URGENT: Proposed Legislation to replace DLC & NRVC with New Drivers License Agreement (DLA)

This new legislation as proposed by the American Assoc. of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) (Web - http://www.aamva.org) should be
strongly opposed by motorists. If this comes up in the state house,
you will need to let your legislators know that you are opposed to
this. It is wrong to get punished at home for a traffic violation
that you committed in a different state and you paid that state's
penalty. You should not get punished twice with a fine and points in a
state you got a ticket in and then points and the following insurance
hike when you get home !

Most of you are familiar with reciprocity between states on tickets.
This reciprocity is governed by the Driver's License Compact (DLC) and
Non-Resident Violator's Compact (NRVC). The NRVC is beneficial to the
motorist such that when when the out of state motorist gets stopped,
he doesn't have to post bond before going on his way or go to jail.
The DLC, only benefits states and insurance companies by recording out
of state traffic offenses against your driver's license. Both of
these compacts have some limitations that protect motorists that would
be gone under the Driver's License Agreement (DLA).

The DLA was brought into existence by the American Assoc. of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). Quite a few of their essential pages
are protected by username and passwords. I guess the reasoning is
people are not allowed to see what kind of traffic laws they are
proposing because they are afraid of our scrutiny would derail their
police state agenda.

Now, to the down and dirty details of the DLA. Below is the DLA as
passed in Connecticut since the AAMVA copy is "locked" from our prying
eyes. The DLA will be covered in detail. Comments will include Section
& Subections, etc that can be referenced below. Now the time to put
some sunshine on this !!

1. Not shown below in the CT statute is the ID provisions. Connecticut
passed this in the 2002 CT General Assembly and it was before the
AAMVA starting working on enhancing the DLA due to the Sep 11, 2001
terrorist bombings.

The ID provisions have certain conditions such as what is on your
license, how it is formatted and required information. This is a
backdoor way to implementing a National Identification Card. Most
people are against a National ID for good reasons. Before, the AAMVA
advocated the use of the Social Security Number as a License
Identifier which means it is displayed. They are now quiet about this.

2. First thing is Section 34, part 6. Take notice that this agreement
can mean your state can punish you (with points against your license)
for any offense not only in these United States but also Canada and
get this, Mexico. Mexico is well known as being a corrupt country if
not more than some states of the US. In Mexico, you have no right to
innocent until proven guilty. Laws and procedures vary by country and
these can snare people who think it is alright to do something here at
home.

As with Mexico, think about it, get a DUI due to a corrupt cop and a
breathalyzer that is rigged. Unknown to you when you get home, your
driver's license is gone after you were happy to get out of the
Mexican jail. Don't forget, pay more money for high risk insurance. No
due process built into the DLA. Even a speeding ticket in Mexico or
Canada can cause you problems when you get home.

Also further down the road but not mentioned yet is the possible
addition of other countries including member countries of the EU into
the DLA. One day, a ticket from France can haunt you back at home.
AAMVA is already working on model wording of licensing agreements
between states and foreign countries like Germany and France.
Violations are not mentioned yet but they can be added in later. In
fact, Florida and Province of Quebec have an agreement on traffic
violations along with Michigan trading info with Ontario, NY and Maine
trading with Ontario and Quebec as well.

3. Section 36, part 2 can be an additional burden. Look at the part
that says "and to comply with the procedures for the disposition of
such charges" can mean that a driver ticketed in a different state
might have to jump through more hoops than just paying a fine on a
ticket if he wants to keep his license. A good example is a driver
gets a ticket for tinted windows in Virginia even though the tint is
legal at home. The court orders him to fix the tint as per Virginia
law as a condtion to close the case on his ticket. If he wants to
keep his license, the tint must get fixed. Virginia does apply its
tint law to non-resident motorists.

4. Section 39, part d means if you blow off your ticket, your state
will suspend your license until you pay it. There is also a part that
would suspend your vehicle registration and/or driver's license. The
DLA even applies to ignoring out of state parking tickets. The NRVC
specifically excludes parking tickets from being used as a means to
suspend your driver's license and/or vehicle registration. Vehicle
registration revokation/suspension is not mentioned in the DLC/NRVC.

5. Section 40, I don't see much problem since these are the major
violations such as DUI/DWAI/DWI, reckless driving. On reckless
driving, the downside is the State of Virginia hands reckless tickets
out like candy for offenses that would be something like speeding in a
different state. Virginia's abuse of writing many Reckless Driving
tickets can cause a lot of problems at home.

6. As under the DLC, if you get a ticket in a different state for a
violation and your home state has the exact equivalence such as
speeding, you get points. If you get a ticket in a different state
where your state has no equivalent statute, no points for you. An
example is an Indiana driver gets a ticket for careless driving in
Michigan, since Indiana has no careless driving law, no points are
assessed under the DLC but the DLA will require Indiana to assess
some kind of point penalty and Indiana could do is treat it as a
reckless driving conviction. This is in part required by Section 36,
part 8.

7. More on Section 36, part 8, this would discourage states from
adding or taking from the DLA. Some states put in protections from the
full force of the current DLC. Some states don't assess points for out
of state violations except major violations. Other states only exempt
out of speeding from the points system such as Kentucky. Another state
like New Jersey charges a flat 2 points for any kind of out of state
moving violation even if it is worth 6 points at
home. In Colorado, in order to suspend/revoke for an out of state DUI,
the other state must allow for trial by jury or else the DUI is not
recognized. If a state joins the DLA, it must comply fully !

Overall, the DLA is going to be bad for motorists not only in the US
but if Canadian provinces join, their drivers and drivers from Mexico
even though they have more rights in Canada and US than at home.

The only way to stop this in its tracks is to bring it out into the
open in the motorist community. Please contact your DMV/BMV chiefs to
oppose this and if legislation shows up in your state,oppose it !

Most parts of the statute below has been stripped for bandwidth
purposes. The whole thing is located at
http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2002/act/Pa/2002PA-00070-R00SB-00020-PA.htm
and do a search on "Sec. 34" It is buried in other legislation on that
page and it was passed in 2002.

There is also a meeting of the DLC/NRVC Board in Oct in St. Louis. The
flyer concerning the DLA is found at:
http://www.aamva.org/Documents/drvDLCNRVCCompactMtgBrochure_10232004.pdf

This has to be stopped ! This can be used as a backdoor method to pass
legislation such as National ID.


Thanks


------
CT DLA
------


Sec. 34. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2003) As used in sections 34 to
43,
inclusive, of this act, the following terms and their derivatives
shall
have the following meanings:

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 13:53:02 -0700, itworker6 wrote:

<snip>
> You should not get punished twice with a fine and points in a state you
> got a ticket in and then points and the following insurance hike when
> you get home !

Why not?

<snip>
>
> 2. First thing is Section 34, part 6. Take notice that this agreement
> can mean your state can punish you (with points against your license)
> for any offense not only in these United States but also Canada and get
> this, Mexico. Mexico is well known as being a corrupt country if not
> more than some states of the US. In Mexico, you have no right to
> innocent until proven guilty.

If Mexico is such a hell-hole then why would you ever go there?

> Laws and procedures vary by country and these can snare people who think
> it is alright to do something here at home.

Are you saying that it is OK to violate the laws of Mexico if you are an
American?

<snip>
>
> 4. Section 39, part d means if you blow off your ticket, your state
> will suspend your license until you pay it. There is also a part that
> would suspend your vehicle registration and/or driver's license. The DLA
> even applies to ignoring out of state parking tickets. The NRVC
> specifically excludes parking tickets from being used as a means to
> suspend your driver's license and/or vehicle registration. Vehicle
> registration revokation/suspension is not mentioned in the DLC/NRVC.

Good!


> 5. Section 40, I don't see much problem since these are the major
> violations such as DUI/DWAI/DWI, reckless driving. On reckless driving,
> the downside is the State of Virginia hands reckless tickets out like
> candy for offenses that would be something like speeding in a different
> state. Virginia's abuse of writing many Reckless Driving tickets can
> cause a lot of problems at home.

Then don't speed in Virginia.


> 6. As under the DLC, if you get a ticket in a different state for a
> violation and your home state has the exact equivalence such as
> speeding, you get points. If you get a ticket in a different state where
> your state has no equivalent statute, no points for you. An example is
> an Indiana driver gets a ticket for careless driving in Michigan, since
> Indiana has no careless driving law, no points are assessed under the
> DLC but the DLA will require Indiana to assess some kind of point
> penalty and Indiana could do is treat it as a reckless driving
> conviction. This is in part required by Section 36, part 8.

Good!

<snip>

Thank you for bringing these reforms to my attention. Who do I write to
urge speedy passage?


--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney

"Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 13:53:02 -0700, itworker6 wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > You should not get punished twice with a fine and points in a state you
> > got a ticket in and then points and the following insurance hike when
> > you get home !
>
> Why not?
>
> <snip>
> >
> > 2. First thing is Section 34, part 6. Take notice that this agreement
> > can mean your state can punish you (with points against your license)
> > for any offense not only in these United States but also Canada and get
> > this, Mexico. Mexico is well known as being a corrupt country if not
> > more than some states of the US. In Mexico, you have no right to
> > innocent until proven guilty.
>
> If Mexico is such a hell-hole then why would you ever go there?
>
> > Laws and procedures vary by country and these can snare people who think
> > it is alright to do something here at home.
>
> Are you saying that it is OK to violate the laws of Mexico if you are an
> American?
>
> <snip>
> >
> > 4. Section 39, part d means if you blow off your ticket, your state
> > will suspend your license until you pay it. There is also a part that
> > would suspend your vehicle registration and/or driver's license. The DLA
> > even applies to ignoring out of state parking tickets. The NRVC
> > specifically excludes parking tickets from being used as a means to
> > suspend your driver's license and/or vehicle registration. Vehicle
> > registration revokation/suspension is not mentioned in the DLC/NRVC.
>
> Good!
>
>
> > 5. Section 40, I don't see much problem since these are the major
> > violations such as DUI/DWAI/DWI, reckless driving. On reckless driving,
> > the downside is the State of Virginia hands reckless tickets out like
> > candy for offenses that would be something like speeding in a different
> > state. Virginia's abuse of writing many Reckless Driving tickets can
> > cause a lot of problems at home.
>
> Then don't speed in Virginia.
>
>
> > 6. As under the DLC, if you get a ticket in a different state for a
> > violation and your home state has the exact equivalence such as
> > speeding, you get points. If you get a ticket in a different state where
> > your state has no equivalent statute, no points for you. An example is
> > an Indiana driver gets a ticket for careless driving in Michigan, since
> > Indiana has no careless driving law, no points are assessed under the
> > DLC but the DLA will require Indiana to assess some kind of point
> > penalty and Indiana could do is treat it as a reckless driving
> > conviction. This is in part required by Section 36, part 8.
>
> Good!
>
> <snip>
>
> Thank you for bringing these reforms to my attention. Who do I write to
> urge speedy passage?
>
>
> --
> Lance Lamboy
>
> "Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney
>

I have to agree somewhat with Lance here. If you drive like a moron, you
shouldn't be exempt from punishment just because you weren't in your home
state. I wish we'd get serious on drunk driving too. First offense, a
month in jail and no driving for six months. If you kill someone, you never
drive again. Second offense, six months in jail, never drive again. Drunk
driving kills more that five times the number killed in the WTC attacks
every year.
Rob

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 01:35:30 GMT, "Rob May" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 13:53:02 -0700, itworker6 wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > You should not get punished twice with a fine and points in a state you
>> > got a ticket in and then points and the following insurance hike when
>> > you get home !
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > 2. First thing is Section 34, part 6. Take notice that this agreement
>> > can mean your state can punish you (with points against your license)
>> > for any offense not only in these United States but also Canada and get
>> > this, Mexico. Mexico is well known as being a corrupt country if not
>> > more than some states of the US. In Mexico, you have no right to
>> > innocent until proven guilty.
>>
>> If Mexico is such a hell-hole then why would you ever go there?
>>
>> > Laws and procedures vary by country and these can snare people who think
>> > it is alright to do something here at home.
>>
>> Are you saying that it is OK to violate the laws of Mexico if you are an
>> American?
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > 4. Section 39, part d means if you blow off your ticket, your state
>> > will suspend your license until you pay it. There is also a part that
>> > would suspend your vehicle registration and/or driver's license. The DLA
>> > even applies to ignoring out of state parking tickets. The NRVC
>> > specifically excludes parking tickets from being used as a means to
>> > suspend your driver's license and/or vehicle registration. Vehicle
>> > registration revokation/suspension is not mentioned in the DLC/NRVC.
>>
>> Good!
>>
>>
>> > 5. Section 40, I don't see much problem since these are the major
>> > violations such as DUI/DWAI/DWI, reckless driving. On reckless driving,
>> > the downside is the State of Virginia hands reckless tickets out like
>> > candy for offenses that would be something like speeding in a different
>> > state. Virginia's abuse of writing many Reckless Driving tickets can
>> > cause a lot of problems at home.
>>
>> Then don't speed in Virginia.
>>
>>
>> > 6. As under the DLC, if you get a ticket in a different state for a
>> > violation and your home state has the exact equivalence such as
>> > speeding, you get points. If you get a ticket in a different state where
>> > your state has no equivalent statute, no points for you. An example is
>> > an Indiana driver gets a ticket for careless driving in Michigan, since
>> > Indiana has no careless driving law, no points are assessed under the
>> > DLC but the DLA will require Indiana to assess some kind of point
>> > penalty and Indiana could do is treat it as a reckless driving
>> > conviction. This is in part required by Section 36, part 8.
>>
>> Good!
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Thank you for bringing these reforms to my attention. Who do I write to
>> urge speedy passage?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Lance Lamboy
>>
>> "Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney
>>
>
>I have to agree somewhat with Lance here. If you drive like a moron, you
>shouldn't be exempt from punishment just because you weren't in your home
>state. I wish we'd get serious on drunk driving too. First offense, a
>month in jail and no driving for six months. If you kill someone, you never
>drive again. Second offense, six months in jail, never drive again. Drunk
>driving kills more that five times the number killed in the WTC attacks
>every year.
>Rob
>
It has been proven that suspensions of dl mean nothing. The idiots get
right back in there cars after court.

TV station in IL had a feature on this.

"Rob May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>Drunk driving kills more that five times the number killed in the WTC
attacks
> every year.
> Rob

Where did you get amount from?

"Rob May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I have to agree somewhat with Lance here. If you drive like a moron,
you
> shouldn't be exempt from punishment just because you weren't in your
home
> state. I wish we'd get serious on drunk driving too.

Maybe if the cops were not so busy with stupid garbage like exceeding an
arbitrairly set speed limit, window-tint laws and going after people
with bumper-stickers that "offend," they would have more time for real
problems like DUI.....

> First offense, a
> month in jail and no driving for six months. If you kill someone, you
never
> drive again. Second offense, six months in jail, never drive again.
Drunk
> driving kills more that five times the number killed in the WTC
attacks
> every year.

Why does this sound familiar??

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This new legislation as proposed by the American Assoc. of Motor
> Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) (Web - http://www.aamva.org) should be
> strongly opposed by motorists. If this comes up in the state house,
> you will need to let your legislators know that you are opposed to
> this. It is wrong to get punished at home for a traffic violation

<snip>

And the net change for most motorists is?

The only part I don't care for is the use of the SSN for a DL # and
that's due to the over use of the SSN by the likes of banks, credit
bureaus and others as an ID #. It would be only one more step for an ID
thief to make a DL with your SSN, rack up a bunch of violations and then
you are the one who gets the points, suspensions, jail time etc... and
alot of aggrivation before it is sorted out. *IF* it is ever sorted out.

"Bill Seas" <[email protected]> writes:
> Where did you get amount from?

before the speed limit reduction to 55 ... i have recollections of on
the order of 55,000 traffic fatalities per annum (somebody making the
point at the time about being equivalent to total killed in the
vietnam conflict). with the reduction of speed limit ... the number
of fatalities per year dropped significantly.

recently i remember there being news mention of the fatalities per
annum beginning to climb back up to the pre-55 speed limit days ... as
well as something about cellphone use now being second only to drunk
driving as cause of accidents (supposedly why some number of
jurisdictions are banning cellphone use while driving).

here is web site with some statistics for 2001 ... 42,116 total
traffic fatalities
http://www.cochranfirm.com/caraccidentstats-autodeaths.html

i found a site that quotes just under 55,000 traffic fatalities
occured in 1972 ... and from 1993 to 2002 the rate has been between
40,100 and 42,815 fatalities per annum.

the following is from "current trends update: alcohol-related
traffic factors 1982-1993"
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/00033780.htm

... during 1993, 40,115 traffic fatalities occured; of these
17,461 were alchohol related.

... from 1982 to 1993 the number of ARTFs in the US decreased
31% from 25,165(/annum) to 17,461(/annum)


from "DOT releases preliminary estimates of 2003 highway fatalities"
http://www.nhtsa.gov/hot/pressdisplay.cfm?year=2004&filename=FFARSrls404.html

... overall 43,220 deaths, up slightly from 42,815 in 2002

... 40percent were alcohol-related ... 17,401

... estimate that highway crashes cost society $230.6 billion/annum

this gives statistics by state for 2002
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/

the stats for NY

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/STSI/State_Info.cfm?Year=2002&State=NY&Accessible=0

includes that in state of ny there has been a change in alcohol
related from 1982 to 2002 of -74 percent.

=========

one might conjecture that the drop in "ARTFs" of 25,164/annum in 82 to
17,461/annum in 93 ... and estimated to be 17,401 in 2003 to possibly
being related to some change in DUI laws during the 80s ... although
it possibly has held relatively steady since then (possibly not much
change in DUI enforcement during the 90s).

===========

this site states that 2,823 people died in 9/11 attacks on WTC
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/07/13/wtc.identification/?related

five times 2,823 is 14,115 ... compared to 17,401 ARTFs estimated for
2003.

if you use search engine on 9/11 fatalities ... you trip across some
articles about there being a relatively calculated number of deaths
per miles driven ... and that after 9/11 some number of people were
afraid to fly ... and switched to driving. supposedly they can
calculate the increase in the number of miles driven attributed to
fear of flying in the wake of 9/11 ... and therefor calculate the
corresponding increase in traffic fatalities (proportional to the
increase in miles driven) ... attributed to 9/11 causing fear of
flying.

then you trip across another article that there were a lot of people
that were afraid to go anywhere (after 9/11) and so there was a
decrease in the miles driven ... but in 2004, people had started to
recover ... and so now drove more and as a result there were 269 more
traffic fatalities each month (extra 3228 for the year?) because
people were driving more because they were no longer afraid to go
places.

so in the wake of 9/11 there were more traffic fatalities because
people were more afraid (to fly) ... and then later there were more
traffic fatalities because people had become less afraid (to
drive). is this cause to wonder if there is any factors in the news
leading to fewer fatalities?

if there really going to be an extra 3228 traffic deaths for all of
2004 ... and the 2003 estimate of 43,220 otherwise holds steady going
into 2004 ... that would predict possibly 46,448 for all of 2004? ...
which might have been the source of some news report wondering about
the per annum fatalities heading back up towards the 55,000 mark.

now all we need to find out that 9/11 is causing afraid people to
drink more while driving ... and that the ARTF is going to increase
past 40 percent.

--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/

"Bill Seas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Rob May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> >Drunk driving kills more that five times the number killed in the WTC
> attacks
> > every year.
> > Rob
>
> Where did you get amount from?
>
>

From http://alcoholism.about.com/b/a/082337.htm
43220 traffic fatalities, 40% involving alcohol = 17288 due to alcohol.
From http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/
9/11 death toll 2752.

17288 / 2752 = 6.28, so really 6.28 times as many killed by drunks every
year than were killed on 9/11.
Rob

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 01:35:30 GMT, "Rob May" <[email protected]>
> wrote:

> >I have to agree somewhat with Lance here. If you drive like a moron, you
> >shouldn't be exempt from punishment just because you weren't in your home
> >state. I wish we'd get serious on drunk driving too. First offense, a
> >month in jail and no driving for six months. If you kill someone, you
never
> >drive again. Second offense, six months in jail, never drive again.
Drunk
> >driving kills more that five times the number killed in the WTC attacks
> >every year.
> >Rob
> >
> It has been proven that suspensions of dl mean nothing. The idiots get
> right back in there cars after court.
>
> TV station in IL had a feature on this.

I should add, that if they are found driving with a suspended license they
go to jail for the length of the suspension.
Rob

In article <[email protected]>, Rob May wrote:

> I have to agree somewhat with Lance here. If you drive like a moron, you
> shouldn't be exempt from punishment just because you weren't in your home
> state.

I don't think you understand how out of state drivers are preyed upon.
That's hard cash, right then and there. Governments like this, because
of the out of state driver is unlikely to come back to fight the ticket
and often must pay on the spot. You don't have to drive like a moron
at all. You can be driving better than all the locals and still be the
one picked out by the cop.

In article <[email protected]>, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote:
>
> "Bill Seas" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Where did you get amount from?
>
> before the speed limit reduction to 55 ... i have recollections of on
> the order of 55,000 traffic fatalities per annum (somebody making the
> point at the time about being equivalent to total killed in the
> vietnam conflict). with the reduction of speed limit ... the number
> of fatalities per year dropped significantly.

How many times do we have to go over this. Fatalities prior to 1974
cannot be compared to fatalities of 1974 and later. This is because
the method of the counting changed. Also, almost all of the reduction
came because of the reducition in driving due to this little thing
called the gas crunch. There was also a dramatic reduction in the amount
of driving done at night. We've been over this a dozen times or more
in r.a.d.

> recently i remember there being news mention of the fatalities per
> annum beginning to climb back up to the pre-55 speed limit days ... as
> well as something about cellphone use now being second only to drunk
> driving as cause of accidents (supposedly why some number of
> jurisdictions are banning cellphone use while driving).

The fatalties per mile is still at an all time low, but higher than
that of the autobahn in Germany. Also higher than other nations which
drive faster.

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

I think the point is Interstate Reciprocity is bad except maybe for
the major violations. I have done a lot of interstate traveling and
fortunately, so far, my state only penalizes for major violations but
does not record minor like speeding. Yes, I have driven in Virginia as
well. Even though I was not driving like a "moron", I have been
followed by state troopers when traveling in other states. I probably
would have been stopped if I was Driving while Black/Brown (DWB). The
nice thing so far is if I got stopped and ticketed, I just pay the
fine and that is the last of it.

Here are the cons against this DLA.

1. It is well known that cops especially State Police/Highway
Patrol/State Patrol's target out of state motorists.

2. Enforcement practices vary from state to state. Some states give a
good cushion for speed such as 10 mph over before they stop & cite
you. Other states will stop & cite you for as little as 2 mph over the
limit.

3. If you get cited for something outside of your home state and it is
far from home, it would be very impossible to have your day in court
since you have to come back at a later date, miss work and the cops
know this and this is why they favor ticketing non-residents.

4. If you are from a state like Colorado and you get a ticket in
Missouri, why should you get points in CO for a ticket in MO ? You did
not committ the offense in CO, you committed the offense in MO. You
pay a MO fine, get MO points. You have been punished. Getting punished
when you get home would be double jeopardy but yet with the liberals
running the Surpreme Court, that clause in the Constitution has been
weakened with the rulings and the liberals kind of have a dislike
towards the Bill of Rights since they get in their way of socialism.

5. I see no problem with a different state assessing points against
you even though you are licensed elsewhere. A few states will open a
point file on non-residents. My brother went to school in Ohio and at
the time, Ohio did not report tickets to other states. At one point,
he had almost 12 points in OH which would have meant he would have
been banned from driving in the state even though he had a valid
non-OH driver's license. He was told of this by an OH State Highway
Patrolman.

6. As for Mexico being corrupt as posted, you have no rights there !
You might be totally obeying their laws but a cop can decide to be an
asshole and try to get a bribe and you refuse, he might decide to
write you for something like reckless driving knowing the ticket can
hurt you when you get home. I knw ther are some people who is of the
opinion like Lance/Judy that a ticket anywhere int he World should
count. One time, I looked at a job in the Mississippi/Louisiana area
and I inquired with their DMV's on points from other states. The lady
with LA DMV in Baton Rouge told me they count all tickets regardless
where they are from including foreign countries. She told me they got
reports from Mexico, Japan and even Cuba on their licensed drivers.
The tickets are posted on the driver's record and count towards
suspension.

American justice up until recent years, it was presumed that it was
better for a few guilty to escape punishement than to punish an
innocent person. Today, in the name of safety and protecting Society
especially for the children, we don't care if a few innocent people
get punished but we cannot allow even one person to escape punishment.
This DLA is a part of this mentality.



> This new legislation as proposed by the American Assoc. of Motor
> Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) (Web - http://www.aamva.org) should be
> strongly opposed by motorists. If this comes up in the state house,
> you will need to let your legislators know that you are opposed to
> this. It is wrong to get punished at home for a traffic violation
> that you committed in a different state and you paid that state's
> penalty. You should not get punished twice with a fine and points in a
> state you got a ticket in and then points and the following insurance
> hike when you get home !
>
> Most of you are familiar with reciprocity between states on tickets.
> This reciprocity is governed by the Driver's License Compact (DLC) and
> Non-Resident Violator's Compact (NRVC). The NRVC is beneficial to the
> motorist such that when when the out of state motorist gets stopped,
> he doesn't have to post bond before going on his way or go to jail.
> The DLC, only benefits states and insurance companies by recording out
> of state traffic offenses against your driver's license. Both of
> these compacts have some limitations that protect motorists that would
> be gone under the Driver's License Agreement (DLA).
>
> The DLA was brought into existence by the American Assoc. of Motor
> Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). Quite a few of their essential pages
> are protected by username and passwords. I guess the reasoning is
> people are not allowed to see what kind of traffic laws they are
> proposing because they are afraid of our scrutiny would derail their
> police state agenda.
>
> Now, to the down and dirty details of the DLA. Below is the DLA as
> passed in Connecticut since the AAMVA copy is "locked" from our prying
> eyes. The DLA will be covered in detail. Comments will include Section
> & Subections, etc that can be referenced below. Now the time to put
> some sunshine on this !!
>
> 1. Not shown below in the CT statute is the ID provisions. Connecticut
> passed this in the 2002 CT General Assembly and it was before the
> AAMVA starting working on enhancing the DLA due to the Sep 11, 2001
> terrorist bombings.
>
> The ID provisions have certain conditions such as what is on your
> license, how it is formatted and required information. This is a
> backdoor way to implementing a National Identification Card. Most
> people are against a National ID for good reasons. Before, the AAMVA
> advocated the use of the Social Security Number as a License
> Identifier which means it is displayed. They are now quiet about this.
>
> 2. First thing is Section 34, part 6. Take notice that this agreement
> can mean your state can punish you (with points against your license)
> for any offense not only in these United States but also Canada and
> get this, Mexico. Mexico is well known as being a corrupt country if
> not more than some states of the US. In Mexico, you have no right to
> innocent until proven guilty. Laws and procedures vary by country and
> these can snare people who think it is alright to do something here at
> home.
>
> As with Mexico, think about it, get a DUI due to a corrupt cop and a
> breathalyzer that is rigged. Unknown to you when you get home, your
> driver's license is gone after you were happy to get out of the
> Mexican jail. Don't forget, pay more money for high risk insurance. No

> due process built into the DLA. Even a speeding ticket in Mexico or
> Canada can cause you problems when you get home.
>
> Also further down the road but not mentioned yet is the possible
> addition of other countries including member countries of the EU into
> the DLA. One day, a ticket from France can haunt you back at home.
> AAMVA is already working on model wording of licensing agreements
> between states and foreign countries like Germany and France.
> Violations are not mentioned yet but they can be added in later. In
> fact, Florida and Province of Quebec have an agreement on traffic
> violations along with Michigan trading info with Ontario, NY and Maine
> trading with Ontario and Quebec as well.
>
> 3. Section 36, part 2 can be an additional burden. Look at the part
> that says "and to comply with the procedures for the disposition of
> such charges" can mean that a driver ticketed in a different state
> might have to jump through more hoops than just paying a fine on a
> ticket if he wants to keep his license. A good example is a driver
> gets a ticket for tinted windows in Virginia even though the tint is
> legal at home. The court orders him to fix the tint as per Virginia
> law as a condtion to close the case on his ticket. If he wants to
> keep his license, the tint must get fixed. Virginia does apply its
> tint law to non-resident motorists.
>
> 4. Section 39, part d means if you blow off your ticket, your state
> will suspend your license until you pay it. There is also a part that
> would suspend your vehicle registration and/or driver's license. The
> DLA even applies to ignoring out of state parking tickets. The NRVC
> specifically excludes parking tickets from being used as a means to
> suspend your driver's license and/or vehicle registration. Vehicle
> registration revokation/suspension is not mentioned in the DLC/NRVC.
>
> 5. Section 40, I don't see much problem since these are the major
> violations such as DUI/DWAI/DWI, reckless driving. On reckless
> driving, the downside is the State of Virginia hands reckless tickets
> out like candy for offenses that would be something like speeding in a
> different state. Virginia's abuse of writing many Reckless Driving
> tickets can cause a lot of problems at home.
>
> 6. As under the DLC, if you get a ticket in a different state for a
> violation and your home state has the exact equivalence such as
> speeding, you get points. If you get a ticket in a different state
> where your state has no equivalent statute, no points for you. An
> example is an Indiana driver gets a ticket for careless driving in
> Michigan, since Indiana has no careless driving law, no points are
> assessed under the DLC but the DLA will require Indiana to assess
> some kind of point penalty and Indiana could do is treat it as a
> reckless driving conviction. This is in part required by Section 36,
> part 8.
>
> 7. More on Section 36, part 8, this would discourage states from
> adding or taking from the DLA. Some states put in protections from the
> full force of the current DLC. Some states don't assess points for out
> of state violations except major violations. Other states only exempt
> out of speeding from the points system such as Kentucky. Another state
> like New Jersey charges a flat 2 points for any kind of out of state
> moving violation even if it is worth 6 points at
> home. In Colorado, in order to suspend/revoke for an out of state DUI,
> the other state must allow for trial by jury or else the DUI is not
> recognized. If a state joins the DLA, it must comply fully !
>
> Overall, the DLA is going to be bad for motorists not only in the US
> but if Canadian provinces join, their drivers and drivers from Mexico
> even though they have more rights in Canada and US than at home.
>
> The only way to stop this in its tracks is to bring it out into the
> open in the motorist community. Please contact your DMV/BMV chiefs to
> oppose this and if legislation shows up in your state,oppose it !
>
> Most parts of the statute below has been stripped for bandwidth
> purposes. The whole thing is located at
> http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2002/act/Pa/2002PA-00070-R00SB-00020-PA.htm
> and do a search on "Sec. 34" It is buried in other legislation on that
> page and it was passed in 2002.
>
> There is also a meeting of the DLC/NRVC Board in Oct in St. Louis. The
> flyer concerning the DLA is found at:
> http://www.aamva.org/Documents/drvDLCNRVCCompactMtgBrochure_10232004.pdf
>
> This has to be stopped ! This can be used as a backdoor method to pass
> legislation such as National ID.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ------
> CT DLA
> ------
>
>
> Sec. 34. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2003) As used in sections 34 to
> 43,
> inclusive, of this act, the following terms and their derivatives
> shall
> have the following meanings:
> .
> .
> .
> (6) "Jurisdiction" means a state, territory or possession of the
> United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or province of
> Canada or any state of the Republic of Mexico or the Federal District
> of Mexico;
>
> Sec. 36. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2003) This state and the other
> party states to the driver license agreement find and declare that:
>
> (1) Each driver shall have one driver's license issued by a
> jurisdiction, that is recognized by all member jurisdictions, and
> shall have one driver control record;
>
> (2) All efforts shall be made to strengthen cooperation among member
> jurisdictions so that all drivers are required to answer charges of
> violation of motor vehicle and traffic laws, and to comply with the
> procedures for the disposition of such charges, regardless of the
> jurisdiction where any such violation occurs;
>
> (3) Reciprocal recognition of driver's licenses and of motor vehicle
> and traffic violations related to highway safety shall be facilitated,
> for the benefit of all member jurisdictions;
>
> (4) Compliance by each driver with all provisions of law pertaining to
> the safe operation of a motor vehicle shall be required as a condition
> to the issuance and to the retention of a driver's license;
>
> (5) Conviction of a driver or owner for any motor vehicle and traffic
> violation related to highway safety in any jurisdiction shall be
> treated as if the violation had occurred in the jurisdiction of
> record, for the purpose of maintaining the driver control record and
> of imposing administrative sanctions, as authorized by law;
>
> (6) All drivers shall be allowed to proceed on their way and shall not
> be required to appear in person before a court or other tribunal,
> regardless of their jurisdiction of record, after having been issued a
> citation for certain motor vehicle and traffic violations;
>
> (7) All efforts shall be made to achieve greater uniformity among all
> member jurisdictions regarding the exchange of information on drivers,
> licenses, and driver control records, including convictions of
> violations and license withdrawal actions; and
>
> (8) All member jurisdictions shall act in the best interests of
> highway safety and in a spirit of mutual cooperation to attain and
> monitor compliance with the driver license agreement and to resolve
> any dispute that may arise, at the administrative agency level of
> authority and decision-making.
>
> Sec. 39. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2003) (a) The Centralized
> Infractions...
> .
> .
> .
> (d) Upon receipt of a notice of failure to comply with a citation
> issued by any member jurisdiction, or administrative action taken by
> such jurisdiction concerning any person who is licensed to operate a
> motor vehicle in this state or who is the owner of a motor vehicle
> registered in this state, the commissioner shall proceed to suspend
> such person's operator's license and, if authorized or required by any
> provision of the general statutes, the registration of any motor
> vehicle owned by such person, or the privilege to register any motor
> vehicle, until such time as the commissioner is duly notified, in the
> manner provided by the procedures of the driver license agreement,
> that such person has complied with the terms of such citation.
> .
> .
> .
> Sec. 40. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2003) (a) If the Commissioner of
> Motor Vehicles receives a report from any member jurisdiction of the
> conviction in such jurisdiction of any person licensed to operate a
> motor vehicle in this state, for acts or conduct of the nature
> described in subsection (b) of this section, the commissioner shall
> suspend the operator's license of such person for the period of time
> required for a conviction of the equivalent offense under the
> provisions of the general statutes, as listed in subsection (b) of
> this section, for the same acts or conduct occurring in this state.
>
> (b) For the purpose of the action required to be taken by the
> commissioner in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, the
> conviction in another member jurisdiction for an offense involving the
> following acts or conduct shall be treated as a conviction under the
> following subdivisions:
>
> (1) Manslaughter or assault with a motor vehicle or negligent homicide
> with a motor vehicle shall be deemed a conviction of a violation of
> section 53a-56b, 53a-60d or 14-222a of the general statutes;
>
> (2) Operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol
> or drugs, or any combination thereof, shall be deemed a conviction of
> a violation of subsection (a) of section 14-227a of the general
> statutes;
>
> (3) Leaving the scene of an accident or failure to stop and render aid
> in the event of an accident or collision resulting in the death or
> personal injury of another shall be deemed a conviction of a violation
> of either subsection (a) or (b) of section 14-224 of the general
> statutes, depending on the acts or conduct reported and the
> circumstances as determined by the commissioner; or
>
> (4) Unsafe, dangerous or reckless operation of a motor vehicle shall
> be deemed a conviction of a violation of section 14-222 of the general
> statutes.
>
> (c) If the commissioner is notified by a member jurisdiction that a
> person who is the holder of a motor vehicle operator's license issued
> in this state has been convicted of a felony, in the commission of
> which a motor vehicle was used, the commissioner shall, if such
> person's acts or conduct would constitute an offense classified as a
> felony under section 53a-25 of the general statutes, suspend such
> person's operator's license for such period of time as may be
> determined by the commissioner.
>
> (d) If the commissioner is notified by a member jurisdiction that a
> person who is the holder of a motor vehicle operator's license has
> been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, in
> accordance with subdivision (2) of subsection (b) of this section, the
> commissioner may consider the conviction as a second or subsequent
> violation of section 14-227a of the general statutes, as amended by
> this act, if such person has been convicted previously of a violation
> of section 14-227a of the general statutes, as amended by this act, or
> has been convicted previously of a substantially similar offense in a
> member jurisdiction, as shown by such person's driver control record,
> within the past ten years, and the commissioner may impose the
> suspension for the period of time required for a second or subsequent
> offense by the provisions of subsection (h) of section 14-227a of the
> general statutes. It shall not be a defense to a suspension imposed
> pursuant to this subsection, or subdivision (2) of subsection (b) of
> this section, that the blood alcohol concentration of the person
> convicted in a member jurisdiction, or the blood alcohol concentration
> required for conviction of a per se offense in the member jurisdiction
> in which the person was convicted, is less than the blood alcohol
> concentration required for conviction of a per se offense in this
> state.

[email protected] (Brent P) writes:
> How many times do we have to go over this. Fatalities prior to 1974
> cannot be compared to fatalities of 1974 and later. This is because
> the method of the counting changed. Also, almost all of the reduction
> came because of the reducition in driving due to this little thing
> called the gas crunch. There was also a dramatic reduction in the amount
> of driving done at night. We've been over this a dozen times or more
> in r.a.d.

sorry, i wss under the impression that the gas crunch and the 55 limit
happened simultaneously ... and that both the 55 limit and the low
fatality rate continued after the gas crunch. so your saying that the
dramatic drop in the fatality rate was because reduced driving
(analogous to the claim about drop in driving after 9/11 also reduced
fatalities ... and the resumption in driving in 2004 seems to show
nearly 10 percent increase in fatalities.

also that the continued corrlation with reduced fatalily rate with the
55 limit after the gas crunch is coincidental and attributable to
other factors?

one of the web sites that i did trip across made some claim that the
majority of fatalities involve people not wearing their seat belts.
the implication is that for people wearing seat belts there should be
a significant lower percentage of accidents with fatalities ... aka
the rate of accidents and miles driven could remain constant ... but
as the number of people wearing seat belts increase ... the rate of
fatalities would drop (w/o any other factors changing).

what i didn't see is whether the rate of fatalities per accident has
also significant changed ... or has remained constant. The dramatic
reduction in night driving implies there should be a dramatic
reduction in the number of accidents per miles driven ... which would
directly reduce the number of fatalities per miles driven ... even if
the number of fatalities per accident stayed the same.

so i've tripped across with search engines possible factors affecting
total fatalities per annum:

fatalities per accident; wearing seat belts, speed

fatalities&accidents per miles driven; DUI, night driving, speed,
methods of counting

total miles driven; gas crunch, fear of going places

the NY state stats were interesting/different ... because they claimed
that a significant number of traffic fatalities were pedestrians when
cars were turning at intersections ... which would seem to be
insenstive to factors already cited ... except possibly DUI.

also most of the factors related to fatalities per miles driven
.... whould appear to result in the accidents per miles driven being
reduced ... and the reduction in fatalities comes directly because of
the reduction in accidents (and independent of any reduction in
fatalities per accident).

it would also be interesting to see if the claim about the significant
increase in miles driven this year (and especially this summer) is in
any way moderated by the gas price increases.

so except for the record keeping issue ... an interesting annualized
plot by year would be total miles driven, accidents per miles driven,
fatalities per accident (and possibly percent DUI). If the majority of
fatalities actually involve people not wearing seat belts ... then
change in percentage wearing seat belts might dramatically change the
fatalities per accident w/o changing the accidents per miles driven.

--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 05:51:57 -0700, The Big Biker wrote:

> [email protected] wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> I think the point is Interstate Reciprocity is bad except maybe for the
> major violations. I have done a lot of interstate traveling and
> fortunately, so far, my state only penalizes for major violations but
> does not record minor like speeding. Yes, I have driven in Virginia as
> well. Even though I was not driving like a "moron", I have been followed
> by state troopers when traveling in other states. I probably would have
> been stopped if I was Driving while Black/Brown (DWB). The nice thing so
> far is if I got stopped and ticketed, I just pay the fine and that is
> the last of it.
>
> Here are the cons against this DLA.
>
> 1. It is well known that cops especially State Police/Highway
> Patrol/State Patrol's target out of state motorists.

Really. Do you have proof?


> 2. Enforcement practices vary from state to state. Some states give a
> good cushion for speed such as 10 mph over before they stop & cite you.
> Other states will stop & cite you for as little as 2 mph over the limit.

You are responsible for following the law in whatever state you are in.


> 3. If you get cited for something outside of your home state and it is
> far from home, it would be very impossible to have your day in court
> since you have to come back at a later date, miss work and the cops know
> this and this is why they favor ticketing non-residents.

Is it really impossible? or inconvenient?


> 4. If you are from a state like Colorado and you get a ticket in
> Missouri, why should you get points in CO for a ticket in MO ? You did
> not committ the offense in CO, you committed the offense in MO. You pay
> a MO fine, get MO points. You have been punished. Getting punished when
> you get home would be double jeopardy but yet with the liberals running
> the Surpreme Court, that clause in the Constitution has been weakened
> with the rulings and the liberals kind of have a dislike towards the
> Bill of Rights since they get in their way of socialism.

First of all liberals running the Supreme Court? What planet are you from?

A drivers license is not a right but a privelege. Bad judgement out of
state is valid reason to reconsider the privelege.


> 5. I see no problem with a different state assessing points against you
> even though you are licensed elsewhere. A few states will open a point
> file on non-residents. My brother went to school in Ohio and at the
> time, Ohio did not report tickets to other states. At one point, he had
> almost 12 points in OH which would have meant he would have been banned
> from driving in the state even though he had a valid non-OH driver's
> license. He was told of this by an OH State Highway Patrolman.

IOW he could cause a lot of damage by moving from state to state. Each
state would individually ban him from driving and then he'd move on to the
next victim.


> 6. As for Mexico being corrupt as posted, you have no rights there ! You
> might be totally obeying their laws but a cop can decide to be an
> asshole and try to get a bribe and you refuse, he might decide to write
> you for something like reckless driving knowing the ticket can hurt you
> when you get home. I knw ther are some people who is of the opinion like
> Lance/Judy that a ticket anywhere int he World should count. One time, I
> looked at a job in the Mississippi/Louisiana area and I inquired with
> their DMV's on points from other states. The lady with LA DMV in Baton
> Rouge told me they count all tickets regardless where they are from
> including foreign countries. She told me they got reports from Mexico,
> Japan and even Cuba on their licensed drivers. The tickets are posted on
> the driver's record and count towards suspension.

Mexico is every speeder's favorite whipping boy. If Mexican cops are so
corrupt, then why go there. Do you believe that the laws of Mexico should
not apply to Americans?


> American justice up until recent years, it was presumed that it was
> better for a few guilty to escape punishement than to punish an innocent
> person. Today, in the name of safety and protecting Society especially
> for the children, we don't care if a few innocent people get punished
> but we cannot allow even one person to escape punishment. This DLA is a
> part of this mentality.
>
>
No innocents are getting punished.


>
<snip>

--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney

Rob wrote:

> "Bill Seas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>"Rob May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>>Drunk driving kills more that five times the number killed in the WTC
>>
>>attacks
>>
>>>every year.
>>>Rob
>>
>>Where did you get amount from?
>>
>>
>
>
> From http://alcoholism.about.com/b/a/082337.htm
> 43220 traffic fatalities, 40% involving alcohol = 17288 due to alcohol.
> From http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/
> 9/11 death toll 2752.
>
> 17288 / 2752 = 6.28, so really 6.28 times as many killed by drunks every
> year than were killed on 9/11.
> Rob
>

Never forget that NHTSA collects stats in a way that skews those numbers.

Driver A has a drink
Driver B falls asleep at the wheel, crosses the center line, hits Driver A
NHTSA collects this as "alcohol related"

I have verified this with NHTSA back when I worked next door to them and
helped them with the LANs and other computer needs.

--

Mark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50
2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org

"Rob May" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 13:53:02 -0700, itworker6 wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > You should not get punished twice with a fine and points in a state you
> > > got a ticket in and then points and the following insurance hike when
> > > you get home !
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > 2. First thing is Section 34, part 6. Take notice that this agreement
> > > can mean your state can punish you (with points against your license)
> > > for any offense not only in these United States but also Canada and get
> > > this, Mexico. Mexico is well known as being a corrupt country if not
> > > more than some states of the US. In Mexico, you have no right to
> > > innocent until proven guilty.
> >
> > If Mexico is such a hell-hole then why would you ever go there?
> >
> > > Laws and procedures vary by country and these can snare people who think
> > > it is alright to do something here at home.
> >
> > Are you saying that it is OK to violate the laws of Mexico if you are an
> > American?
> >
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > 4. Section 39, part d means if you blow off your ticket, your state
> > > will suspend your license until you pay it. There is also a part that
> > > would suspend your vehicle registration and/or driver's license. The DLA
> > > even applies to ignoring out of state parking tickets. The NRVC
> > > specifically excludes parking tickets from being used as a means to
> > > suspend your driver's license and/or vehicle registration. Vehicle
> > > registration revokation/suspension is not mentioned in the DLC/NRVC.
> >
> > Good!
> >
> >
> > > 5. Section 40, I don't see much problem since these are the major
> > > violations such as DUI/DWAI/DWI, reckless driving. On reckless driving,
> > > the downside is the State of Virginia hands reckless tickets out like
> > > candy for offenses that would be something like speeding in a different
> > > state. Virginia's abuse of writing many Reckless Driving tickets can
> > > cause a lot of problems at home.
> >
> > Then don't speed in Virginia.
> >
> >
> > > 6. As under the DLC, if you get a ticket in a different state for a
> > > violation and your home state has the exact equivalence such as
> > > speeding, you get points. If you get a ticket in a different state where
> > > your state has no equivalent statute, no points for you. An example is
> > > an Indiana driver gets a ticket for careless driving in Michigan, since
> > > Indiana has no careless driving law, no points are assessed under the
> > > DLC but the DLA will require Indiana to assess some kind of point
> > > penalty and Indiana could do is treat it as a reckless driving
> > > conviction. This is in part required by Section 36, part 8.
> >
> > Good!
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Thank you for bringing these reforms to my attention. Who do I write to
> > urge speedy passage?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lance Lamboy
> >
> > "Go F*ck Yourself" ~ Dick Cheney
> >
>
> I have to agree somewhat with Lance here. If you drive like a moron, you
> shouldn't be exempt from punishment just because you weren't in your home
> state. I wish we'd get serious on drunk driving too. First offense, a
> month in jail and no driving for six months. If you kill someone, you never
> drive again. Second offense, six months in jail, never drive again. Drunk
> driving kills more that five times the number killed in the WTC attacks
> every year.
> Rob


You're kidding right? I'm sure nobody has ever gotten a ticket they
didn't deserve in Mexico (or Virginia for that matter. Did you know
that merely driving with the flow of traffic in many places is
technically "reckless driving" and can be written as such?)

nate

"Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> > 1. It is well known that cops especially State Police/Highway
> > Patrol/State Patrol's target out of state motorists.
>
> Really. Do you have proof?

Do you never drive outside your home state, or are you really this
naive?

> > 2. Enforcement practices vary from state to state. Some states give
a
> > good cushion for speed such as 10 mph over before they stop & cite
you.
> > Other states will stop & cite you for as little as 2 mph over the
limit.
>
> You are responsible for following the law in whatever state you are
in.

Try that in a banana republic like FL, or AL where the cops can and do
write whatever they damn well please on a ticket and your actually doing
5 under the limit can translate to 10 or 15 over to the cop (especially
if you are DWB) and the cop's brother-in-law is the justice of the
peace. Translation: you are screwed whether you obey the law or not.

> > 3. If you get cited for something outside of your home state and it
is
> > far from home, it would be very impossible to have your day in court
> > since you have to come back at a later date, miss work and the cops
know
> > this and this is why they favor ticketing non-residents.
>
> Is it really impossible? or inconvenient?

Inconvenient. That is what the cops/traffic courts are counting on.

> First of all liberals running the Supreme Court? What planet are you
from?
>
> A drivers license is not a right but a privelege. Bad judgement out
of
> state is valid reason to reconsider the privelege.

And the first bad judgement is to be an out of state driver in some
states (particularlly in the south).


> > 6. As for Mexico being corrupt as posted, you have no rights there !
You
> > might be totally obeying their laws but a cop can decide to be an
> > asshole and try to get a bribe and you refuse, he might decide to
write
> > you for something like reckless driving knowing the ticket can hurt
you
> > when you get home. I knw ther are some people who is of the opinion
like
> > Lance/Judy that a ticket anywhere int he World should count. One
time, I
> > looked at a job in the Mississippi/Louisiana area and I inquired
with
> > their DMV's on points from other states. The lady with LA DMV in
Baton
> > Rouge told me they count all tickets regardless where they are from
> > including foreign countries. She told me they got reports from
Mexico,
> > Japan and even Cuba on their licensed drivers. The tickets are
posted on
> > the driver's record and count towards suspension.
>
> Mexico is every speeder's favorite whipping boy. If Mexican cops are
so
> corrupt, then why go there.

I often wonder the same thing about the south - especially where blacks
are concerned. While I don't know much about Mexico's cops, I do know
that cops/courts in the south are as corrupt as they come.

> No innocents are getting punished.

Visit the south - and I don't mean the tourist traps; get away from the
interstates where very little has changed since the '50's. I bet even
you or judy would get a ticket here.

Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote...

> sorry, i wss under the impression that the gas crunch and the 55 limit
> happened simultaneously ... and that both the 55 limit and the low
> fatality rate continued after the gas crunch. so your saying that the

You're also apparently under the impression that a collation between the
two automatically proves a cause/effect relationship. A common and
typically easily disproved error in logic.

It was once thought women who had large families were less susceptible
to diseases like breast cancer too... that being a baby factory was a
healthy thing. Science eventually figured out that size really doesn't
matter, and the phenomenon was in fact a product of the age at which a
woman has her first, and possibly only child. The erroneous conclusion
failed to consider the fact that women with large families generally
start having children at a younger age, but that didn't stop many people
from using this "scientific fact" as a basis for various permutations of
the "barefoot and pregnant" stereotype for years, however.

> one of the web sites that i did trip across made some claim that the

I think it would be wise of you to quit blindly "tripping over web
sites", and begin critically thinking about what their content really
means, if anything. It might help prevent any further advancement of
your "baby factory" mental state.

There's been a plethora of mutable factors that could, and have impacted
motor vehicle safety over the time frame in question. Automobile design,
changes in the infrastructure itself, general driving habits,
differences in legal guidelines concerning abhorrent driving practices,
the very way in which the data is collected and analyzed... all these
things and more would obviously have some impact on any statistics. The
common sense realization that situations exist where speed guidelines
are less strict and fatalities are lower tells us these other factors
almost *have* to have a more significant impact than velocity based
legislation.

Sorry, but your position is propped up with suspected predisposed
conclusions based on statistics that may or may not even be relevant to
context. It also categorically dismisses a very large body of both
anecdotal and factual evidence to the contrary. The question of "speed
kills" is left to the reader... my goal here was merely to shed light on
the glaring inconsistence and fallacy of logic you cling to in an
apparent attempt to prove something you obviously want to believe, if
only to yourself.

X-Post noted. FUP set to rec.autos.driving. Have a nice day!

--
"It's going to get a lot of publicity, and this country is really
in the mood for somebody to tell 'em what they should think, what
to do."

-- D.A. Pennebaker on "Fahrenheit 9/11"

We in the Democrat Party favor a National ID and state to state ticket
reciprocity including foreign countries. Your state driving record
should reflect you driving history worldwide ! This means if you get a
ticket in Malaysia or in France, it should be on your driving record
back at home with points and the mandatory insurance rate increase.
Society favors this and to disagree is something we won't tolerate.

You will support the Democrat Party and its views. You are not allowed
to think differently and to do so is at your own peril such as losing
your job, sensitivity training and other penalties proscribed by law
and regulations.

Kerry & Edwards in 2004. Good for Society.



[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> This new legislation as proposed by the American Assoc. of Motor
> Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) (Web - http://www.aamva.org) should be
> strongly opposed by motorists. If this comes up in the state house,
> you will need to let your legislators know that you are opposed to
> this. It is wrong to get punished at home for a traffic violation
> that you committed in a different state and you paid that state's
> penalty. You should not get punished twice with a fine and points in a
> state you got a ticket in and then points and the following insurance
> hike when you get home !
>
> Most of you are familiar with reciprocity between states on tickets.
> This reciprocity is governed by the Driver's License Compact (DLC) and
> Non-Resident Violator's Compact (NRVC). The NRVC is beneficial to the
> motorist such that when when the out of state motorist gets stopped,
> he doesn't have to post bond before going on his way or go to jail.
> The DLC, only benefits states and insurance companies by recording out
> of state traffic offenses against your driver's license. Both of
> these compacts have some limitations that protect motorists that would
> be gone under the Driver's License Agreement (DLA).
>
> The DLA was brought into existence by the American Assoc. of Motor
> Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA). Quite a few of their essential pages
> are protected by username and passwords. I guess the reasoning is
> people are not allowed to see what kind of traffic laws they are
> proposing because they are afraid of our scrutiny would derail their
> police state agenda.
>
> Now, to the down and dirty details of the DLA. Below is the DLA as
> passed in Connecticut since the AAMVA copy is "locked" from our prying
> eyes. The DLA will be covered in detail. Comments will include Section
> & Subections, etc that can be referenced below. Now the time to put
> some sunshine on this !!
>
> 1. Not shown below in the CT statute is the ID provisions. Connecticut
> passed this in the 2002 CT General Assembly and it was before the
> AAMVA starting working on enhancing the DLA due to the Sep 11, 2001
> terrorist bombings.
>
> The ID provisions have certain conditions such as what is on your
> license, how it is formatted and required information. This is a
> backdoor way to implementing a National Identification Card. Most
> people are against a National ID for good reasons. Before, the AAMVA
> advocated the use of the Social Security Number as a License
> Identifier which means it is displayed. They are now quiet about this.
>
> 2. First thing is Section 34, part 6. Take notice that this agreement
> can mean your state can punish you (with points against your license)
> for any offense not only in these United States but also Canada and
> get this, Mexico. Mexico is well known as being a corrupt country if
> not more than some states of the US. In Mexico, you have no right to
> innocent until proven guilty. Laws and procedures vary by country and
> these can snare people who think it is alright to do something here at
> home.
>
> As with Mexico, think about it, get a DUI due to a corrupt cop and a
> breathalyzer that is rigged. Unknown to you when you get home, your
> driver's license is gone after you were happy to get out of the
> Mexican jail. Don't forget, pay more money for high risk insurance. No
> due process built into the DLA. Even a speeding ticket in Mexico or
> Canada can cause you problems when you get home.
>
> Also further down the road but not mentioned yet is the possible
> addition of other countries including member countries of the EU into
> the DLA. One day, a ticket from France can haunt you back at home.
> AAMVA is already working on model wording of licensing agreements
> between states and foreign countries like Germany and France.
> Violations are not mentioned yet but they can be added in later. In
> fact, Florida and Province of Quebec have an agreement on traffic
> violations along with Michigan trading info with Ontario, NY and Maine
> trading with Ontario and Quebec as well.
>
> 3. Section 36, part 2 can be an additional burden. Look at the part
> that says "and to comply with the procedures for the disposition of
> such charges" can mean that a driver ticketed in a different state
> might have to jump through more hoops than just paying a fine on a
> ticket if he wants to keep his license. A good example is a driver
> gets a ticket for tinted windows in Virginia even though the tint is
> legal at home. The court orders him to fix the tint as per Virginia
> law as a condtion to close the case on his ticket. If he wants to
> keep his license, the tint must get fixed. Virginia does apply its
> tint law to non-resident motorists.
>
> 4. Section 39, part d means if you blow off your ticket, your state
> will suspend your license until you pay it. There is also a part that
> would suspend your vehicle registration and/or driver's license. The
> DLA even applies to ignoring out of state parking tickets. The NRVC
> specifically excludes parking tickets from being used as a means to
> suspend your driver's license and/or vehicle registration. Vehicle
> registration revokation/suspension is not mentioned in the DLC/NRVC.
>
> 5. Section 40, I don't see much problem since these are the major
> violations such as DUI/DWAI/DWI, reckless driving. On reckless
> driving, the downside is the State of Virginia hands reckless tickets
> out like candy for offenses that would be something like speeding in a
> different state. Virginia's abuse of writing many Reckless Driving
> tickets can cause a lot of problems at home.
>
> 6. As under the DLC, if you get a ticket in a different state for a
> violation and your home state has the exact equivalence such as
> speeding, you get points. If you get a ticket in a different state
> where your state has no equivalent statute, no points for you. An
> example is an Indiana driver gets a ticket for careless driving in
> Michigan, since Indiana has no careless driving law, no points are
> assessed under the DLC but the DLA will require Indiana to assess
> some kind of point penalty and Indiana could do is treat it as a
> reckless driving conviction. This is in part required by Section 36,
> part 8.
>
> 7. More on Section 36, part 8, this would discourage states from
> adding or taking from the DLA. Some states put in protections from the
> full force of the current DLC. Some states don't assess points for out
> of state violations except major violations. Other states only exempt
> out of speeding from the points system such as Kentucky. Another state
> like New Jersey charges a flat 2 points for any kind of out of state
> moving violation even if it is worth 6 points at
> home. In Colorado, in order to suspend/revoke for an out of state DUI,
> the other state must allow for trial by jury or else the DUI is not
> recognized. If a state joins the DLA, it must comply fully !
>
> Overall, the DLA is going to be bad for motorists not only in the US
> but if Canadian provinces join, their drivers and drivers from Mexico
> even though they have more rights in Canada and US than at home.
>
> The only way to stop this in its tracks is to bring it out into the
> open in the motorist community. Please contact your DMV/BMV chiefs to
> oppose this and if legislation shows up in your state,oppose it !
>
> Most parts of the statute below has been stripped for bandwidth
> purposes. The whole thing is located at
> http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2002/act/Pa/2002PA-00070-R00SB-00020-PA.htm
> and do a search on "Sec. 34" It is buried in other legislation on that
> page and it was passed in 2002.
>
> There is also a meeting of the DLC/NRVC Board in Oct in St. Louis. The
> flyer concerning the DLA is found at:
> http://www.aamva.org/Documents/drvDLCNRVCCompactMtgBrochure_10232004.pdf
>
> This has to be stopped ! This can be used as a backdoor method to pass
> legislation such as National ID.
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ------
> CT DLA
> ------
>
>
> Sec. 34. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2003) As used in sections 34 to
> 43,
> inclusive, of this act, the following terms and their derivatives
> shall
> have the following meanings:
> .
> .
> .
> (6) "Jurisdiction" means a state, territory or possession of the
> United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or province of
> Canada or any state of the Republic of Mexico or the Federal District
> of Mexico;

>
> Sec. 36. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2003) This state and the other
> party states to the driver license agreement find and declare that:
>
> (1) Each driver shall have one driver's license issued by a
> jurisdiction, that is recognized by all member jurisdictions, and
> shall have one driver control record;
>
> (2) All efforts shall be made to strengthen cooperation among member
> jurisdictions so that all drivers are required to answer charges of
> violation of motor vehicle and traffic laws, and to comply with the
> procedures for the disposition of such charges, regardless of the
> jurisdiction where any such violation occurs;
>
> (3) Reciprocal recognition of driver's licenses and of motor vehicle
> and traffic violations related to highway safety shall be facilitated,
> for the benefit of all member jurisdictions;
>
> (4) Compliance by each driver with all provisions of law pertaining to
> the safe operation of a motor vehicle shall be required as a condition
> to the issuance and to the retention of a driver's license;
>
> (5) Conviction of a driver or owner for any motor vehicle and traffic
> violation related to highway safety in any jurisdiction shall be
> treated as if the violation had occurred in the jurisdiction of
> record, for the purpose of maintaining the driver control record and
> of imposing administrative sanctions, as authorized by law;
>
> (6) All drivers shall be allowed to proceed on their way and shall not
> be required to appear in person before a court or other tribunal,
> regardless of their jurisdiction of record, after having been issued a
> citation for certain motor vehicle and traffic violations;
>
> (7) All efforts shall be made to achieve greater uniformity among all
> member jurisdictions regarding the exchange of information on drivers,
> licenses, and driver control records, including convictions of
> violations and license withdrawal actions; and
>
> (8) All member jurisdictions shall act in the best interests of
> highway safety and in a spirit of mutual cooperation to attain and
> monitor compliance with the driver license agreement and to resolve
> any dispute that may arise, at the administrative agency level of
> authority and decision-making.
>
> Sec. 39. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2003) (a) The Centralized
> Infractions...
> .
> .
> .
> (d) Upon receipt of a notice of failure to comply with a citation
> issued by any member jurisdiction, or administrative action taken by
> such jurisdiction concerning any person who is licensed to operate a
> motor vehicle in this state or who is the owner of a motor vehicle
> registered in this state, the commissioner shall proceed to suspend
> such person's operator's license and, if authorized or required by any
> provision of the general statutes, the registration of any motor
> vehicle owned by such person, or the privilege to register any motor
> vehicle, until such time as the commissioner is duly notified, in the
> manner provided by the procedures of the driver license agreement,
> that such person has complied with the terms of such citation.
> .
> .
> .
> Sec. 40. (NEW) (Effective January 1, 2003) (a) If the Commissioner of
> Motor Vehicles receives a report from any member jurisdiction of the
> conviction in such jurisdiction of any person licensed to operate a
> motor vehicle in this state, for acts or conduct of the nature
> described in subsection (b) of this section, the commissioner shall
> suspend the operator's license of such person for the period of time
> required for a conviction of the equivalent offense under the
> provisions of the general statutes, as listed in subsection (b) of
> this section, for the same acts or conduct occurring in this state.
>
> (b) For the purpose of the action required to be taken by the
> commissioner in accordance with subsection (a) of this section, the
> conviction in another member jurisdiction for an offense involving the
> following acts or conduct shall be treated as a conviction under the
> following subdivisions:
>
> (1) Manslaughter or assault with a motor vehicle or negligent homicide
> with a motor vehicle shall be deemed a conviction of a violation of
> section 53a-56b, 53a-60d or 14-222a of the general statutes;
>
> (2) Operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol
> or drugs, or any combination thereof, shall be deemed a conviction of
> a violation of subsection (a) of section 14-227a of the general
> statutes;
>
> (3) Leaving the scene of an accident or failure to stop and render aid
> in the event of an accident or collision resulting in the death or
> personal injury of another shall be deemed a conviction of a violation
> of either subsection (a) or (b) of section 14-224 of the general
> statutes, depending on the acts or conduct reported and the
> circumstances as determined by the commissioner; or
>
> (4) Unsafe, dangerous or reckless operation of a motor vehicle shall
> be deemed a conviction of a violation of section 14-222 of the general
> statutes.
>
> (c) If the commissioner is notified by a member jurisdiction that a
> person who is the holder of a motor vehicle operator's license issued
> in this state has been convicted of a felony, in the commission of
> which a motor vehicle was used, the commissioner shall, if such
> person's acts or conduct would constitute an offense classified as a
> felony under section 53a-25 of the general statutes, suspend such
> person's operator's license for such period of time as may be
> determined by the commissioner.
>
> (d) If the commissioner is notified by a member jurisdiction that a
> person who is the holder of a motor vehicle operator's license has
> been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, in
> accordance with subdivision (2) of subsection (b) of this section, the
> commissioner may consider the conviction as a second or subsequent
> violation of section 14-227a of the general statutes, as amended by
> this act, if such person has been convicted previously of a violation
> of section 14-227a of the general statutes, as amended by this act, or
> has been convicted previously of a substantially similar offense in a
> member jurisdiction, as shown by such person's driver control record,
> within the past ten years, and the commissioner may impose the
> suspension for the period of time required for a second or subsequent
> offense by the provisions of subsection (h) of section 14-227a of the
> general statutes. It shall not be a defense to a suspension imposed
> pursuant to this subsection, or subdivision (2) of subsection (b) of
> this section, that the blood alcohol concentration of the person
> convicted in a member jurisdiction, or the blood alcohol concentration
> required for conviction of a per se offense in the member jurisdiction
> in which the person was convicted, is less than the blood alcohol
> concentration required for conviction of a per se offense in this
> state.