I think that the concept of allowing some drivers to take points off of their license by allowing them to take a class is a good idea. The thought of giving certain drivers a second chance with insurance and also giving them a further education is a good one, however, I am not sure that this program seems like it will be very effective.
First, drivers would still have to pay the fines and for the class. I think this would discourage many people.
Second, I don't know how the program could guarantee that driver's would actually take the program seriously. There is no way to ensure that drivers would actually gain a further education from the class or just get out of a charge on their insurance.
Lastly, I don't think it would affect the drivers who really need this type of program. The program would only be offered to drivers with two or fewer points on their license. These types of drivers most likely have only been involved in one or two incidents that were most likely fairly minor. They may not be the drivers who actually need the class.
The idea is a good one, however, I am not sure the program would make that much of a difference as it is structured currently.
I also agree that this program would be beneficial to Michigan residents, but I do not think it is innovative. This method of traffic school/defensive driving classes has been in use by many states for years.
The positive aspects of this program include the point reduction or elimination, thus reducing the possibility of increased insurance premiums. Also, drivers receive a 'refresher' course on appropriate driving skills, hopefully minimizing the possibility for recidivism.
The negative aspects are that drivers still have to pay fines AND pay for the class. It may become apparent to some drivers that it is cheaper to simply plead guilty and pay the price rather than go to traffic school.
However, I think it is important that the state is offering this as an option to people who are normally decent drivers.
It's not particularly innovative. Typically if you accumulate so many points on your record, don't you have to retake courses anyway? So they're just borrowing from the same set of solutions. Innovation to me would be looking at a completely different industry/idea and seeing the opportunity to create a new program. This actually falls in lock-step with the movement in general education to provide more opportunities to prove competence, instead of punishing when something is done wrong in one instance. Eg, mentoring and tutoring instead of detention and retention. This looks more at self efficacy and confidence-building than shutting a person down. So, definitely not innovative. I've driven in Troy, MI a lot, the city where this idea came from. Drivers there are terrible. They treat the main arteries Rochester Rd and Big Beaver Rd like freeways, going fifty miles an hour plus, on roads where there are intersections every half of a mile. This would be the equivalent to 3rd and Washington in Marquette- particularly because there is a movement in Troy to turn Big Beaver Rd into a more traditional main street. It is not an area you want to walk in, by any means. If the re-education program pushed a more holistic view of driving, where drivers co exist with bicyclists, children, strollers and other pedestrians, then I would say this is innovative. Michigan in general needs to work on making it's roads safer for everyone, and while I do think that more education is a good idea, there's no point in preaching what you don't practice. Also, I did want to point out that I do think this program is good simply because Michigan requires insurance, and points make insurance go up, so this may harm low-income folks disproportionately. There is always the option of bumper cars too...
While I like the idea of people being able to reduce the amount of points on their driver's license I do not think that this is innovative. Innovation starts with a person or a state in this case being the first to come up with an idea that could be beneficial. I agree with Kaley's view that although they had the opportunity to get rid of their tickets and points off their license, they still have to pay for the class plus the ticket. That is a fault of this driving class going into effect on December 31st.
Getting away from the point that I think this innovation, or lack thereof, is an enormous waste of time, especially when Michigan has far greater problems, there are some aspects to the program that would be beneficial. I like Ivana's point about insurance rates. Minor speeding tickets can increase insurance rates for years after the offense. By reinstating the points, Michigan citizens would have more money to spend in other areas to help stimulate the economy. That being the case, would insurance companies look to the states offering record amending plans and simply raise their rates in those states to offset the intended loss of revenue?
It is a good idea that people utilizing this program will have to pay for it, but I would argue farther that it should be completely funded by the persons using the service and not by the state. At this point in time Michigan needs to cut unnecessary programs and spending. Also, People who have completely clean records and those who are not eligible as a result of their bad record should not be taxed to save money for the very specific population that could actually use the program.
I want to close this post by stating, what does this program really do for Michigan? The educational benefit of the program would most likely be minimal, which is emphasized by Katie's argument that there is a likelihood people would use the program to escape some of their insurance premiums. Building on the decrease in insurance costs, I believe, as I stated before, insurance companies would raise their rates in the state to balance out costs. Michigan would be spending money to create a program the does, after all is said and done, nothing.
I agree with macrea13, I think this idea really isn't getting Michigan anywhere, and at a time when the state needs to be cutting unnecessary spending having the state provide funding for this is not ok. It should definitely be paid for out of pocket by the offender, it makes no sense to tax everyone for a system not everyone for a traffic school. But I will say, as a younger driver who would not want to see their insurance go up from a traffic ticket, this system does sound kinda nice...but in terms of fairness I would still, even if I was the offender, I would want to have it come all out of my pocket, not all the tax payers.
I believe that this is a great idea. Many drivers out there who have petty offenses such as running a stop sign or minor speeding ticket should be able to clear their name. I think that giving them further education along with giving them the chance to re-balance their insurance will give drivers more appreciation for the road. I think that if many of these drivers are relieved of the consequences of paying higher insurance, they would be able to use that money for a greater good such as putting it back into their community, rather than just spending it on increased insurance for a petty incident that happened while behind the wheel.
I think this is a great idea. I believe that having taking some sort of action to remove a felony or a misdemeanor is crucial. having a felony on your record can destroy somebody's life. I think that if a person who was pulled over for speeding 3 times deserves to get those taken off of his or her record. I know that when you first turn 16 years old many teens get tickets. From 16 and on people rarely get tickets. Having said that, people should be able to heal what they did when they were beginner drivers.
I totally agree with Robert in that petty crimes like blowing a stop sign and little speeding tickets should get wiped of their records. He also explains that further education of driving would be more important then just giving someone a ticket.
I think this program is a great idea. I'm from Illinois and we have a similar program that allows you to take a class that will expunge tickets off of your record. Although I'm in support of the program, I do believe that the program needs some tweaking. I do not believe the program should only be available to drivers who have 2 or less points. It would be beneficial to everyone who has points regardless of how many.
Also the concept of having to pay for the class would produce revenue for the state, while working to educate drivers to be more defensive while driving which can have significant results if the class if effective in motivating driver, as well as, educating them. Plainly in terms of financing, the price for the class is similar to that of most minor traffic violations that would make drivers eligible for the class, so as a driver why not take a class that will make your driving record better and help you decrease your insurance rates, especially since it is mandatory to have insurance to drive a vehicle. Frankly money talks and its no surprise to our society that there are usually monetary consequences for breaking the law in whatever manner. Any driver who receives a ticket would of course have to pay the ticket so they don't have any further driving consequences, and enrolling in the class is completely voluntary so the fees associated with the class should not be relevant because the benefits should out way the initial costs. Also important is that if the state decided to open the class to every licensed driver, more people would probably choose to enroll because it would lower their insurance rates, as well as, open up employment opportunities that driving records are significant for people which would increase revenue.
I think this idea is great. Many adult drivers could use a driving course to refresh their memory, if you ask me. Elderly drivers are the second highest age group that cause accidents in the United States. Giving these people an opportunity to learn more about driving, and possibly techniques they've not learned would be a positive, not a negative.
On the other hand, more programs mean more money. Where would we get this money from? Would the person taking the class have to pay for it? That would be my question.
THIS IS A GREAT IDEA! This is really similar to the idea of correcting answers on tests and receiving some extra credit. in michigan's struggling times, this is a amazing way to help out the public, and it will make driving safer all together. I see no downside to this, as long as the program pays for itself. This program also takes the money we we be paying the insurance companies, and gives it to us instead. WOWWIE!!!!
I agree with Connie on her statement regarding paying for this out of pocket. Overall, I believe this idea of so called wiping the slate clean is both reasonable and acceptable when talking about petty offenses when driving. It makes sense though, what she stated earlier, that putting this burden on the tax payers could be costly and not beneficial to the state as a whole. Therefore, paying out of pocket would be a better approach to take, rather than burdening the tax payers with more problems that barely pertain to them in any way.
I think that the concept of allowing some drivers to take points off of their license by allowing them to take a class is a good idea. The thought of giving certain drivers a second chance with insurance and also giving them a further education is a good one, however, I am not sure that this program seems like it will be very effective.
ReplyDeleteFirst, drivers would still have to pay the fines and for the class. I think this would discourage many people.
Second, I don't know how the program could guarantee that driver's would actually take the program seriously. There is no way to ensure that drivers would actually gain a further education from the class or just get out of a charge on their insurance.
Lastly, I don't think it would affect the drivers who really need this type of program. The program would only be offered to drivers with two or fewer points on their license. These types of drivers most likely have only been involved in one or two incidents that were most likely fairly minor. They may not be the drivers who actually need the class.
The idea is a good one, however, I am not sure the program would make that much of a difference as it is structured currently.
I also agree that this program would be beneficial to Michigan residents, but I do not think it is innovative. This method of traffic school/defensive driving classes has been in use by many states for years.
ReplyDeleteThe positive aspects of this program include the point reduction or elimination, thus reducing the possibility of increased insurance premiums.
Also, drivers receive a 'refresher' course on appropriate driving skills, hopefully minimizing the possibility for recidivism.
The negative aspects are that drivers still have to pay fines AND pay for the class. It may become apparent to some drivers that it is cheaper to simply plead guilty and pay the price rather than go to traffic school.
However, I think it is important that the state is offering this as an option to people who are normally decent drivers.
It's not particularly innovative. Typically if you accumulate so many points on your record, don't you have to retake courses anyway? So they're just borrowing from the same set of solutions. Innovation to me would be looking at a completely different industry/idea and seeing the opportunity to create a new program. This actually falls in lock-step with the movement in general education to provide more opportunities to prove competence, instead of punishing when something is done wrong in one instance. Eg, mentoring and tutoring instead of detention and retention. This looks more at self efficacy and confidence-building than shutting a person down. So, definitely not innovative.
ReplyDeleteI've driven in Troy, MI a lot, the city where this idea came from. Drivers there are terrible. They treat the main arteries Rochester Rd and Big Beaver Rd like freeways, going fifty miles an hour plus, on roads where there are intersections every half of a mile. This would be the equivalent to 3rd and Washington in Marquette- particularly because there is a movement in Troy to turn Big Beaver Rd into a more traditional main street. It is not an area you want to walk in, by any means. If the re-education program pushed a more holistic view of driving, where drivers co exist with bicyclists, children, strollers and other pedestrians, then I would say this is innovative. Michigan in general needs to work on making it's roads safer for everyone, and while I do think that more education is a good idea, there's no point in preaching what you don't practice.
Also, I did want to point out that I do think this program is good simply because Michigan requires insurance, and points make insurance go up, so this may harm low-income folks disproportionately.
There is always the option of bumper cars too...
While I like the idea of people being able to reduce the amount of points on their driver's license I do not think that this is innovative. Innovation starts with a person or a state in this case being the first to come up with an idea that could be beneficial. I agree with Kaley's view that although they had the opportunity to get rid of their tickets and points off their license, they still have to pay for the class plus the ticket. That is a fault of this driving class going into effect on December 31st.
ReplyDeleteGetting away from the point that I think this innovation, or lack thereof, is an enormous waste of time, especially when Michigan has far greater problems, there are some aspects to the program that would be beneficial. I like Ivana's point about insurance rates. Minor speeding tickets can increase insurance rates for years after the offense. By reinstating the points, Michigan citizens would have more money to spend in other areas to help stimulate the economy. That being the case, would insurance companies look to the states offering record amending plans and simply raise their rates in those states to offset the intended loss of revenue?
ReplyDeleteIt is a good idea that people utilizing this program will have to pay for it, but I would argue farther that it should be completely funded by the persons using the service and not by the state. At this point in time Michigan needs to cut unnecessary programs and spending. Also, People who have completely clean records and those who are not eligible as a result of their bad record should not be taxed to save money for the very specific population that could actually use the program.
I want to close this post by stating, what does this program really do for Michigan? The educational benefit of the program would most likely be minimal, which is emphasized by Katie's argument that there is a likelihood people would use the program to escape some of their insurance premiums. Building on the decrease in insurance costs, I believe, as I stated before, insurance companies would raise their rates in the state to balance out costs. Michigan would be spending money to create a program the does, after all is said and done, nothing.
I agree with macrea13, I think this idea really isn't getting Michigan anywhere, and at a time when the state needs to be cutting unnecessary spending having the state provide funding for this is not ok. It should definitely be paid for out of pocket by the offender, it makes no sense to tax everyone for a system not everyone for a traffic school. But I will say, as a younger driver who would not want to see their insurance go up from a traffic ticket, this system does sound kinda nice...but in terms of fairness I would still, even if I was the offender, I would want to have it come all out of my pocket, not all the tax payers.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is a great idea. Many drivers out there who have petty offenses such as running a stop sign or minor speeding ticket should be able to clear their name. I think that giving them further education along with giving them the chance to re-balance their insurance will give drivers more appreciation for the road. I think that if many of these drivers are relieved of the consequences of paying higher insurance, they would be able to use that money for a greater good such as putting it back into their community, rather than just spending it on increased insurance for a petty incident that happened while behind the wheel.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great idea. I believe that having taking some sort of action to remove a felony or a misdemeanor is crucial. having a felony on your record can destroy somebody's life. I think that if a person who was pulled over for speeding 3 times deserves to get those taken off of his or her record. I know that when you first turn 16 years old many teens get tickets. From 16 and on people rarely get tickets. Having said that, people should be able to heal what they did when they were beginner drivers.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Robert in that petty crimes like blowing a stop sign and little speeding tickets should get wiped of their records. He also explains that further education of driving would be more important then just giving someone a ticket.
ReplyDeleteI think this program is a great idea. I'm from Illinois and we have a similar program that allows you to take a class that will expunge tickets off of your record. Although I'm in support of the program, I do believe that the program needs some tweaking. I do not believe the program should only be available to drivers who have 2 or less points. It would be beneficial to everyone who has points regardless of how many.
ReplyDeleteAlso the concept of having to pay for the class would produce revenue for the state, while working to educate drivers to be more defensive while driving which can have significant results if the class if effective in motivating driver, as well as, educating them. Plainly in terms of financing, the price for the class is similar to that of most minor traffic violations that would make drivers eligible for the class, so as a driver why not take a class that will make your driving record better and help you decrease your insurance rates, especially since it is mandatory to have insurance to drive a vehicle. Frankly money talks and its no surprise to our society that there are usually monetary consequences for breaking the law in whatever manner. Any driver who receives a ticket would of course have to pay the ticket so they don't have any further driving consequences, and enrolling in the class is completely voluntary so the fees associated with the class should not be relevant because the benefits should out way the initial costs. Also important is that if the state decided to open the class to every licensed driver, more people would probably choose to enroll because it would lower their insurance rates, as well as, open up employment opportunities that driving records are significant for people which would increase revenue.
I think this idea is great. Many adult drivers could use a driving course to refresh their memory, if you ask me. Elderly drivers are the second highest age group that cause accidents in the United States. Giving these people an opportunity to learn more about driving, and possibly techniques they've not learned would be a positive, not a negative.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, more programs mean more money. Where would we get this money from? Would the person taking the class have to pay for it? That would be my question.
To add to my previous comment, I see that the person taking the course must pay 100 dollars to partake. My mistake.
ReplyDeleteTHIS IS A GREAT IDEA! This is really similar to the idea of correcting answers on tests and receiving some extra credit. in michigan's struggling times, this is a amazing way to help out the public, and it will make driving safer all together. I see no downside to this, as long as the program pays for itself. This program also takes the money we we be paying the insurance companies, and gives it to us instead. WOWWIE!!!!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Connie on her statement regarding paying for this out of pocket. Overall, I believe this idea of so called wiping the slate clean is both reasonable and acceptable when talking about petty offenses when driving. It makes sense though, what she stated earlier, that putting this burden on the tax payers could be costly and not beneficial to the state as a whole. Therefore, paying out of pocket would be a better approach to take, rather than burdening the tax payers with more problems that barely pertain to them in any way.
ReplyDelete