From driving to voting, many new laws in effect today
P. KEVIN MORLEY/TIMES-DISPATCH
An Allstate Insurance demonstration put a student driver behind the wheel earlier this year to show how such distractions as texting while driving can cause wrecks.
New state laws that ban text messaging while driving and get tougher on drunken drivers take effect today.
In a 46-day session, the General Assembly approved 879 bills, most of which are now law.
The session will probably be best known for a measure prohibiting smoking in most restaurants and bars in Virginia. This measure will not take effect until Dec. 1 to give restaurant owners more time to prepare for the ban.
Here’s a look at some of today’s new laws:
State budget — The revised $77 billion budget uses about $1.4 billion in federal stimulus funds to keep the
spending plan in balance.
Texting while driving — Those who text or e-mail while driving can receive a $20 fine or $50 for a second offense. Drivers can be cited only if pulled over for another offense. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have banned texting while driving.
Drunken driving — People twice convicted of drunken driving within 10 years will be required to use ignition interlock devices, electronic devices installed in motor vehicles connecting a breathalyzer to a vehicle’s ignition system. The devices prevent the starting of a motor vehicle if alcohol is detected on the operator’s breath.
Payday lending — Lenders will be required to choose between offering payday loans, whose fees are fixed, and open-ended loans, which can carry sky’s-the-limit interest rates. Lenders getting out of the payday business would lose their licenses to offer such loans in Virginia for a decade.
Voting — Voters will be allowed to go to the polls wearing clothing such as T-shirts or buttons that back a candidate. Before the presidential election last year, the State Board of Elections — interpreting a state law that forbids electioneering within 40 feet of the polls — said voters should not wear such clothing to the polls. After the General Assembly approved the new legislation, three free-speech organizations dropped a lawsuit against the elections board.
Novelty cigarette lighters — Stores will not be allowed to sell novelty cigarette lighters to juveniles. Such lighters must be kept out of reach to the public, and any clerk who sells one to a minor will face up to a $100 fine.
Health insurance — Health insurers will be allowed to offer group health-insurance policies that do not include state-mandated health benefits to employers with 50 or fewer employees.
Concealed weapons — Those applying for a concealed-weapons permit may complete the required firearms training online or by video. Legislators overrode Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s veto of the bill.
Tax amnesty — The State Tax Commissioner is authorized to operate a tax-amnesty program during the 2009-2010 fiscal year, which begins Wednesday.
Tax credit — The amount of the land-preservation tax credit that may be claimed in 2009 and 2010 is reduced to $50,000 from $100,000.
Inmate fees — The amount that a sheriff or jail superintendent may charge an inmate per day to defray the costs of the prisoner’s keep increases to $5 from $1.
Mental health — The name of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services is changing to the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services.
School absences — A court may suspend a minor’s driver’s license if the student misses 10 consecutive days of school.
Financial literacy — Local school boards will be required to establish educational objectives in financial literacy for middle and high school students.
Annexation — The moratorium against annexation by cities is extended from 2010 to 2018.
Wildlife — The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries will be allowed to issue a kill permit to an airport operator if the department finds wildlife is creating a hazard. Currently, a kill permit can be issued only for deer.
(The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
irma, you can find the other 800+ new laws here:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?091+lst+CHP
What are the other 800 plus new laws?
dee..we are a pretty diverse society, so we are not all going to agree on all laws. By the way, a restaurant is not “your space”, it is the space belonging to the business owner and you don’t have to go there.. just like the job belongs to the owner, not the employee and the employee can choose to work in another line of work or at a restaurant that doesn’t offer smoking.
We are getting to a point where every nit picking thing gets legislated.. we have stupid people that don’t know that blow drying your hair in a bathtub is dumb.. so we require warning labels on them. I mean, how much common sense are we going to have to legislate? How bloated is government going to have to be to enforce all these laws.. I am not saying that we don’t need some legal framework at all.. I think that the seatbelt laws relating to minors is valid etc.. I also am not a smoker.. so will enjoy not being in a restaurant smoke free.. I just have a basic problem with the government dictating the policy to the business. I understand that we are a nation with a lot of whiners and enacting these laws is government’s answer to shut us up. That being said.. I feel it is my responsibility as a citizen to speak up when I feel that my rights..or the rights of other Americans are being infringed upon… Don’t you think more people in Germany should have spoken up back in the day?
Guess what folks? The more the population increases in Virginia (and everywhere for that matter), the more laws we are going to have. It has steadily increased over the years as the population grows. Overpopulation is the main culprit in most of our problems in this world anyway. A lot of these are good though. Common sense on some of them.
marclips: Bravo! Thanks for backing what I’ve been saying, but in fewer words. As for these areas in the 10-30 years-ago range, if Virginia has any pride in itself, it would retrofit the major corridors such as Midlothian Turnpike, Parham Road, and West Broad with sidewalks in their entirety. Whatever jurisdiction is in charge, whether it’s VDOT, Henrico County, or anyone else, it’s a fundamental principle of planning to include sidewalks in neighborhood design. I’m not suggesting that people who live on established, quieter streets should have their properties usurped by eminent domain for the construction of sidewalks, but major roads should have them, invariably. Regarding bike lanes, all major roads should either have bike lanes or an alternative nearby quieter road designated as a bike route, using signage to direct cyclists. The worst example I’ve ever seen for lack of sidewalks or bike lanes is in suburban Sacramento, in unincorporated suburbs built in the 1950’s. So I’m not just picking on Virginia. However, I believe that California overall has better planning with regard to provision of sidewalks and bike lanes than Virginia has. That is why I say that it would behoove Virginia to have more incorporated areas in the densely-populated places. My own observations have taught me that cities/towns do a better job than counties do when it comes to such provisions.
Regarding all the discussions about sidewalks:
1) There are people out there walking/biking now. Maybe not a lot, but if you stand along Broad Street for a half hour or so you will probably see at least 1 person walk or bike by, even way out in Short Pump. If riding a bike on Broad Street sounds suicidal - it may be, but our society does have people who can’t afford cars and therefore they need to walk/bike somewhere. Providing a sidewalk is, therefore, a safety issue. Plus, if you build it, they will come. Those new apartments next to Whole Foods have sidewalks, I believe, and some of those residents may actually use those sidewalks to walk to places along Broad Street. That = less cars on the road.
2) I can pretty much guarantee you that any new development in Henrico or Chesterfield will have sidewalks. The problem is all those developments that were built 10-30 years ago, before this new age of enlightenment.
3) regarding the indoor smoking ban: Everyone seems to be making the mistake of thinking this ban has to do with patrons. It doesn’t, at least not entirely. It has to do with employees who have to breathe that crap in all day. Patrons can simply go to another, smoke-free bar, but employees have the right to work in an environment free of toxins. OSHA requires chemical companies to regulate the air quality inside their factories; why shouldn’t we mandate minimum air quality standards inside restaurants, too? If smokers still want to smoke, all they have to do is WALK OUTSIDE.
Love and laughing at all these posts about how goverment shouldn’t intervene and how business should be able to do whatever they want as long as its “legal”. So tell me, who determines what legal is without government intervention? Where is the line drawn? Do you have any idea how these laws are even drafted or for that matter how the “idea” comes about? I can tell you first hand most come from COMPLAINTS & WHINING from constituents to their state legislators. I hear it all day long how the state needs to something about the people who “loiter” at bus stops , how there are too many street lights on certain throughfares, not enough parking spaces in certain shopping centers,so on and so on. Petty things that if enough people complain the legislators must listen and try to fix,along with big private companies that try to push along their agendas and so forth. So where does it stop?
We can think all these alws are a waste of time,money,blah blah blah but you know what its better than having NO SAY at all and being told what do, when to do it and how. Look at Cuba, Venezuela, etc. I know many think Obama is a Socialist but in 4 years guess what? You can VOTE him out. Castro has been in power for 40 years and counting and other countries have REAL dictorships and we worry about not being to smoke in restraunts, not being able to text while driving, not having a choice on whether to wear a seatbelt or not , whine whine whine. Please, take a look around you and ask yourself how badly do these new laws REALLY affect your everyday LIFE. You can save money for your cigarettes and eat at home, you can pull over and text ( and save a life), you can wear your seat belt or not drive and take public transportation or walk, wow the choices are endless. That’s DEMOCRACY working for you, CHOICES. No one makes you not smoke, hey you want to kill yourself you’re more than welcome to but not in MY SPACE. You want to text and not wear a seat belt , fine but I pray everytime I get in my vehicle that you don’t crash into me because texting took your attention from the real task at hand, DRIVING. Laws are rules just like I would hope you have rules in your home regarding things that can and can’t be done in your home and what you as the owner of that home allow your guests and those who live with you do or not do. Liberal, conservative, independent whatever you want to call me or yourself, talk about REAL issues.
358u:
Even if you can demonstrate that I don’t make an ideal libertarian, it’s completely ignorant of you to use the word “Nazi”. Nazis want to eliminate people who don’t fit their mold. I believe in intelligent design of communities, and my formal education has given me the idea of what constitutes intelligent design. I am mentioning areas that have it and areas that don’t.
I suppose you have me there on the smoke-free bars, with me calling myself a libertarian. However, my libertarian views give me an issue with the state of Virginia, because your state tells bars that they must have at least 45 percent of their revenue from food and non-alcoholic drinks. I don’t think it should be any of the state’s business….if I want to open a place in Richmond that only serves drinks and calls itself a saloon, and the state won’t let me, then I’d like to just tell the state to P-off. You might argue that I should be able to do the same thing if I wanted to open a bar that allowed smoking. If so, I concede your point.
Now, regarding sidewalks, I am not referring to private property here, but instead to public right-of-way. All roads have X amount of apace on either side of the road that is public. I am suggesting that part of this space be allotted for sidewalks, if the zoning along the road passes a certain threshold of density. Not all roads need sidewalks, but there are many that do need them but don’t have them. I am not suggesting that government require private developers to furnish sidewalks. The problem with that is that then you end up with intermittent sidewalks based on where the development is and the willingness of the developer. What I am suggesting is that on roads that meet a certain density level in their zoning, that sidewalks are included within the right-of-way just like you would include pavement markings and road signs. The sidewalk should be part of the overall road. This has nothing to do with government authority over property owners and everything to do with road design.
Yes, it’s pathetic how fat and lazy Americans have become, that they would even resort to getting a bogus handicapped placard so they don’t have to walk 100 feet. I am not one of those closet communists who hates the car because it represents the inequities of society. I love my car, and the invention of the car has made land cheaper and the American dream attainable for more people. However, I become annoyed when I see new development going up where it’s obvious that planners/developers assumed that EVERYONE will come and go by way of a car. Having a commercial corridor lined with businesses for miles is a by-product of outward development, and is to be expected. However, not including a sidewalk to connect these businesses or not giving pedestrians a safe place to cross these thoroughfares is just ignorant. At least in the newer development around the Short Pump Town Center, sidewalks are included. I’m not familiar with San Jose, but I think much of it falls into the example of suburban sprawl. However, I would venture to say that it is safer and more accommodating to walk there than it is in say, Chesterfield County. Regardless of whether or not people would opt to use them, sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities are a fundamental factor in proper city planning that planners, developers, and citizens should not question. People in the early 20th Century recognized this, why not anymore? And back to my earlier point, cities can be better trusted to recognize this than counties can. If a street is a city street (such as Midlothian Turnpike), then it should be given all the amenities of a city street. Too often, county-level planners fail to recognize this.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement