His mom? Well it appears the stupid apple does fall far from the stupid tree, if you get my drift. What a brilliant law and I love your post Not Surprised.
Whatever, So all the good drivers should give their cars and walk while all the idiots get drive. About time we made a law that makes you open your eyes. Ignorance to the law is no excuse. Gee did you forget that your insurance was going to go up when you had moving violations or did you have mommy take care of that. Stop your *****ing and buck it and just think you can buy a real comfortable pair of shoes for the walk to work with all the money your saving on gas.
It sets a horrible precedent for the government to be able to “change it’s mind” about what is legal and enforce it retroactively. What happens when Medicare and Social Security (ie Senior Welfare) explodes and teh feds decide the didn’t tax enough and start requiring us to pay more taxes retroactively? Obviously this is a stretch but if you have a brain you get the idea.
I am of course operating under the assumptions of a free society, which we certainly do not have anymore since everyone wants to be like a socialist country where everyone else takes care of you. “ooh, poor me, I’m scared of dangerous drivers, please government, take care of this problem for me, I can’t help myself.” Who’s the real cry baby in this story.
It’s not harsh at all. The Other Side appears to be playing the Devils Advocate but his/her facts are wrong. Many, many laws are applied retroactively and for good reason. The three strikes law in CA for habitual offenders was a retroactive law and not considered “harsh” by anyone.
I have State Farm and they have never raised my rates because of moving violations. Moving violations are primarily about revenue and secondarily about safety. Ask any actuary who works on setting auto rates and there are far better indications of likelyhood of an accident other than moving violations. But wait… this really isn’t about safety, is it. It is about telling other people what to do.
Steve, you are free to live in California. Personally I would not go near the state, and would certainly not use California as a model for a free society. If you want to drive like an old lady and have the government take care of you, move to Canada.
I drove 12,000 miles in June and through many states (as well as two Provinces) and I can tell you without a doubt that the most unsafe place to drive was California.
Not that this has much to do with the case at hand, but it does have to do with the government applying laws or changes of operation retroactively.
Now, this guy had 10 or more violations prior to the law and some don’t believe he should be subject to the new law until he has amassed 10 more violations, right. Seems reasonable to me…. Well, not really – past performance, in this case, is probably predictive of future performance – go ahead and get him off the road. I hope there is a follow up story once he gets his license back to see how long it takes him to lose them again.
I find it interesting that people who have a problem with the application of this punishment retroactively, probably don’t have a problem with the fact that State’s that aboloished the death penalty did so retroactively and didn’t put those to death that were already on death row. When you loosen the law, everyone loves the retroactive application of it (like when we got tax cuts), but toughen it – and whoa – you’re infringing on me (this is the section that has nothing to do with the case at hand).
Steve, I am playing somewhat of a Devil’s advocate on this. I agree with all posters that this guy is a driving nightmare, and that 10 moving violations in a short period of time is absurd.
I know that many laws are applied retroactively, but it seems that laws that benefit the insurance industry are rarely applied retroactively. As to this article, it would be interesting to what type of media attention the law got when it was passed and when it went into effect. In other words, did Mr. Dehetre have any idea whatsoever that he could lose his license?
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
His mom? Well it appears the stupid apple does fall far from the stupid tree, if you get my drift. What a brilliant law and I love your post Not Surprised.
Whatever, So all the good drivers should give their cars and walk while all the idiots get drive. About time we made a law that makes you open your eyes. Ignorance to the law is no excuse. Gee did you forget that your insurance was going to go up when you had moving violations or did you have mommy take care of that. Stop your *****ing and buck it and just think you can buy a real comfortable pair of shoes for the walk to work with all the money your saving on gas.
It sets a horrible precedent for the government to be able to “change it’s mind” about what is legal and enforce it retroactively. What happens when Medicare and Social Security (ie Senior Welfare) explodes and teh feds decide the didn’t tax enough and start requiring us to pay more taxes retroactively? Obviously this is a stretch but if you have a brain you get the idea.
I am of course operating under the assumptions of a free society, which we certainly do not have anymore since everyone wants to be like a socialist country where everyone else takes care of you. “ooh, poor me, I’m scared of dangerous drivers, please government, take care of this problem for me, I can’t help myself.” Who’s the real cry baby in this story.
It’s not harsh at all. The Other Side appears to be playing the Devils Advocate but his/her facts are wrong. Many, many laws are applied retroactively and for good reason. The three strikes law in CA for habitual offenders was a retroactive law and not considered “harsh” by anyone.
I have State Farm and they have never raised my rates because of moving violations. Moving violations are primarily about revenue and secondarily about safety. Ask any actuary who works on setting auto rates and there are far better indications of likelyhood of an accident other than moving violations. But wait… this really isn’t about safety, is it. It is about telling other people what to do.
Steve, you are free to live in California. Personally I would not go near the state, and would certainly not use California as a model for a free society. If you want to drive like an old lady and have the government take care of you, move to Canada.
I drove 12,000 miles in June and through many states (as well as two Provinces) and I can tell you without a doubt that the most unsafe place to drive was California.
While ypur sitting there pissed off that you lost your license think about the $500. you’ll save if you call the Gecko.
What would those indicators be. I rarely write a high risk customer with numerous violations that does not have one or more at fautl accidents.
Not that this has much to do with the case at hand, but it does have to do with the government applying laws or changes of operation retroactively.
Now, this guy had 10 or more violations prior to the law and some don’t believe he should be subject to the new law until he has amassed 10 more violations, right. Seems reasonable to me…. Well, not really – past performance, in this case, is probably predictive of future performance – go ahead and get him off the road. I hope there is a follow up story once he gets his license back to see how long it takes him to lose them again.
I find it interesting that people who have a problem with the application of this punishment retroactively, probably don’t have a problem with the fact that State’s that aboloished the death penalty did so retroactively and didn’t put those to death that were already on death row. When you loosen the law, everyone loves the retroactive application of it (like when we got tax cuts), but toughen it – and whoa – you’re infringing on me (this is the section that has nothing to do with the case at hand).
Steve, I am playing somewhat of a Devil’s advocate on this. I agree with all posters that this guy is a driving nightmare, and that 10 moving violations in a short period of time is absurd.
I know that many laws are applied retroactively, but it seems that laws that benefit the insurance industry are rarely applied retroactively. As to this article, it would be interesting to what type of media attention the law got when it was passed and when it went into effect. In other words, did Mr. Dehetre have any idea whatsoever that he could lose his license?