Does Virginia new traffic fines violate Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Kaosdad, I love your avatar but I think your post is wrong.

Traffic safety engineers know the safest speed is the 85th percentile, the speed 85% of drives drive at or below.

MY NOVA experience says that's going to be around 80 mph. These "taxes" lower speeds makaing them an insafe speed law.

 

Looks like we are going to have a lot of money for new roads. I say keep these new rules enforce until the roads are built then get rid of the fines

Lee j

 

I say keep them and lower our taxes. Or at least do not raise them.

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! This is foolish! Politicians NEVER give up a source of revenue once they have it.

Why don't they cut their fat budgets in other places instead of always coming to us for more money? Make THEM find the money by cutting out waste instead of always taking more.

 

WELL SAID! (for the 1st time)

 

Does that mean you are willing to sacrifice lives for roads? That's what you will be doing.

 

Interestingly enough, all of our bold leaders in congress mandating stricter CAFE standards on cars in the name of environmentalism are sacrificing men, women and children by the thousands.

As cars get lighter, they become much more unsafe. The law of unitnended consequences is a beautiful thing.

Oh, and don't forget the fact that as mpg increases, people tend to drive more...and thus we lose the benefit of the increased fuel economy. No, not advocating gas guzzlers--just saying it needs to be market-driven, not government mandated. Remember, the whole Soviet Union planned economy didn't work so well.

 

What are you saying that running red lights and speeding will save more lives then obeying the traffic laws????

Lee j

 

Jeez, Lee. Can you show me where I said anything remotely resembling that.

I will repeat it in simpler terms to avoid further confusion:

This law reduces speed below the 85th percentile speed.

Speed limits below that speed cause accidents.

If VA keeps the law as written it will cause more deaths than occurred at the higher speed.

More details are available here and in the reports it mentions: http://fromzcorner.blogspot.com/2007/07/virginias-unconstitutional-traffic.html

 

Dear Silence,

Your first paragraph is so irrelevant it doesn't bear discussion.

The law of unintended consequences is, indeed, wonderful. So is the law of uninformed posting.

There is not a new car today that is not more safe than virtually every car sold before 1985. Most of them are more safe than cars sold before 1998.

The obvious difference is air bags being required for both front seats.
There have also been a bazillion little improvements over the life of the car. Four wheel brakes, disc brakes, four wheel disc brakes, better suspension, better handling, crash energy management systems, etc.

The last great improvement is less powerful air bags. Yes, less powerful bags. They are less likely to harm the occupant on deployment.

What you seem to be thinking of is the small mass/large mass problem. That has been with us since the universe first formed bodies of two different masses. No way around it, law of physics thing.

NHTSA Report Number DOT HS 806 971 suggests you are wrong about people driving more as their MPG increases. If you can find a report stating otherwise, I would like to see it.

 

Renaldo, I am talking about the current CAFE standards Congress is imposing now. Duh. Of course cars are safer now than they were in 1985. Your post is irrelevant and doesn't deal with the following fact:

Research has shown that, on average, for every 100 pounds shaved off new cars to meet CAFE standards, between 440 and 780 additional people were killed in auto accidents — or a total of 2,200 to 3,900 lives lost per model year. So is it worth wasting lives in the name of environmentalism?


By the way, the number of miles people drive has doubled since CAFE was first enacted — cancelling out the gains from fuel economy. The cheaper you make it to drive, the more people drive.

 

I believe you are referring to derivatives of the badly flawed Kahane study. See: http://www.citizen.org/documents/kahane2_guide.pdf

LMAO

In 1975, when CAFE was enacted, there were 212.6 million Americans. Today there are over 300 million.

Of course the number of miles went up. There are more people to drive. The larger population also forces those people to spread out more or live like rats in stacked cages. Oh, btw, passenger miles have about tripled, not doubled.

Of course, during the same period, the prices of gas in constant dollars had gone down while income rose significantly. That had far more effect than increased mpg.

In short, your analysis is too simplistic to be provide value.

======================
Speaking of not dealing with facts, your posts have nothing to do with the effect of speed on accident rate or violation of the 8th.. That is what was being talked about when you started this tangent.

But I'll be glad to help you with your "facts" if you insist.

 

A few questions for you since you are obviously smarter than the rest of us here. Will the new CAFE standards imposed by Washington bureaucrats have an effect on the weight and safety of cars? When gas prices skyrocketed lately, did consumption of gas increase or decrease? Do you favor politicians mandating CAFE standards and if so, why?

We will await your wisdom so you can enlighten us.

 

Actually, the statistics were not based on the Kahane study. How many studies would you like me to provide to prove what is common sense? 10? 15? So you deny that CAFE standards that result in cars with less weight have NOT cost American lives? Wow.

Speaking of simplistic, you assumed gross miles driven, not per capita. In fact, per capita consumption has doubled. Here's why:

WHY CAFE FAILS TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION

Advocates of higher CAFE standards argue that increasing miles per gallon will reduce gas consumption. What they fail to mention is the well-known "rebound effect"--greater energy efficiency leads to greater energy consumption. A recent article in The Wall Street Journal noted that in the 19th century, British economist Stanley Jevons found that coal consumption initially decreased by one-third after James Watt's new, efficient steam engine began replacing older, more energy-hungry engines.

But in the ensuing years (1830 to 1863), consumption increased tenfold--the engines were cheaper to run and thus were used more often than the older, less efficient models. In short, greater efficiency produced more energy use, not less.

The same principle applies to CAFE standards. A more fuel-efficient vehicle costs less to drive per mile, so vehicle mileage increases. As the author of The Wall Street Journal article notes, "Since 1970, the United States has made cars almost 50% more efficient; in that period of time, the average number of miles a person drives has doubled." This increase certainly offsets a portion of the gains made in fuel efficiency from government mandated standards.

Enough said.

 

Will the new CAFE standards imposed by Washington bureaucrats have an effect on the weight and safety of cars?

The answer to that, of course, depends on many things in the way manufactureres choose to meet the new standards.

Shaving weight is often the easiest way to improve mpg. Something you may not realize, sometimes the lighter materials are stronger than the ones being replaced.

Unidirectional continuous glass and graphite fiber-reinforced composites are clearly superior to aluminum and steel in specific strength and modulus; bidirectional graphite fiber composites (graphite HS) also are superior to aluminum and steel. Bi-directional continuous glass composites are superior to aluminum and steel in specific strength but not in specific modulus. RTM glass mat composites would have properties close to the bi-directional values for continuous glass.

Engine and transmission combinations are also a possibility. As is changing tire size. You do know changing tire size results in a changed drive ration and different fuel numbers, don't you?

The 07 Escalade went to a 6 speed and 18 inch wheels. The 08 BMW M3 and 7 series have 7 speeds.

When gas prices skyrocketed lately, did consumption of gas increase or decrease?

Variable answer. There was a slight decrease in CA, where some of the highest prices were found. But that's only overall for the first half of 2007. Consumption went up in Jan and Mar.

Meanwhile, nationally, SUV sales were up about 6% in the first quarter 2007 and April sales were up 25% year over year.

Do you favor politicians mandating CAFE standards and if so, why?

No. You didn't ask but I'll tell you why anyway.

One size fits all sollutions don't do the job. They often create major problems for people they're alleged to help. Changing CAFE standards tends to drive car prices up, especially on low-end cars where manufactureres make least profit. Higher entry prices for new cars leave the young, the poor, and the disadvantaged driving older, less efficient, more polluting cars. Pre-1996 cars are driven about 1/4 as much as new cars yet they create as much as 2/3 of all car-made pollution.

Further, keeping gas prices down by artificially increasing mpg delays the development and switch-over to alternate fuels. Gas prices have to rise to make alternatives cost effective. If they do not, there is no incentive - other than government handouts - to develop alternatives and the distribution systems for them.

 

Agreed. Have a great 4th of July!

 

So you deny that CAFE standards that result in cars with less weight have NOT cost American lives? Wow.

Once again, your thinking is way too simplistic. Since I’ve already covered that ground, I’ll just make a minor observation before I ignore you completely: If you are truly concerned with safety, unlatch your jaws from this foolish weight fixation and start talking bumpers. Jacked up pickups with bumpers/grilles that come right in the passenger windows before making any contact with side door beams. Lowered, slope-nosed vehicles that allow the other vehicle to drive right up the hood into the driver seat. Eighteen wheelers with contact at dashboard level that sheer roofs, and sometimes passenger heads, off before the car hits anything solid to slow it down.

Now I'm done with you.

Silence, you have a good one too

 

This is laughable.

Once again, you are unable to address the core premise of this argument. This is not a debate about how to make cars more safe. That is the folly of many pompous pseudo-intellectuals who lack common sense and the ability to reason logically. You get lost in your self-inflicted "complexity" because it makes you feel above others and because you lack the stones to make definitive judgments.

This argument is based on a simple and logical premise: history validates, without question, that increasing CAFE standards results in lighter weight vehicles. And the preponderance of evidence is that the unintended consequence of these vehicles is that they are less safe, and cost people lives.

That's all. Pretty simple. Dozens of studies affirm this premise. Argue with yourself from now on. Because you certainly can't argue with the evidence. Ha ha ha.

 

On this point, I agree.

 

New hazard: Driving while wired http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-05-driving-wired_N.htm