As long as there are people on the roads that have no business driving, the surcharges will raise a fair amount of revenue for the state. If you really want to try something interesting, take the approach used in Finland and fine drivers based on their previous year's salary. It makes for some interesting fines.

Yeah, I agree about the similarity to "sin taxes." It's a bad idea to get government addicted to funding mechanisms tied to "bad behavior." I also wonder if this will encourage law enforcement to use shady tactics to nail people -- give financial incentive and I don't put it past them.

Now let's see them going after folks who eat, read, put on makeup or use the cell phone while driving. Depending on how and where they're doing it, they can be every bit as impaired, distracted and dangerous as someone who blows a .10. As much as there is a trend toward getting tough on DWI(, why single out amidst all the other forms of sometimes equally dangerous driving habits?

Charles:

This is TEXAS. No need to worry. I promise you we can create more home-grown bad drivers and import them from abroad faster than the government can ever get them off the road!

If we were talking about Wisconsin or Vermont or Sweden or some other such place where people are inclined to defer to authority then I might be more worried.

I also wonder if this will encourage law enforcement to use shady tactics to nail people -- give financial incentive and I don't put it past them.

Probably not, since none of the revenue automatically goes back to the police. But it is something to watch out for.

Now let's see them going after folks who eat, read, put on makeup or use the cell phone while driving. Depending on how and where they're doing it, they can be every bit as impaired, distracted and dangerous as someone who blows a .10. As much as there is a trend toward getting tough on DWI, why single out amidst all the other forms of sometimes equally dangerous driving habits?

Hear, hear. I saw someone in front of me actually pull over to make or take a cell phone call the other day! With Texas plates! I couldn't believe my eyes.

The get-tough surcharges are patterned after a New Jersey program, in effect for more than 15 years, that has dramatically changed driver behavior, according to Delisi's office.

"They went back and measured since they first had it in place. There was a 24 percent reduction in fatalities. Phenomenal, isn't it?" Delisi said.

Maybe, but you have to keep in mind there have been a lot of other changes in the last 15 years that could've contributed to the lower fatality rate. For instance, airbags are much more common now.

To do this study right, they should have compared it to a control group, where everything was the same except for the surcharges. (A neighboring state, for instance.) From the above, it doesn't sound like they did that, which renders the study worthless (except as propaganda).

Hey, if these surcharges work, I'm all for them, but it doesn't look like they've proven that. Well, at least some of the money will go to help the victims of bad drivers in any case.

Fines for speeding and other moving violations are already higher as a result of this new law.

One last thing. There are "moving violations" that don't necessarily indicate bad driving; e.g., "running" a stop sign below walking speed in the absence of traffic, under 10 MPH over a speed limit that's set artificially low, etc. Raising the fines for those violations does nothing to make our roads safer; it's strictly a back-door tax increase.

An inexperienced driver age 16, does not become a safer driver because his parents pay hefty fine surcharges for him. These laws are extortion aimed at robbing people of their income. 3000.00 surcharge is rediculous and will start a chain reaction that lead to greater problems and in the meantime does nothing to promote safer highways. Think about it!!