The Rosebud Police Officer was fired for working outside city limits against orders. It’s a rule he had reportedly broken multiple times.

On Saturday, the officer reportedly tried to take down a controversial speed trap sign along Highway 77 put up by some residents to warn drivers.

The signs were first put up that Friday as way for Rosebud Signs owner Bobby Bailey to combat what he thought was a police department giving out too many tickets. Rosebud residents helped pitch in and pay for the signs.

“The city was trying to more or less turn the town into a little evil town,” Bailey said. ”We want it to be like nice little Rosebud Texas, like it’s always been.”

The officer got into a heated exchange with one of those residents who helped Bailey with the signs.

“He told me the sign was impeding traffic,” John Borden, Rosebud resident, said.

Rosebud Police Chief Kenneth Proctor confirmed the incident.

“Evidently he confronted one of the owners there, or who put the sign up, and asked him to remove the sign,” Proctor explained.

The sign was on private property and outside the city limits. Chief Proctor said the confrontation about the sign was not the reason for the firing.

The officer is planning to appeal his firing, but it will be up to the Falls County District Attorney’s office to file any criminal charges.

Chief proctor also said while he doesn’t think his city is a speed trap, and has cut down on giving out tickets, he’s in favor of the signs.

News Channel 25 talked to that fired officer Monday night on the phone, he said he was directed by a supervisor to either ticket or arrest the people responsible for the signs. He thought taking it down would cause the least problems.

More signs may be put up on Highway 53, coming from Temple into Rosebud, in order to warn more drivers. Lights also may be added to the current signs so that drivers at night can see them.

(Source: http://www.kxxv.com)

Criminal record: Michael Thompson, seen here outside Grimsby Magistrates’ Court, believed he was doing his ‘civic duty’ by alerting drivers on the opposite side of a dual carriageway

A driver has been convicted of a criminal offence for flashing his headlights at oncoming motorists to warn them of a police speed trap ahead.

Michael Thompson, 64, believed he was doing his ‘civic duty’ by alerting drivers on the opposite side of a dual carriageway.

When stopped by a police officer Thompson disagreed with the suggestion that he was ‘perverting the course of justice’ and was then allegedly told: ’I was going to let you off with a caution – but I’m not now.’

Thompson denied wilfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year, but was convicted after a trial at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court.

He ended up £440 out of pocket after being fined £175, ordered to pay £250 costs and a £15 victims’ surcharge.

Thompson of Grimsby, north-east Lincolnshire, told the court he was warning motorists for safety reasons.

He said he had been involved in an accident a year ago when two drivers in front of him braked sharply after seeing a speed trap and although he braked in time another motorist crashed into the back of his vehicle.

‘It is not an offence to warn people of a possible speed trap because of the danger involved with vehicles braking quite hard,’ he claimed.

‘It’s a civic duty to warn people. I flashed my lights. I had a very good reason to warn oncoming motorists, in my opinion. My first thought was:”This may cause an accident.”

‘I tried to warn vehicles that there was a speed trap. Because I challenged the officer he would not let me off with a warning.’

Thompson was pulled up as he headed out of Grimsby on the A46 at 10am. He claimed the officer involved was a ‘Rambo character’ who was acting like ‘Judge Dredd’ in using the law unnecessarily. The officer pictured here is using a speed gun on the A130 in Essex

The stretch of road outside of Grimsby where Thompson was pulled over. He denied willfully obstructing a policewoman in the execution of her duty on July 21 last year, but was convicted after a trial and ended up £440 out of pocket.

I’ve read many, many comments from readers of the Statesman, and various online blogs. Some comments were very supportive of my “Crusade” against “Speed Traps.” Others were quite critical in their tone. ( I really HATE the moniker “crusade”, BTW.)

Questions! There were myriads of questions to be answered. Who would answer them? Well, there were lots of opinions … and, you know, we ALL have one, if you know what I mean. People on the net were voicing their opinions, basically answering questions, perhaps, on MY behalf.

These were  their opinions — most often NOT mine. I rarely post responses to forum comments, so I felt I needed to input MY two-cents-worth in my own forum, so  — Here goes…

How did this all come about?

A  friend and I were simply trying to learn how to create websites and determine what kind of site would produce the most traffic. I had recently moved to Lakeway, TX, and soon heard about the hard-handed enforcement of speed laws. Also on my mind was an “urban legend” story of a boy who held a “Speed Trap ahead” sign to warn drivers. Down the block, there was another boy holding a big jar labeled “Tips.”

The story about the boys led me to wonder whether such an act was even legal. Soon, I was on the net, researching applicable laws regarding “obstruction of justice” and other similar subjects. Come to find out, it was not only legal, but there were sections of Texas law (Sec. 38.05 (b) and 38.15 (c)) that actually decriminalized warning drivers of speed enforcement zones.

I decided to try the ” ‘Speed Trap Ahead’ warning thing.” So it began. This was how I could generate better web traffic — all just a friendly competition with my friend, blogging about issues that were on my mind while learning the basics of website generation. Phew!

Why keep at it?

I quickly learned that “speed traps” was a very popular subject. And I got lots of trafic! That was the point in the beginning, after all. Very soon, it became apparent that I had opened a BIG can of worms. My website quickly became a public information and discussion forum about all sorts of issues. I began including posts about Texas traffic laws, thus hopefully educating drivers and influencing their driving habits. I posted videos, blogged, answered emails, and read up on various subjects related to driving in general. Eventually, it became a convoluted creation of (1) a contest with my friend, and (2) a mission of learning and relaying to others the intricacies of Texas driving laws.

I’d really like to continue, but…

It’s getting late, and I have a phone interview with Houston news radio station KTRH tomorrow morning. Stay tuned for answers to more questions posed by supporters and antagonists alike. Cheers! Happy New Year!

Drive safely!

VS.

If you recall, I was detained, arrested and issued six tickets for various city code ordinances in April of 2009. Eight months later, I went to court in defense of the tickets I received. At the conclusion of four and a half hours of testimony, I was adjudged NOT-guilty on all charges — Duh! In email exchanges between city officials (which were acquired through public information requests), even the city manager intimated that he didn’t really think the charges that were levied against me were appropriate for the circumstances. However, prosecutor Scott Taliaferro was unwavering in his resolve to take my case to the full extent possible. Who knows why these frivolous charges weren’t dropped at my first appearance. Scratch that! — I know WHY, I just wonder WHO was the main influence to push the issue.

Regardless of the whos and whys, all the criminal charges were essentially dismissed (NOT guilty). But, not before a few interesting details came out in testimony. Shortly before trial, the prosecutor spoke with my attorney, discussing with him details about what Code Enforcement officer Jeff Brown had told him. Seems as though James Debrow had told Brown to find anything he could to write me tickets for — that “This was getting personal”!! Debrow wanted to slap me with ANYthing he could, just to flex his muscle and cost me time/money — all because his little feelings were hurt?

Then, there’s the issue of “instanter”ing me before the Judge. Generally, this involves holding a detainee at the local “jail” for the municipal Judge to personally review the facts before any further disposition. There was much confusion and disagreement between testimonies of officers Debrow, Almaguer (pictured left), and Stone. Stone said that he first was just going to detain me locally at Lakeway police department, but then received information instructing him to go ahead and take me downtown to be booked, etc. Almaguer, I believe, was simply a pawn during this whole encounter, blindly doing only what he was told to do. Poor guy. He was quite frazzled as he tried to answer the attorney’s questions, most of the time stating that he was just “following orders”, and several times removing his glasses to wipe his eyes. During testimony, he stated that he understood there were “standing orders” for my arrest, and he was just doing what he was told.

At one point during testimony, Judge Kevin Madison paused to query the witness himself. [paraphrasing the following] “So you were told that the Judge was called, and that there were ‘standing orders’ to arrest the defendant? ["Yes."] Well, I am the Judge (for this jurisdiction), and I received NO such call(s) regarding this matter! Hmmmm… (shaking his head)”. So, all the talk and testimony about contacting the Judge was probably hogwash. Debrow just wanted me to go to jail!

While I was being detained at the Lakeway Police Department, Lt. Todd Radford (now Police Chief) and officer Debrow were discussing the “identification” I provided, scurrying back and forth between offices to consult law books. (See Sec. 38.02 of the Texas Penal Code). Even after they determined that I had violated no laws other than (potentially) local ordinances, they STILL went forward with the full arrest and booking, etc. Chief Radford lives a street over from me, and I occasionally see him walking his dog. A few months ago, he extended an invitation to a cup of coffee at his office. He seems to be a nice person and was, I believe, genuinely extending a hand, but… perhaps another time, under different circumstances. I WOULD, though, like to know why they proceeded with the full monty.

Mysteriously, less than two weeks after the trial, Sgt. James Debrow was gone! “Honorably Retired” is what I was told. He had only been there about two years!! Retired? Is that what they call it nowadays? And now, almost a year after the criminal trial, my civil case against the City, et. al. has come to an end. We settled out of court. But, before I say more, I feel compelled to say something:

“The parties have agreed to resolve this litigation by settlement. I believe that my case was meritorious and that at trial I would prevail. The City believes that its officers are without fault, that it has meritorious defenses, and that it would prevail at trial. The settlement has been made by the City of Lakeway and me to avoid additional legal expense and further inconvenience, and so we may buy our peace”

Actually, I didn’t have to say that. I’m only “required” to say that “When asked…”, and I haven’t been asked. I’m just blurting out stuff without being asked!!     Obviously, the intent of all this mumbo jumbo is to keep under wraps what the actual AMOUNT of the settlement is. Let’s just say that I’m having a nice Christmas!

This is just a quick update of what has transpired over the past couple of years. I’ll be updating/editing it more over the next few days. I just wanted to get the word out to those of you that have been following  this whole debacle. The website has been at a standstill since April, 2009. But, I’m now at liberty to resume my SpeedTrapAhead activities/videos/posts. All posts related to Lakeway are now back up on the site (search “Lakeway” to find all of them), and all videos are now back up on STA’s YouTube page.

Stay tuned for more!

It seems Jeff Buck has to park his car on the street outside his home in Nottingham. With no driveway or garage available, parking it on the shoulder along Watnall Road is the best he can do.

The problem stems from the fact that somebody else happened to speed past the camera perched above his parked car. Police officers who processed the photos and issued the fines somehow missed the fact that his vehicle was stationary.

Police have now issued an apology to Buck after he successfully fought the tickets. It probably wasn’t too hard to prove that his parked car wasn’t the one triggering the speed cameras. We’re guessing police will now be looking a little more closely at the other vehicles in the pictures to see who actually broke the 30 mile per hour speed limit along that road.

Although relieved to have the fines dismissed, Buck is understandably still a bit perturbed:

“I assumed the first time it happened that the police would put something in place to prevent it from happening again. I’m concerned now that every time someone triggers the camera I’ll get these notices. I am amused by it, but also angry that I have to go to the trouble of contacting the police.”

A spokeswoman for the Nottinghamshire Police said that staff members would be getting a little extra training in verifying the speed camera images properly.

Do you admit guilt, drop the payment envelope in the mail, and have it be history…or do you throw it in the trash and hope it just goes away?

Neither, exactly. And just to clear up some misconceptions, this is definitely not a case of, “what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.”

If you understood the massive stakes involved, you’d do your research, maybe hire an attorney, and even if you have a clean record do your best to have the ticket reduced or, better yet, thrown out.

The days of speeding tickets simply going away, even if they’re out-of-state, are long gone. And it’s important you do something about it because a speeding ticket can come back to haunt you for years, in ways that you probably hadn’t thought possible.

Unseen affects, budget-hemorrhaging results

Most drivers know that having speeding tickets on their record will raise their auto insurance rates, but few are aware that, depending on where they live, it can affect them in a myriad of other ways, seemingly unrelated to driving. Like when you apply to get a new life insurance policy, to insure a boat, or even to apply for a business loan.

This could mean thousands of dollars. And that’s even before considering that an unsettled ticket could find its way to your credit score to wreak further havoc.

Technically, if you’re a repeat speeder, you’re risky business, and that risk might apply to other aspects of your life—or so say the actuaries, those who arrive at the methodology that takes all those seemingly insignificant factors in your profile, weighs them with factors like your driving record, and determines whether or not you’re high risk. Simply put, whether to charge you a few hundred dollars or a couple thousand on your next insurance premium is a matter of calculated risk.

The business of risk

If you’re one to argue that speeding doesn’t necessarily place you at a higher risk, you’re not going to find much sympathy from insurance companies. As they’re in the business of risk, they raise rates because with habitual speeding comes a much greater chance of injury, property damage, or death. Excessive speed is attributed in the worst, most costly accidents. In about one third of all fatal crashes, 26 percent of injury accidents, and 15 percent of property-damage-only accidents, speed is a factor. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), more than 1,000 Americans die every month due to speed-related crashes.

“Indeed speeding does contribute to crashes,” said Anne Fleming, a spokesperson for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. “People would love you to believe that speeding doesn’t cause more accidents, but it does.”

And it’s all very expensive. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the economic cost of speed-related crashes adds up to more than $40 billion—each year.

Without question, there’s an unfairness at times to the way in which motorists are singled out and ticketed for minor speeding goofs. But the system that insurers use for determining rates generally allows for that, with one minor-offense freebie not raising rates. After that, a pattern emerges with multiple offenses —- that this is a habit, not an anomaly -— and premiums rise to reflect that increased risk.

In several extensive studies of U.S. and Canadian drivers, researchers have found that the risk of a crash increases almost in direct proportion to the number of speeding tickets

Today speeding, tomorrow a costly claim?

Especially when looking at a new applicant, insurers see moving violations as a predictor of what’s to come, explained Jeffrey Spring, public relations manager for the Automobile Club of Southern California. Spring added that, simply put, “speeding today is a predictor of a crash tomorrow.”

Though at first you might think of life insurance as something completely unrelated, driving is a significant factor in mortality risk for those middle age and younger. In addition to having you fill out an extensive questionnaire and gauging how healthy you are, life insurance companies might check your driving record, with your approval, at the time that you open a new policy—and potentially again if you up your coverage or make significant changes—but the chances that the life-insurance company will periodically check your record are relatively low, according to Pete Moraga, of the Insurance Information Network of California.

Dick Luedke, a spokesman for State Farm, says that two or three tickets are unlikely to have a serious impact on life insurance even if they know, but a more serious offense like driving under the influence will. It’s a matter of knowing the risk, Ludke says, and “the cost of making a promise” for insurers to cover the insured in the event of an accident or issue.

But it’s in the interest of your auto insurer to keep a close eye on your driving; don’t think that they won’t find out.

“An insurance company can check your record anytime and does not need to inform you that they are checking,” said Loretta Worters, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute (III). According to Worters, the most common times are when you initially apply, when you change coverage or your policy, or once every couple of renewal cycles. Some carriers use a method of randomly spot-checking records, so you never know when that “forgotten” ticket might influence your premiums after all.

Your credit score might also be used in part to determine your rate for various types of insurance, including auto coverage. That’s not out of line, as “credit is tremendously correlated with risk,” said AAA’s Ludke. Studies have closely linked credit-based insurance scores with the likelihood of insurance losses in auto and homeowner coverage. Credit is an “extremely powerful, objective, and accurate” predictor of insured losses,” according to the III’s Worters, who added, “Consumers with low credit scores submit more claims than those with high credit scores.”

However you can rest assured that provided you pay any fines on time your speeding tickets won’t find their way onto your credit report. Traffic violations aren’t a factor in credit, and your driving record itself isn’t consulted when calculating your score, assured a spokesman for Experian, one of the major credit-scoring companies.

California and Hawaii don’t allow personal credit ratings from factoring into auto insurance coverage, but in most other states (basically wherever it’s not explicitly restricted) it’s now common practice to run a credit check for any type of insurance.

Credit where credit is due

But don’t assume anything. Depending on what state you’re in, the insurance company might also be able to see (and use in calculating your premium)—in addition to your credit history—results of civil lawsuits, settlements, and foreclosures for a longer time than other items on your credit report. And in most states, your claims history, where you live, marital status, occupation, education, and all sorts of other factors can have an impact on your rates—or even how severe the impact might be from a ticket.

Strictly speaking, it’s usually not the end of the world if you get a minor speeding ticket on your record. But a second minor ticket is likely to rise rates about 20 percent. By the time you get to the third minor ticket, or one or two weightier offenses, your rates will skyrocket. Once you have three to four tickets or more, you’ll find yourself kicked into a so-called distributed risk pool, in which larger insurers share the risk of the worst drivers and habitual offenders—paying several times more for only basic coverage that the law requires.

Before you even think again about delaying payment on that ticket, keep in mind that the ticket alone could taint your credit score. If you simply contest a ticket and request a court appearance, a speeding ticket can be reduced (often in fine amount, sometimes in the charge). But if you ignore it completely, you’re setting yourself up for a double-whammy. If the ticket gets sent to a collection agency for nonpayment, the next time you go to apply for a new policy or change coverage you’ll not only have a lower credit score but blemishes on your driving record—the perfect storm for a big jump in your premium.

So if you get a speeding ticket, don’t throw it in the trash and try to forget about it; but don’t simply admit guilt and pay it either. Contesting the ticket at least buys you the chance to get out of it. Even if you got the ticket while driving out of state, you’ll be better off finding a local traffic attorney to take your case, especially if it’s in an adjacent state. And be willing to take a safe-driving or defensive-driving course, which might erase the ticket from your record or at the very least indicate to insurers that you’re working to reduce your risk.

A little damage control will go a long way to help cushion the impact. [source: AOL Autos]

British officials are making plans to impose a tax on speeding and parking citations this year in an effort to raise money to cover a growing budget deficit. (Robbing Peter to pay Paul?) Secretary of State for Justice Claire Ward announced the plan in a written answer to a question posed by Member of Parliament Greg Knight. The new revenue would be labeled as a “victims’ surcharge.”

“It is Government policy that, where possible, offenders should contribute to victims‘ services as part of their reparation. Provisions were therefore included in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 providing for a surcharge to be payable on criminal convictions, penalty notices for disorder and on fixed penalty notices for road traffic offenses where the offenses are persistent and serious,” Ward said. “We intend to add the surcharge to other disposals as soon as it becomes feasible to do so.”

The tax, which currently stands at US $24, would be imposed on all forms of speeding and parking tickets. Given that there were 1,462,235 speed camera citations issued in 2007, the plan would generate an extra US $35,020,571 from the increase in the cost of a ticket from US $96 to $120. Expanding the fee to cover parking tickets and other non-moving violations would more than double that figure.

The victims’ surcharge was first created in April 2007 as a means of forcing violent criminals to compensate their victims. The fee would now be imposed on motorists whose technical violations — overstaying at a parking meter, forgetting to wear a seatbelt or driving a few MPH over the limit — have no victims.

The UK move follows a global trend. Last week, Georgia became the latest US state to turn toward speeding ticket surcharges as a means of balancing the budget. Michigan, New Jersey, New York and Texas have similar programs

Thankfully, speed cameras are fairly rare in the United States right now (and will hopefully continue to be) but in Europe — and particularly in the United Kingdom — they are being used extensively.

So, how has the public reacted in these countries? Take a look at this list below, which was compiled from the 2009 archives of TheNewspaper.com. Let’s just say they haven’t exactly received a warm welcome:

UK: Somerset Speed Camera Scorched (12/13/09)
Vigilantes destroy Somerset, UK speed camera with gasoline-soaked tire.

UK, The Netherlands: Speed Cameras Destroyed, Gift-Wrapped (12/6/09)
UK speed camera burns while Dutch cameras are gift wrapped on St. Nicholas Eve.

France, Germany, Italy: Speed Cameras Burned, Blinded, Bombed (11/29/09)
Three cameras in Germany, two in France and one in Italy were destroyed or damaged this week.

Dorset, UK Speed Camera Destroyed by Fire (11/15/09)
Vigilantes in Dorset, England take out a speed camera with a burning tire.

UK: Surrey Speed Camera Burned (10/25/09)
Vigilantes set fire to a speed camera in Surrey, England.

Speed Cameras Attacked in Finland, Poland and Wales (10/11/09)
Explosives destroy speed camera in Northern Finland, Welsh authorities report 102 camera attacks and Polish speed camera burned.

Louisiana and UK Speed Cameras Burned (10/4/09)
Fixed and mobile speed cameras damaged by fire in Bradford, UK and Westwego, Louisiana.

Speed Cameras Attacked in Italy, Germany, Kuwait, Poland (9/27/09)
Speed cameras smashed, traffic cameras shot, a speed trap hiding spot is destroyed in Italy, Germany, Kuwait and Poland.

Automated Enforcement Assaulted in Australia, France, Maryland, UK (9/13/09)
Speed cameras are spraypainted, toppled, shot and firebombed on three continents.

Speed Cameras Attacked in France, Ireland, Poland, The Netherlands and UK (8/30/09)
Speed cameras in France, Ireland, Poland, The Netherlands and UK are booed, blocked, burned, bombed, bent and boosted over the past week.

Camera Attacks in Tennessee, Australia, Italy, Latvia, Spain, UK (8/16/2009)
Speed cameras are shot, rammed, burned and smashed in Tennessee and throughout Europe this week.

Speed Cameras Taken Out in The Netherlands, Poland and the UK (8/9/2009)
Vigilantes act to stop camera ticketing in The Netherlands, Poland and the UK.

Louisiana, Poland, South Africa and UK Express Anger Toward Speed Cameras (8/2/09)
People in Zachary, Louisiana; Poland; South Africa and Swindon, England choose different methods to strike at photo enforcement.

UK, California and New York Destroy Traffic Cameras (7/26/09)
Traffic cameras smashed in Fremont, California; grabbed in New York City, New York; burned in West Yorkshire, UK.

Speed Cameras Disabled in Arizona, France (7/5/09)
Arizona freeway camera vans receive Post-It Note treatment while French cameras are burned and painted black.

Speed Cameras in UK, Germany, The Netherlands Swiped, Smashed, Scorched (6/7/09)
Vigilantes use a variety of methods to eliminate Scottish, British, German and Dutch speed cameras.

Australian Cops Block Speed Cameras, French, UK Vigilantes Destroy Them (5/31/09)
West Australian police block speed cameras while vigilantes smash French and burn UK cameras.

Speed Cameras Attacked in Germany, Italy, Poland, UK (5/24/09)
Vigilantes disable and destroy speed cameras located in Germany, Italy, Poland and Wales.

Tennessee Protests Speed Cameras, UK Burns and Poland Grabs Them (5/10/09)
Students protest speed cameras in Tennessee, while cameras burn in Lancashire, UK and are grabbed in Poland.

Cameras Burn in England and Germany (4/26/09)
Vigilantes incinerate a Lincolnshire, UK speed camera and damage another in Stade, Germany.

Vigilantes Target French, UK Speed Cameras (4/6/09)
Vigilantes burn speed cameras in France, UK. Anti-war rioters take time to eliminate a speed camera during NATO summit.

Vigilantes Destroy Speed Cameras in France, Italy, UK (3/8/09)
Two French speed cameras disabled, two Italian camera smashed and one UK camera is knocked over.

Vigilantes Attack Cameras in UK, Italy (3/1/09)
Spray paint disables a French speed camera while a burning tire destroys a UK camera.

UK, Italy Vigilantes Attack Speed Cameras (2/22/09)
Two speed cameras in the Isle of Wight, UK covered in paint while a speed camera in Lombardy, Italy is destroyed.

Belgian, British, Polish Speed Cameras Swiped (2/8/09)
Vigilantes grab speed cameras in Belgium, England and Poland.

UK and French Vigilantes Continue Attacks on Speed Cameras (1/25/09)
French speed camera attacked six times in a year while UK speed camera disappears.

Starting Friday, Jan. 1, a new state law in Georgia will tack on an additional $200 fee to any local fine received for a speeding conviction. The “Super Speeder Law” is aimed at “high-risk” drivers whose speed are deemed threats to fellow motorists.

Georgia averages one speed-related death a day, according to the official “Super Speeder” Web site.

“That makes speeding a habitual disaster just waiting to happen,” said Governor’s Office of Highway Safety Director Bob Dallas in a statement. “But it’s one of life’s bad habits that can and should be kicked.”
The added fine will be applied for any driver convicted of speeding at 75 mph or more on any two-lane road or 85 mph and over anywhere in the state.

Sheriff Richard King encourages motorists to drive safely.

“The best thing to do is to keep a watch on the speedometer,” he says. “If you watch your speed, you won’t have to worry about being a super speeder.”

Getting slapped with the new fee might feel like a double-whammy. A driver will get the initial speeding ticket from the local jurisdiction, only to receive a letter of notice for the state fine.

The state penalty must be paid within 90 days of the letter’s date. If a driver fails to pay the additional state fee, an additional $50 will be charged and the offender’s driving privileges and license can be suspended.

Fees collected through this new law are designed to pay for some of crash victims’ treatment. The funds could be used in the state’s trauma care hospital system, where approximately 60 percent of trauma patients are crash-related.

Final say of where the money is diverted is up to the state Legislature.

State safety officials hope the $200 “incentive” will remind more drivers to stick to posted speed limits and cut down risk for passengers and others.

Source: The Blackshear Times

About 100 new state laws are in effect right now and authorities aren’t letting any of them slip by

“Everybody I’ve run into or talked to has asked me about the new laws so the word is getting around quick,” said Senior Winnebago County Sheriff’s Deputy Anthony Moore.

About half of the new laws can be found under the Illinois Vehicle Code, that’s nearly 50 new traffic related laws. Among them, trucks are no longer held to a 55mph limit in most 65mph zones, uninsured motorists can be jailed rather than just fined, and Sergeant Doug Bushman tells us about the two we’ve all heard so much about.

“It’s now illegal to operate a motor vehicle and text at the same time, and it’s also illegal to use a cell phone in a school zone, in a construction zone or a maintenance zone.”

If you’re caught texting the consequences are similar to a speeding ticket, but if your cell phone use results in an accident, the charges get much worse.

“If people are injured or killed, and I find a cell phone in the car, then what I’m going to end up doing is getting a search warrant to be able to obtain information off the phone to find out whether or not they were on the phone at the time of the crash and if the are, then that will enhance the charges on it,” said Deputy Moore.

Some critics of the new cell phone laws argue that it’s just another way for the state to make money, but Deputy Moore says otherwise.

“If you think about it, next time you’re on your cell phone when you hang up your cell phone try to remember what you just passed and you probably won’t because people, act the same way a drunk acts, they can’t remember where they’re at or what they just passed.”

The Illinois Secretary of State’s office has a 68 page packet that covers most of the new laws.

You can access the packet, which includes most of the details and fine print, at:

http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/police/lawupdate0910.pdf

Source: WIFR.com