I actually got a 'warning' driving a tractor on 58 when I was younger.

An Abuser Fee for running a stop light on a lawn mower?!?

GET THAT MENACE OFF THE ROAD!  (that would be a joke)

And you will also learn that he was convicted of DWI.  The driver fees are insane, but like the commonwealth's attorney says this guy is hardly the poster child for the poor innocent victim.

...why the "abuser fees" are never going to raise the kind of revenue the Republican delegates promised. 

Nice to see the Democrats covering for drunks on the road.  Interesting how you left that part out, Lowell.

This guy is going to be in an abuser fee debtor's prison if he's convicted.

Just like this 81 year-old woman who can't afford $1,050 if convicted of Reckless Driving.

http://www.roanoke.c...

Abuser Fees don't work.

Republicans want to take people's food, drugs, and rent to pay for roads. 

What a joke.  Seriously, is that the best you got?  Or is it just a desperate attempt to change the subject from your diehard defense of your indefensible (and detested) abuser fees?  Anyway, you keep defending the abuser fees and we'll keep attacking them.  We'll see how it all works out on election day! :)

I really think that the question deserved or didn't deserve punishment is secondary.  The point of these remedal fees is to raise revenues (the statute is explicit about that).  These folks don't have any money; so the fines won't be revenue positive.  Most folks will just end up going to jail.  The problem is that a high percentage of folks who will be hit with these fines will be too poor to pay, so they  just end up going to jail.  Actually this whole proposition will probably end up revenue negative.  Rather than focus on trying to find more undeserving victums and then watching those stories get taken apart; lets focus on two points:
1) The people who can't pay; and actually cost the state more because they end up in jail.
2) The people who won't pay, e.g. the rich who can afford a good traffic lawyer and the out of state drivers who get a free pass.
We should focus on the fact that these fees are a bad idea because they don't acheive their stated goal; generating revenue.  The Republican majority refuses to either cut spending dramatically; or raise taxes.  Don't fall into the trap of making this about who is deserving of punishment. 

He didn't get an abuser fee for running the red light, he got it for being a repeat-offender drunk driver who refused a breath test.  Remember, if you are drunk it doesn't matter whether you are in a car, a moped, or a bicycle.  It's still DUI. 

I'm going to sound like an Evil Republican here, but there are consequences for bad choices and this guy got nabbed because he made some bad choices.  $3,000 fine or not, drunk driving is a serious offense and I'm surprised you guys are making light of it.

Bob

The point of these fees was to raise money. The law that enacted them actually says this very clearly.  Trying to put the squeeze on a bunch of broken down old drunks scaping by on a fixed income, won't raise revenue.  He won't be able to pay, and will just sit in jail.  90 days in jail will cost us taxpayers $6K + court costs. So instead of raising 3K/ we are now 3K in the hole.  Every state which has enacted these abuser fees, has found that they have little impact on traffic safety and raise signifigantly less revenue than expected. 
The problem with trying to tax people who make bad choices; is that the people who make the most bad choices are peniless.  While it seems like a great market based solution to tax bad choices to encourage better ones.  The reality is that the market has already punished most of these folks for consistant bad decisions.  Also the revenue isn't sustainable; because the few people who are able to pay for their sins will usually adapt based on the market incentive. 
Here's a simple idea for funding our transit projects; every year at your safety inspection we look at your odometer.  For every mile after the first 10K miles you owe a road usage fee of 2 cents / mile.  An average driver going 12,500 miles / year would owe $50.  There are something like 6.4 million cars in Virgina.  So the net income from this fee would be $300 million dollars.

but these abuser fees were designed with the sole purpose of raising $$$$$.  That's it.  Also, you think a "fee" of $3,000 is reasonable?  Tell that to my moderate/independent friend who got caught in a speed trap and now vows to vote against ANYONE who supported these fees.  And no, my friend was NOT drunk driving.  In contrast, he's always been an extremely responsible and law-abiding driver and an upstanding citizen in every way.  Go defend these fees to him and let me know how it goes.

As I've mentioned here previously, I don't care about the abuser fees because I'm not going to pay them unless I do something stupid.  If your friend got caught going through a speed trap doing 20+ mph over the speed limit, he deserves to pay up.

Bob