The Driver Responsibility Law - Coursework Example

20 June The Driver Responsibility Law The Driver Responsibility Law, or the Public Act 165 of 2003 was implemented on 1 October 2003, ad was subsequently amended first by the Public Act 52 of 2004, and secondly by the Public Act 460 of 2008. The Driver Responsibility Law was enforced with the aim to enhance the traffic safety by penalizing people for displaying dangerous behavior while driving. This law was implemented in several states in the USA including Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey. The Driver Responsibility Law requires the monetary assessment of the drivers who are found guilty of a particular traffic offence, or have gathered at least seven qualifying points upon the driving records. According to the Driver Responsibility Law, the revenues collected are entered in the General Fund of the state. Since the year 2003, the collections made from the Driver Responsibility Law have exceeded $65 million. In the year 2008, the revenue generated from the Driver Responsibility Law summed up to $114.2 million out of which, about $8.5 million went to the fire protection grants whereas the remaining money was added to the general fund (“Lawmakers should stop”). The rate of collection is roughly 50 % as the fees when added to the regular fine become punitively high. According to an estimate, “[m]ore than half of the surcharge notices had resulted in license suspension for non-compliance (53% or 60,723). There were a total of 112,561 DWI offenders participating in the program. Of these offenders, only 11% were in compliance (12,493 drivers)” (Price 29). The Driver Responsibility Law should be annulled because of four prime reasons; this Act allows the government to take advantage of people, there is a lot of subjectivity about the amount an individual has to pay for a certain offense, it allows the government to add fees on the ticket, and it provides the police officers with a way to issue people tickets for no sound reason. Every day, hundreds of drivers in the states of Michigan, Texas, and New Jersey have to wait for the Circuit Court Felony Big Leagues because they committed such a fragile offence as driving with a suspended license. They are not criminals, not have they displayed any kind of aberrant behavior. They are common respectable citizens, who somehow could not get the license renewed before driving their cars. Reasons for which their licenses are suspended include but are not limited to having unsatisfactory driving record in terms of too many points, and drunk driving. Many drivers are penalized for committing even minor offenses like forgetting to pay a ticket. For some reason, they are not able to make it to the court, and are thus suspended. Many among these people are unemployed, foreclosed, and poor, with no money to afford such expenses. A vast majority of them are found guilty of not paying the draconian Driver Responsibility Law imposed upon them by the state. Its charges supersede those of any other offense. Currently, lawmakers are advancing towards the eradication of fees that are overly punitive because such fees play a role in filling the budget holes while being ineffective in deterring dangerous driving behaviors. However, one of the most significant hurdles in this way is the replacement of the driver responsibility charges worth millions of dollars a year for a cash-strapped state. The Driver Responsibility Law is imposed when a driver fails to compensate or keep-up with a plan of payment. As a result of this, the Department of Treasury sends a notice to the Secretary of State, which in turn suspends the license. The concerned driver is not even notified of the same. To make it worse, the Driver Responsibility Law offers no protection against anything. Now when the very driver displays any kind of unacceptable traffic behavior including having an expired plate on the car, having a cracked windshield, or over-speeding, the police officer stops the driver and tells him that his driver’s license is suspended. The police officer then arrests him for this. One of the most fundamental factors that makes the Driver Responsibility Law extremely controversial is the fact that the plaintiff has hardly got any clue as to what amount he/she would be charged for a particular offense. There are certain people who have been required to pay a certain amount for a year and the amount has been more than doubled for the next year without a fair explanation of the same. The recent phase of economic recession has left the whole USA in a state of turmoil. There are not many jobs for the people while the prices of goods are increasing day by day. An average citizen is already in a state of huge distress under these circumstances. In this context, the Driver Responsibility Law feels nothing less than a way of emotional and psychological torture. The fundamental victims of this law are the poor. The Driver Responsibility Law appears to comprise a double jeopardy violation as the assessment of the fees is only carried out after and in addition to the imposition of fines pertaining to particular traffic offenses. The law is not fulfilling the originally intended objective of revenue collection. People earning low who are already facing bankruptcy and then are exposed to these charges are in pitiable situation. The poor citizens have already had a very tough time meeting the basic needs of life. The government needs to be considerate and such policies as the Driver Responsibility Law should be annulled. State governments in the USA tend to speak in favor of the Driver Responsibility Law saying that it helps promoting safe driving. The Michigan’s Maze Legal Group considers the Driver Responsibility Law a tax-free means of raising money for the improvement of the state roads. In spite of all the criticism that the Driver Responsibility Law has gathered since the time it has been charged, the only way for the victims to get rid of it is by paying it in full. Although the law was projected as a public safety measure, yet it eventually turned out to be a way of raking in money for the state government. The Driver Responsibility Law has not proved quite effective in improving the drivers’ behavior. Proponents of the Driver Responsibility Law argue that imposing stiff penalties upon the individuals who drive without licenses would help minimize the number of dangerous drivers from the roads as these are the very drivers who are most likely to have suspended licenses in the first place. However, the courtroom experience of Charles LaSata, the Berrien County Circuit Judge suggests otherwise. LaSata found unusual arraignments in his court for the drivers accused of driving with suspended licenses in spite of the supposed deterrent of the Driver Responsibility Law. LaSata still found people taking the risk of gaining additional fines since it was more important for them to get to their destination within time. Although as the representative of the Republican State, LaSata had favored the Driver Responsibility Laws by casting his vote in favor of it, yet he later confessed that by doing so, he had contributed to the problem (Braun). “I have to acknowledge an undeniable truth: Michigans so-called Driver Responsibility Law has been a failure…They are excessive and punitive. ... They were among the worst decisions our class of lawmakers have voted on and enacted into law” (Brown cited in Braun). Enforcement of the Driver Responsibility Law has given the police officers with more power which they exploit by giving people tickets for no objective reason. In addition to the imposition of fines upon drivers for being involved in such overtly harmful activities as reckless and impaired driving, the Driver Responsibility Law is also charged from the people who are not really involved in clearly dangerous activities. For example, many people are charged this fee for having multiple speeding tickets or not being able to produce insurance when required by the police officer. Concluding, evaluation of the merits and demerits of the Driver Responsibility Law suggests that the latter outweigh the former. This Act is causing the people more harm emotionally and psychologically than reducing the traffic risks for them. Since its implementation, the Driver Responsibility Law has not proved quite useful in inculcating the sense of safe driving in the people. Therefore, this Act should be cancelled as it allows the government to use the people to enlarge the state funds, there is lack of objectivity regarding the amount to be charged for a specific offense, the government uses it as an opportunity to add fees to the ticket, and the police officers are not very prudent in their selection of reasons to issue the people tickets. People are already dealing with financial stress because of the unemployment created by the economic recession, and Acts like this aggravate their issues. Rather than charging the drivers in the name of safety, the state can achieve balanced budgets by means of conducting reforms, which would not only be more acceptable to the public but also a more respectable way of collecting money. Works Cited Braun, Ken. “Pols Admit Bad Votes on Bad Driver Fees.” 17 June 2010. Web. 20 June 2012. . “Lawmakers should stop tacking on fines for traffic violations.” 26 Dec. 2009. Web. 20 June 2012. . Price, Michelle. The Texas Driver Responsibility Program: A Preliminary Analysis of the Impact on Impaired Driving and Trauma System Funding. Texas, 2007. Print. Read More