Michigan driver responsibility law may be repealed!

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Simonator, Jun 20, 2009.

Tags: Add Tags
  1. Simonator

    Simonator Guest

    This is a ridiculous law that has been in effect since 2003. It forces us to pay huge "fees" which I consider fines, on top of the fines you are allready assessed for certain traffic violations. If you don't pay, you can't drive. For example, if you lose your license for a stupid reason, such as not paying child support. You have to make it to work. Say you can't find a ride. You drive anyway, and get caught. You are assessed a $500 fee this year, and next year on top of the court costs and fines. So it will cost you well over $1000. You have to pay in full or you can't drive. A DUI is $1000 per year for 2 years. Well, a few years ago I racked up quite a bill. I owe $5,100 right now. This is really holding me back. I need to be able to drive so I can find a better job easier. How am I supposed to pay off all my fines when I can't find a better job? It is hard doing all this on a bicycle. There has been talk about repealing this law for a few years now. I think this time it really is going to happen.

    info on the driver responsibility law:


    The news story about the possible repeal:


  2. Mountainman

    Mountainman Active Member

    yes Josh it's like a catch 22
    at times
    for those of us that have gotten into trouble
    key seems to be -- get through this one -- and not to repeat what we have done wrong again
    you not working -- I understand -- how do you catch up ??
    it can be a heck of a hard road at times !!

    we fooled ourselfs back then
    and now will pay the price

    a fool is one who fools himself

    ride that thing
  3. bluegoatwoods

    bluegoatwoods Well-Known Member

    Hmmm....I seem to remember a kid who I went to school with getting in a similar bind in Michigan. I never got much detail because I had lost track of him by this time and only heard of his situation. But it boils down to them charging him rent for his jail time. He came out of jail in debt so bad that he couldn't possibly pay.

    The WOOD story mentions the low recovery rate as an indication that these fees are more than people can pay. The state (and maybe others) probably ought to face up to the fact that condemning minor scoff-laws to poverty is counter-productive.

    But what about child support deadbeats? That's not a very minor offense. But this is probably not the way.

    And that state legislator should be commended for having the guts to keep fighting it.
  4. arceeguy

    arceeguy Active Member

    Isn't it great when government punishes you multiple times for the same infraction?

    Many years ago, I was forced to pay the state an "insurance surcharge" of $100 a year for three years because I had accumulated more than 5 points on my drivers license. I don't know where this "insurance surcharge" went to, but I do know that it didn't go to my insurance company because they started surcharging me because of the points on my license. So not only did I pay for the speeding tickets, I paid the state again, and paid thousands more in insurance. (Oh, BTW - there was already a "high performance" surcharge on the vehicle) I don't think it is right for an insurance company to charge more for a few tickets. While I may have gotten a few tickets, I have never had a chargeable accident - ever. And none of the tickets were for more than 10mph over the speed limit. As a matter of fact, two of them were 4 mph over. (49 in a 45, same cop, same speed trap, same car)
  5. Mountainman

    Mountainman Active Member

    some can't work and they don't drive in Calif

    hey bluegoatwoods

    if they don't pay their child support here in Calif

    if they are contractors -- their contractors license is pulled

    same for drivers license -- if you don't pay child support -- you can not drive

  6. bluegoatwoods

    bluegoatwoods Well-Known Member

    Yes, mountainman, it's like that in most states. But child support is sort of a different category. If someone were to claim that abandoning one's children is downright criminal, I wouldn't argue against them. Maybe jail is appropriate.

    And these fees don't really seem inappropriate on the surface; "drive like a jerk, and we'll make you pay". What's wrong with that? Maybe nothing. But I'm uncomfortable when society starts taking and taking and taking from unpopular minorities. Young drivers and, a bit more recently, cigarette smokers for instance.

    It's a slippery slope that might become abusive. I can't see any mechanism that'll stop them from going too far. It just feels like the state increasing revenue the cheap and easy way.

    I guess I'm not against the notion of a financial penalty for small offenses. But the penalties should be pretty small (at least not unaffordable) and they should be applied sparingly.

    After all, it's become noticeably more expensive to legally operate a car during my adult life.

    But maybe I should be happy about that since I think we need fewer cars and those of us on the lower end of the income scale will necessarily be the ones to sacrifice the auto if we do achieve lower numbers.

    So, to slowly get to the point, I'm not necessarily against these fees. They just make me uncomfortable. Applied unwisely, they could be the equivalent of a tax on the poor. And guess who will have a high time on those dollars.
  7. Simonator

    Simonator Guest

    I am currently working at BK. I been there since November, Better than nothing. I don't have any extra money though.

  8. Simonator

    Simonator Guest

  9. arceeguy

    arceeguy Active Member

    That's right, we should all stand up to the taxes levied on tobacco, alcohol, etc. Even if you don't drink or smoke. Why? Because some day, they'll come after something YOU use. For example, the proposed taxes on "sugary" soft drinks. So the government wants you to consume chemicals (artificial sweeteners) instead of sugar, for your own good. Last I checked, sugar came from a plant, and is all natural. It enriches our lives when consumed in moderation. Same goes for tobacco use and alcohol consumption. I doubt you are significantly increasing any health risks if you occasionally consume alcohol or smoke. Do we really know the long term effects of artificial sweeteners? We know that they don't cause cancer in lab rats, but lab rats don't live 70+ years.

    Why would you be happy if running automobiles become so expensive to operate that only upper income folks can afford to drive them?

    For example, the president has said that his proposed carbon taxes will cause energy costs to "skyrocket". It'll hurt everybody (for our own good), but it'll hit the lower income folks the hardest.
  10. fm2200

    fm2200 Member

    arceeguy I use to be a bus driver in NYC and guys were always telling me about the same thing, getting multiple fines and never being able to free themselves from the DWI conviction of several years ago. A lot of the passengers were guys who lost their drivers license for various reasons, and were now having to take public transportation. It really does not matter to the govt if you feel it's to harsh, there main interest is the money. I recently got a ticket for not cleaning the curb area in front of a property I own ( a neighbor calls the city and complained) there was hardly anything there in the curb area, but I got a $100. fine and if you contest it you lose most of the time in there little court. It's only $$$ to them there not interested in the truth. I just got another ticket again this time there was one piece a paper in the curb area 4 X 6 lying there that's all there was, so I'm going to court and try and fight it but I will probably lose.
  11. bluegoatwoods

    bluegoatwoods Well-Known Member

    To answer your question, arceeguy, I'd be happy about it, even if it inconveniences me personally, because of the greater good.

    There are far too many autos in our culture. Somehow we need to reduce their numbers. There are any number of ways to do that. Let's make them more expensive, for instance.
    (Of course, the free market might well make them much more expensive if we don't find some way to get away from imported oil. But that's a different matter. Though it would accomplish what I'm suggesting.)

    However it's done, though, folks like me are going to be those who have to do without. I won't be able to afford one. The auto will be one of the luxuries of the wealthy.

    This doesn't make me jump for joy. But I'm willing to accept it. And I'll even be pretty happy about it when road congestion, road deterioration, littering (and don't forget hostile foreigners with a dagger aimed at our jugular vein, i.e.: our oil supply) are reduced.

    Now this have/have not situation might be avoided. How about this? The government buys X number of cars per year. Then distributes them by lottery to individuals. Anyone caught with an illegally obtained auto gets an automatic ten year sentence breaking rocks.

    I don't really like that idea, to be honest. But it would be "fair". I'd never do hard time over it, either. I'd be just fine on my bicycle.
  12. Simonator

    Simonator Guest

    I would really hate that. Don't think I could accept it. I been going 3 years without a car and its driving me INSANE! I am a car guy. It is my hobby. I live for cars.....
  13. arceeguy

    arceeguy Active Member

    The main problem that I see is that while you are willing to ride a bike to conserve resources (or whatever your motive) - you are all too willing to take automobiles away from other people because of your personal ideology. You say that you don't like all these ideas, but you wouldn't mind imposing them. (for the greater good, of course)

    Wow - you really scare me!
  14. fasteddy

    fasteddy Member

    I though America was formed because of opposition to Taxes, Fines, and Levies!
    That was more than 200 years ago and people tend to forget.

    At one time only rich people could afford cars. So it may be again.

  15. bluegoatwoods

    bluegoatwoods Well-Known Member

    Well, arcee, yes I've known for quite some time that you're very vigilant about the wrong things.

    Folks like me warn of near certain troubles ahead and speculate about possible mitigation strategies and you accuse us of trying to "impose" our "ideology" on you. It's not the first time. But don't you have anything new to say? It really is getting pretty old.

    to review just a bit; I speculated that it will become more expensive one way or the other to own and operate an automobile. I then mentioned that these will become luxuries that only the wealthy could afford. I even said that I don't mind that.

    But I'm imposing my ideology on you. Yeah, right.

    Then I jokingly suggested a scheme that would fit the Kim Jong Il playbook pretty well. I even said that I didn't like the idea.

    But I'm imposing my ideology on you. Right.

    I know you don't like it, but this nationwide automobile slum we've created is unsustainable. You'd be so much wiser to come to grips with it rather than charge that it's a conspiracy by the left wing.

    You know, some time back I was looking over the member profiles. Since your screen name begins with an "A" your name came up pretty early in the game. I noticed that under hobbies you wrote something childish like "poking libs in the eye" Hope I got that right, it's been a while. But it was something pretty similar.

    Do you know what it means?

    It means you're a troll.

    Go ride a bike.......
  16. arceeguy

    arceeguy Active Member

    I'm sorry you feel that way.

    Well, when folks like you talk about making things "more expensive" as your "mitigation strategies". It scares the heck out of me.

    No, not me because I'm not one of those who will have to give up automobiles. I may have to get rid of one, but not all. You said that you wouldn't mind if low income people like yourself had to give up cars and ride bikes. Did you consult all of the other folks in your income bracket to make sure they were all on board with you? Or are you imposing your ideology on others.

    Joking? You sounded as serious as a heart attack.

    Unsustainable - like this administrations massive spending? Also, a conspiracy is a secret plot. There is nothing secret about the left wing takeover. It's all out in the open, all you need to do is be aware.

    It is still in my profile, and it has a smilie next to it. :)

    I put it there because I noticed a lot of people like you sniffing around in my profile, so I figure I'd put that little "Easter Egg" in there for fun.

    You know what that means? It means that I don't take myself too seriously

    Congratulations, you found it! But took it totally the wrong way. (like a typical lib :jester: )

    I keed, I keed! :grin5:
  17. sparky

    sparky Active Member

    Umm... it's not sugar that's bad for you. It's high fructose corn syrup and Aspartame. One's bad for your heart, the other's bad for your brain. Sugar is great.
  18. sparky

    sparky Active Member

    It means...

    You're a troll who is too insecure with himself? You are immature? You are selfish? You hate Jesus? You like to mess with little boys online? Your own son despises you? Your wife doesn't love you anymore? Your mother never loved you? You are the puppet maser - the one behind the NWO? You aren't funny?

    Congratulations! You fail at life.
  19. machiasmort

    machiasmort Active Member


    Opp's I forgot, I'm not a Mod.........LOL!
  20. bluegoatwoods

    bluegoatwoods Well-Known Member

    Well..don't be hasty, machiasmort.

    I'm not gonna argue anymore. I won't waste anymore time with someone who's intentions aren't honest or fair-minded. Ever.

    So maybe the thread can get back on track.