. Three moving violation convictions with a 12 month period nets you a 3 month suspension, like I had. That makes sure that the rich man and poor man pay alike. The rich man might not think a thing about paying money fines, but that mandatory suspension takes the wind out of his sails after 2 speeding tickets. But my suspension was for 2 moving violations within a 24 month period while under the age of 21 - a little more complicated. BTW - for driving it might work, but "3 strikes and your out" laws are the absolute dumbest thing to happen to the criminal justice system.
justpaddlek1 said:
Severe fines and penalties with real teeth would go a long way....right now its nothing more than a slap on the wrist as evidenced by Mopar and others I know that simply drive through a suspension.
My suspension was for something a little more complicated. Illinois gives drivers licenses to 18-year-olds, no restrictions. If you take driver's ed in high school (or from a private school) you can get a learner's permit starting at 15.5 and get your license at 16 provided you pass driver's ed. I took driver's ed in highschool my sophmore year, and passed with an A. When I got my driver license at the age of 16, across the board it was the rule that three moving violation convictions within a 12 month period got you a 3 month suspension. I was cool with that, never racked up convictions.
Somewhere in between me getting my license in 1996, and the year 1999, the State Legislature passed a law giving Illinois drivers what they call a graduated license. That means there are more restrictions on your license when you first get it - curfew for the under 18 crowd, and limits on how many passengers you can have in the car for the first few months of driving. Also included in that law was the stipulation that 2 moving violation convictions within 24 months while under the age of 21 got you a 3 month suspension. I got snared by that, but didn't know it until it was too late. I got a speeding ticket the summer of 1999 that I pled guilty to because I didn't want to deal with traffic school - was too busy with college. That fall, I got a ticket for making an improper left turn - turned left on a green light, but another driver hit me in the intersection. Since I didn't explicitly have a green arrow, I was at fault. I pled guilty to that too, and didn't go to the traffic school that would have kept the ticket off my record because at the time I didn't have the $25 for the school.
A few months later, I got a letter from the Illinois Secretary of State (head honcho at the DMV) hitting me with that 3 month suspension. Didn't even see it coming because no one at the courthouse told me that I'd be facing a suspension - and yes they are supposed to tell all penalties you face prior to entering a guilty plea. I was inbetween a rock and a hard place. Being above the age of 18, I am considered an adult in Illinois and am expected to have a job to be a nice little taxpayer and not depend on anyone else for support. But as far as the DMV is concerned, I was still in that nebulous age bracket of 16-21 where some adult rules apply but other more strict rules also apply. I had employment, had a car note to pay, and had college classes to attend. My suspension fell across the end of one college semester and into the beginning of another. I'm not going to drop out of an entire year of college (half of it already paid for, with no refund that late in the semester) just to not drive. I kicked around some numbers about my odds of getting caught, and just decided to drive through the suspension instead of up-ending my entire life. I figure that I'm supportive of some restrictions for 16-18 year olds, but not for the 18-21 year olds. Once I hit 18, that's the age that the DMV gives out a license without any driver's ed, so I'm not going to be penalized for being young.
And the worst thing of the whole suspension was the fact that it really was over a matter of the $25 for traffic school. Had I paid and gone to it, my license never would have been suspended. But I didn't know that was coming, and thus I drew the suspension. No matter how anyone twists it on paper, the DMV somehow thinks that I will be a better driver had I gone to the traffic school. The mere act of me sliding that $25 over the counter and the court clerk's office makes me good to drive, but keeping it in my pocket makes me a bad driver? That's the dividing line that is drawn? Puh-leaze.
justpaddlek1 said:
Driving is a priviledge not a right
I think it's a bit of both. Driving is a right in the fact that once I turn 18, I can go to the DMV and get a license. So long as I meet the requirements, no one can deny me a drivers license for any reason not specified in law. There is no person who makes a decision to grant me a license, and I do not have to make a case that I deserve one. It is codified in law that if I pass the written exam and the road exam, I will leave the DMV with a valid drivers license.
Driving is a priviledge in the fact that there can be restrictions placed upon people for the actions that they might take. Hence the traffic laws. So long as I obey the traffic laws (or at least aren't convicted of breaking them) I can keep on driving.
