HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Fairfax County General :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Take a Stand ()
Date: January 12, 2012 06:32PM

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=120&sid=2704101

While I agree that distracted driving ( texting) is dangerous and needs to be stopped , but not by contributing to our already over-zealous police state.

So now Dave Albo is at it again ,,, if much like the general public your memories are about a week long, This is the same jack ass that brought us the $3,000 speeding ticket. It was later repealed.

I know I may be simplifying this, but in law enforcement we have to play to the lowest common denominator .. so basically if we have anything in our hands that looks like a phone, we could be pulled over. Which automatically then compounds probable cause for a search.

Quote from Albo , "Any time you're using a hand held device that causes you to not give full-time attention to your driving, that would be an offense," he says. "Make it easier for the police" ? They can already pull you over for anything they deem necessary. Why would such a broad law be written if not for the advantage to always to to the police.

This guy is a defense attorney, I cant see how he would be making money off this one ( sarcasm), again?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Warhawk ()
Date: January 12, 2012 06:41PM

Dave Albo is a piece of shit, only out to line his pockets by bringing forth laws that if enacted, would help his law firm. Fuck. That. Guy.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: werkheiser ()
Date: January 12, 2012 06:53PM

Warhawk you must be from Clifton

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Chip Chipperson ()
Date: January 12, 2012 07:51PM

Albo? He must be good at making' dog food or sumpin...Tss Tss

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Nuf Said ()
Date: January 13, 2012 01:56AM

Albo mentored Liz Bradsher. Nuf said.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 13, 2012 02:14AM

I don't know anything about this guy, but I do know that YOU STUPID FUCKERS NEED TO STOP USING THE PHONE IN YOUR CARS. Seriously, it's fucking everywhere. 90% of the time I'm getting run off the road, it's by some dumb fuck on a cell phone. Shit, most of you bastards shouldn't even have licenses (and in other countries you wouldn't), at least have the decency to STAY THE FUCK OFF THE PHONE. Nothing pisses me off like a dumbass that can't control his cage.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: textingnottheissue ()
Date: January 13, 2012 07:19AM

Well Dave Albo has good reason to think that Va voters are morons with no memory, he gets away with it. Talk about conflict of interest!!! He is a shyster lawyer who profits from this crap. He is Liz Bradsher, he is Dubya, he is a cronie. So he comes up with ridiculous legistlation like driving tickets that cost a fortune then in his business he advertizes to represent the poor bastards that are ensnared by it. Wow Virginians are probably the stupidest people on earth.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: stephen ()
Date: January 13, 2012 09:59AM

Ask dave albo why his concern for protecting kids doesn't mean protecting them from drunk drivers. And ask him why he allows alcohol to be served at his campaign events to motorists.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: common ()
Date: January 13, 2012 10:32AM

Well it sounds like you all agree Dave is a dirt bag.. But how many of you would run to him to defend you? Hurt him where it counts do not use him as defense atty!!!!!! There are hundred more to use if you think he is doing it to make money.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: really??? ()
Date: January 13, 2012 10:48AM

Common- you really don't get it, this cheat is elected to serve, not to scam, whether idiots are caught and have to go to him at a time when they are most vulnerable is NOT the point. He creates ridiculous legislation that benefits him, even in dumbass virginia there needs to be some understanding of conflict of interest. Jeez.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BB*X ()
Date: January 13, 2012 10:57AM

"Fuck. That. Guy."

with an IPhone sideways!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Warhawk ()
Date: January 13, 2012 11:37AM

really??? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Common- you really don't get it, this cheat is
> elected to serve, not to scam, whether idiots are
> caught and have to go to him at a time when they
> are most vulnerable is NOT the point. He creates
> ridiculous legislation that benefits him, even in
> dumbass virginia there needs to be some
> understanding of conflict of interest. Jeez.


Thank you!!

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: stephen ()
Date: January 13, 2012 11:52AM

Everyone should go to the web site: Richmond sunlight. it's the best place to dog these jerks.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: overklok ()
Date: January 13, 2012 11:52AM

Just another hypocritical "small government" Republican. Small government means leave the rich people alone and shakedown the average joe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 13, 2012 11:54AM

He's not scamming anyone. Distracted driving is a major issue affecting transportation today and there are a lot of folks who want to see it banned. Not the least of which is President Obama, who has pushed for laws banning texting while driving.

While I don't support banning cell phone usage, there's no reason to be texting while driving. That needs to be banned.

Dave's a good legislator and he's a fair guy. He doesn't pass legislation to benefit his law practice. That's a charge that gets thrown around all the time and it isn't true and his constituents know it isn't true. That's why he's still there.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Overklok ()
Date: January 13, 2012 12:04PM

The reason Albo is still here is because his district is filled with old military retirees. He is a shill for the Republican party and put its' interests over the needs of his constituents.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Mike Kane ()
Date: January 13, 2012 01:28PM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He's not scamming anyone. Distracted driving is a
> major issue affecting transportation today and
> there are a lot of folks who want to see it
> banned. Not the least of which is President Obama,
> who has pushed for laws banning texting while
> driving.
>
> While I don't support banning cell phone usage,
> there's no reason to be texting while driving.
> That needs to be banned.
>
> Dave's a good legislator and he's a fair guy. He
> doesn't pass legislation to benefit his law
> practice. That's a charge that gets thrown around
> all the time and it isn't true and his
> constituents know it isn't true. That's why he's
> still


Brian, you really are a big government, no personal liberty type of guy. You really must think that you know what's better for people than they do themselves.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: GOP joke ()
Date: January 13, 2012 01:40PM

this is pretty typical, he is creating his own "business" just like with the other piece of shit legislation that was nothing more than a way to scam drivers. Come on, it really has nothing to do with safety or texting-what happened to the fake libertarian crap???

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: The people ()
Date: January 13, 2012 01:41PM

Are fucking morons, this forum is proof of it, look at half the shit that comes out of people's mouths.

I'd support a bill that kills moron drivers, they put all of us at risk and are one of the leading causes of death.

The sense of entitlement in this country is incredible, you people need to be stopped before you kill someone I know.

Get off the goddamn phone and don't eat in your car, sure there are other things that distract people in the car but that isn't the fing point, getting rid of as many of the distractions as possible is the point.

While we're at it, SPEED LIMITS MEAN THE MAXIMUM YOU ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY GO, FUCK LENIENCY FOR PEOPLE CAUGHT SPEEDING. FUCK YOU ALL WHO THINK THE SPEED LIMIT= MINIMUM SPEED PEOPLE SHOULD GO.

JESUS CHRIST, I've never encountered as many morons as I do when reading car forums or talking to Entitled drivers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 13, 2012 01:55PM

Mike, I don't think I know better than people do for themselves. But I do know that if somebody rams into my car because they were texting, I want them penalized for it.

Personal liberty is great up until it infringes on somebody elses. If people weren't causing wrecks because they're texting, no one would care what they were doing.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Kilton ()
Date: January 13, 2012 02:11PM

Take a Stand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While I agree that distracted driving ( texting)
> is dangerous and needs to be stopped , but not by
> contributing to our already over-zealous police
> state.

LOL. So you agree that distracted driving needs to be stopped, but you don't agree with the cops being able to pull over distracted drivers. You're a genius.

I wonder how else we can stop it. Maybe just asking people nicely will get it done?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Mike Kane ()
Date: January 13, 2012 02:13PM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike, I don't think I know better than people do
> for themselves. But I do know that if somebody
> rams into my car because they were texting, I want
> them penalized for it.
>
> Personal liberty is great up until it infringes on
> somebody elses. If people weren't causing wrecks
> because they're texting, no one would care what
> they were doing.


There's no problem with penalizing people for ramming into your car.

What we are talking about here though is about people who are just texting and driving, who haven't yet caused anyone else harm.

You do in fact think you know what's better for other people. Case in point.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Mike Kane ()
Date: January 13, 2012 02:15PM

Personal liberty would include being able to text and drive.

Those who crash doing it should be penalized.


Plenty of people crash all the time looking at their radios, should we ban those too?

What about pretty women? Should we make them wrap their faces so as not to distract?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 13, 2012 02:32PM

Mike, do you honestly think anybody is going to get pulled over for texting and driving if they aren't doing anything that would arouse suspicion in a cop?

If they aren't driving erratically, they won't get pulled over. If they're reading email or texting at a red light, they're not going to get pulled over.

This doesn't cause any problems to anybody who is being responsible.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BB*X ()
Date: January 13, 2012 02:34PM

"While we're at it, SPEED LIMITS MEAN THE MAXIMUM YOU ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY GO, FUCK LENIENCY FOR PEOPLE CAUGHT SPEEDING. FUCK YOU ALL WHO THINK THE SPEED LIMIT= MINIMUM SPEED PEOPLE SHOULD GO."

Get off your soap box and go apply for a position as a police officer if you care that much. Otherwise just get in the right lane when someone is trying to overtake you and stop being an ass that feels it is his right to go the exact speed limit in the left lane. It's called common courtesy and if you had any you would just move over and let them pass.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: How about ()
Date: January 13, 2012 02:43PM

How about you learn to follow the laws instead of perpetuating a casual slide in morals by everyday people that see others break the law so feel it's justified.

Only a moron ignores speeding/traffic laws as though they're put in place for no reason.

Want to know why there are so many accidents every year? It's because of morons like you that think breaking the law is no big deal and that "common courtesy" dictates that everyone should go OVER the SPEED LIMIT.

I figure you'll just post something stupid, can't wait for you to kill someone you love or know because you want to be a unique snowflake and ignore traffic safety.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Yo Daddio ()
Date: January 13, 2012 03:12PM

How about,

Do you believe that we should just follow all laws no matter what?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: not Mike ()
Date: January 13, 2012 03:25PM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> do you honestly think anybody is going to get pulled over for texting and driving if they aren't doing anything that would arouse suspicion in a cop?

Yes, this is precisely what I think will happen.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: How about ()
Date: January 13, 2012 03:34PM

I do believe that laws should be followed unless found unconstitutional or Illegal by the court system and not based on public opinion.

Otherwise eventually Popular opinion will dictate what laws we do or do not follow, which will lead to a ridicuously lax legal system.

Some laws like outlawing heroin,meth, etc are extremely prudent, and I do consider traffic laws to be among the most critical to maintaining a society that isn't lawless and indecent.

Laws aren't made just to stick it to the poor despite what people will claim.

Getting rid of traffic laws will make the roads even less safe, will lead to more idiots speeding while on the phone and killing each other, and will lead to an even more lax criminal justice system.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: hey idiots ()
Date: January 13, 2012 04:13PM

So using the same logic, I should run for office and create a $10,000 fine for smoking, then charge a fortune to offer you a program to stop smoking, or a $25,000 fine for an unplanned pregnancy, and offer you a $100,000 abortion, wait that works...for teathugs.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: stephen ()
Date: January 13, 2012 04:14PM

For the police to enforce this law, they would first have to put down their own cell phones, and close their laptops. I wont even mention the donuts.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Take a Stand ()
Date: January 13, 2012 04:51PM

I would not have a problem with more strict distracted driving law,It is certainly needed and laws should change with technology to be relevant,

However a bill crafted so broadly is going to provide yet another avenue or pretext for unnecessary intrusion by the state. Maybe they can modify existing law to include in-car distractions. I would not want a broad statement of "any handheld device" Shit! that could mean anything and anything that 'it' may or may not look similar too.

" I pulled him over because of what I thought was a cellphone in his hand, when I approached the vehicle the driver was acting erratically, and I may have smelled alcohol from the passenger area.... ... I proceeded to search the vehicle...." -- yeah that could never happen .

It was just lazy and although unproven ,seemingly self serving

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Lefty ()
Date: January 13, 2012 07:42PM

Fucking Republicans always trying to regulate everything!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Mike Kane ()
Date: January 14, 2012 01:29PM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike, do you honestly think anybody is going to
> get pulled over for texting and driving if they
> aren't doing anything that would arouse suspicion
> in a cop?
>
> If they aren't driving erratically, they won't get
> pulled over. If they're reading email or texting
> at a red light, they're not going to get pulled
> over.
>
> This doesn't cause any problems to anybody who is
> being responsible.

Unless it's specifically written into law that OK's texting at a light, then yes, they will be pulled over for it, because they are infact "operating a motor vehicle and being distracted".

Regardless of the enforcement aspect of it, it's silly legislation. It's not the governments job to protect people from themselves and others. We live in a free society (not for long, thanks to people like you Brian, and most other lawmakers in Richmond/DC). You have to take the good with the bad. What about pretty women walking down the street, they serve as a distraction. What about the radio, should we ban that as well? Seriously, using your logic, those things would have to be banned as well all in the name of safety. Hell maybe we should outright ban motor vehicles altogether since people can die using them.

Those who sacrifice or trade liberty for safety/security end up with neither.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 14, 2012 02:12PM

It's not the government's job to protect people from others?

There's your next campaign position: Abolish police. We don't need them. Might as well get rid of the fire department, health inspectors, building inspectors and all the rest. Not to mention the military. We don't need those guys protecting us from others either.

This is why nobody takes libertarians seriously. You guys are ridiculous.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2012 02:13PM by BrianSchoeneman.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: New Balance ()
Date: January 14, 2012 02:13PM

I support the premise, but we gotta be careful what we ask for. The cellphone has advanced to clock, radio, GPS, media player, notepad, etc. Banning the cellphone would make glancing at it to see the time or listening to the traffic report a crime. Forget about using it as a GPS, you'll just have to fork out the dough for multiple devices when one would do.

So what's the middle road? Ban everything? Let's start with the car. That'd save lives.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 14, 2012 02:38PM

It's not the device that is the problem. It is the behavior of people that is the problem. I don't think anyone is advocating we bar cell phone use. I certainly don't support that. But texting is different, requires more attention and isn't compatible with driving. If you are stopped, that's one thing. But not while moving.

I heard from a lot of folks while I was campaigning that they supported a ban of texting. I think it's the fair balance, honestly. We an have and use our devices, just not that specific behavior.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: wakingupfx ()
Date: January 14, 2012 03:17PM

It is neither the issue of cell phones or the behavior of drivers, it is the act of advocating and passing legislation that would be a monetary benefit to Albo which he has done in the past. Doesn't he sign something that he will not engage in conflict of interest? It is his unethical behavior that should be scrutinized.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Warhawk ()
Date: January 14, 2012 03:23PM

wakingupfx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is neither the issue of cell phones or the
> behavior of drivers, it is the act of advocating
> and passing legislation that would be a monetary
> benefit to Albo which he has done in the past.
> Doesn't he sign something that he will not engage
> in conflict of interest? It is his unethical
> behavior that should be scrutinized.


Exactly. The politicians will try to distract from the gross conflict of interest with cries of "protect the public" and "think of the children". They'll circle the wagons to protect one of their own in the hopes of getting their back scratched later on. Always dig deeper.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Mike Kane ()
Date: January 14, 2012 04:07PM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not the government's job to protect people
> from others?
>
> There's your next campaign position: Abolish
> police. We don't need them. Might as well get rid
> of the fire department, health inspectors,
> building inspectors and all the rest. Not to
> mention the military. We don't need those guys
> protecting us from others either.
>
> This is why nobody takes libertarians seriously.
> You guys are ridiculous.

If anything is ridiculous, it's your election results. You raised just short of $200,000 and finished with only 40% of the vote.

And don't put words in my mouth. I've never once called to abolish police, fire, etc. Shame on you.

There's a reason why I clearly won the Robinson PTSA debate that you and I both spoke at. I got a standing ovation.

The government's role should be minimal. Instead of pulling over someone for "driving while distracted", the government should provide a court system to those who harm others. So someone crashes into another person, regardless of if they were texting, etc and causes them damage, it's the government's role to have a fair/impartial court system that allows the person who's hurt to have recourse.

However it's not the governments job to restrict freedoms when people haven't yet hurt someone else. It's really a victimless crime.


Brian, why don't you answer my question? Why shouldn't we ban radios inside of cars and pretty women in public? They cause distractions. I love how you only want to selectively ban certain things when it's convenient.

And I love how when you didn't have a response, you had to put words in my mouth and call me ridiculous.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Mike Kane ()
Date: January 14, 2012 04:10PM

wakingupfx Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is neither the issue of cell phones or the
> behavior of drivers, it is the act of advocating
> and passing legislation that would be a monetary
> benefit to Albo which he has done in the past.
> Doesn't he sign something that he will not engage
> in conflict of interest? It is his unethical
> behavior that should be scrutinized.

While I do think the distracted driving legislation is silly, I do agree with you.

It's a total conflict of interest.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 14, 2012 04:46PM

Mike, yes, I did pretty well in the fundraising department, and I would have liked to see a higher number at the end. That's what I get for running against a popular incumbent in an incumbent's year.

You raised less than $1k and only did as well as you did because the Republicans didn't run a candidate in your district. Had we, you'd have been lucky to get 1%.

I do have to hand it to you - it takes balls to tell the mother of a kid who was at Virginia Tech during the shootings there that you think there should be absolutely no gun regulations at all. Not very smart, but ballsy.

I didn't put any words in your mouth, either. When you say "It's not the governments job to protect people from themselves and others" did you mean something other than what you actually said? Is it not the purpose of the police, fire fighters, health inspectors and the military to protect people from themselves and others? If you don't think it's the government's job to do that, it follows logically that you oppose police, fire fighters and every other government agency that's tasked with protecting people from themselves and others. I didn't put a word in your mouth. You said something stupid and indefensible and I called you on it. Take some personal responsibility and admit you made a mistake.

As to your question, I didn't answer it because it's a stupid question. There has to be a balance between personal freedom and regulation designed to protect the public. Radios, attractive women, etc. haven't been linked to a rising number of accidents, nor are they a legitimate potential problem. So we don't need to regulate them. Texting, on the other hand, is one. And you can put up as many random youtube videos as you want, that doesn't trump the data.

That's why you libertarians are ridiculous - you take every issue and spin it into a wild extreme, completely unrealistic scenario. Dave Albo is trying to address a legitimate problem and you're acting like he's Benito Mussolini.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Take a Stand ()
Date: January 15, 2012 12:00AM

I agree, he is trying to address a problem, and as i drive around see hundreds of scary soccer moms with their hand to ear paying no attention, I know something has to be done. The solution needs to properly balances civil liberties and effective enforcement.

The vague language of this bill, allows for a wide interpretation of the "handheld device" definition. Which I feel will lead to it becoming a money maker and yet another reason for a black guy to get pulled over...then about safety.

Mussolini.. lol No not quite.. Forgive my initial vitriol, but this is the same guy that proposed and championed the 3,000 speeding ticket ( remedial fees) , not once but twice and finally pushed it through. I feel that may garnish some initial negative reaction from me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: agoddamnparenttoo ()
Date: January 15, 2012 04:48AM

But wait? If distracted driving causes deaths we need our cops focusing on the road. I don't want one hitting my kids.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Kilton ()
Date: January 15, 2012 06:10AM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn't put any words in your mouth, either. When
> you say "It's not the governments job to protect
> people from themselves and others" did you mean
> something other than what you actually said?

Only a Libertarian could possibly be stupid enough to believe something like that. I actually thought he was joking when I first read it. You sure that's the real Mike? Or is it someone trying to make him look like a retard?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: pay attention ()
Date: January 15, 2012 08:17AM

This is how this guy gets ridiculous self serving legistlation passed! It has NOTHING to do with texting and driving, or speeding and driving or eating a Big Mac and driving, it is about this clown making up legislation to ensnare people in situations where they will have to come to him for business. Pay attention.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Alex G. Bell ()
Date: January 15, 2012 08:41AM

The gun lobby is the #1 lobby in the United States. #2? The cell phone lobby.

This law will never see the light of day. The cell phone industry will fight any legislation that seeks to limit the use of their products in any way. Have no fear soccer Moms, their lobby will kill this thing.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Reality ()
Date: January 15, 2012 09:02AM

#1 lobby is unions.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Mike Kane ()
Date: January 15, 2012 11:41AM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike, yes, I did pretty well in the fundraising
> department, and I would have liked to see a higher
> number at the end. That's what I get for running
> against a popular incumbent in an incumbent's
> year.
>
> You raised less than $1k and only did as well as
> you did because the Republicans didn't run a
> candidate in your district. Had we, you'd have
> been lucky to get 1%.
>
> I do have to hand it to you - it takes balls to
> tell the mother of a kid who was at Virginia Tech
> during the shootings there that you think there
> should be absolutely no gun regulations at all.
> Not very smart, but ballsy.
>
> I didn't put any words in your mouth, either. When
> you say "It's not the governments job to protect
> people from themselves and others" did you mean
> something other than what you actually said? Is it
> not the purpose of the police, fire fighters,
> health inspectors and the military to protect
> people from themselves and others? If you don't
> think it's the government's job to do that, it
> follows logically that you oppose police, fire
> fighters and every other government agency that's
> tasked with protecting people from themselves and
> others. I didn't put a word in your mouth. You
> said something stupid and indefensible and I
> called you on it. Take some personal
> responsibility and admit you made a mistake.
>
> As to your question, I didn't answer it because
> it's a stupid question. There has to be a balance
> between personal freedom and regulation designed
> to protect the public. Radios, attractive women,
> etc. haven't been linked to a rising number of
> accidents, nor are they a legitimate potential
> problem. So we don't need to regulate them.
> Texting, on the other hand, is one. And you can
> put up as many random youtube videos as you want,
> that doesn't trump the data.
>
> That's why you libertarians are ridiculous - you
> take every issue and spin it into a wild extreme,
> completely unrealistic scenario. Dave Albo is
> trying to address a legitimate problem and you're
> acting like he's Benito Mussolini.

Once again you don't even respond to most of what I said.

You did awful for raising that amount. If I had $198,000 I would have easily had more than 40%.

And no, I didn't raise 1,000, that's wrong AGAIN.

As for the VT mother, I spoke to her after the event and she appreciated and agreed with my platform. When you use your brain instead of emotions when dealing with real policy issue it always helps.

The libertarian message of limited government, lesser taxes, and more personal freedom is a popular one.

Ron Paul will most likely finish 2nd in the GOP primaries and leverage his delegates for a Rand Paul VP run.

Regardless, this distracted driving thing is way out of line. What if someone is using their phone for GPS, or typing in a number to order a pizza (which could be construed as texting) ?

Once again "he who trade freedom for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 15, 2012 12:45PM

The fact that you're unwilling to acknowlege your mistake says a lot about your character, Mike.

If someone is using their phone for GPS or typing in a number to order a pizza and they end up driving erratically or get into an accident, they should be penalized for it. That's the point of this legislation. The goal is to discourage distracted driving. That's a laudable goal, even if you think it's the first step on the road to a totalitarian police state, which is nonsense. Here's reality - if a cop decides he wants to pull you over, he can find a reason. He doesn't need this law to do it.

As for the other folks in the thread, questioning Dave's motives, he didn't introduce this bill to enrich himself. He's got plenty of money and his law firm does just fine. He didn't push for the abusive driver fees for that reason either. If anything the abusive driver fee legislation (which I didn't and don't support) was designed to raise revenue for transportation, and do it by penalizing habitual offenders. Better to raise money from folks who won't stop breaking the law than by raising taxes on everyone. But it was a flawed bill and that's why it was repealed.

That's how the process works. If this bill passes and it's bad, it can be repealed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Scofflaw ()
Date: January 15, 2012 01:00PM

No wonder Mike Kane doens't like these laws. He keeps getting nailed by them.

"KANE ","MICHAEL ","R","019"," 9022","FOXLAIR ","DR","BURKE ","VA","07/15/2004","EQUIPMENT EXHAUST SYS "
"KANE ","MICHAEL ","R","020"," 9022","FOXLAIR ","DR","BURKE ","VA","06/09/2005","DISREGARD TRAFFIC LIGHTS "
"KANE ","MICHAEL ","R","020"," 9022","FOXLAIR ","DR","BURKE ","VA","09/27/2005","EQUIPMENT ILLEGAL HORN SIREN "
"KANE ","MICHAEL ","R","020"," 9022","FOXLAIR ","DR","BURKE ","VA","11/03/2005","FAIL OBEY STOP/YLD-SGN "
"KANE ","MICHAEL ","R","020"," 9022","FOXLAIR ","DR","BURKE ","VA","11/03/2005","FAIL OBEY STOP/YLD-SGN "
"KANE ","MICHAEL ","R","023"," 9022","FOX LAIR ","DR","BURKE ","VA","11/16/2008","DWI-ALCOHOL "
"KANE ","MICHAEL ","R","023"," 9022","FOX LAIR ","DR","BURKE ","VA","11/16/2008","REFUSE BLOOD OR BREATH TEST "

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Warhawk ()
Date: January 15, 2012 01:26PM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that you're unwilling to acknowlege your
> mistake says a lot about your character, Mike.
>
> If someone is using their phone for GPS or typing
> in a number to order a pizza and they end up
> driving erratically or get into an accident, they
> should be penalized for it. That's the point of
> this legislation. The goal is to discourage
> distracted driving. That's a laudable goal, even
> if you think it's the first step on the road to a
> totalitarian police state, which is nonsense.
> Here's reality - if a cop decides he wants to pull
> you over, he can find a reason. He doesn't need
> this law to do it.
>
> As for the other folks in the thread, questioning
> Dave's motives, he didn't introduce this bill to
> enrich himself. He's got plenty of money and his
> law firm does just fine. He didn't push for the
> abusive driver fees for that reason either. If
> anything the abusive driver fee legislation (which
> I didn't and don't support) was designed to raise
> revenue for transportation, and do it by
> penalizing habitual offenders. Better to raise
> money from folks who won't stop breaking the law
> than by raising taxes on everyone. But it was a
> flawed bill and that's why it was repealed.
>
> That's how the process works. If this bill passes
> and it's bad, it can be repealed.


Legitimate question: Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember that the abusive driver fees affected only VA drivers and not out of state drivers. If that recollection is correct, why was that?

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Mike Kane ()
Date: January 15, 2012 02:39PM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that you're unwilling to acknowlege your
> mistake says a lot about your character, Mike.
>
> If someone is using their phone for GPS or typing
> in a number to order a pizza and they end up
> driving erratically or get into an accident, they
> should be penalized for it. That's the point of
> this legislation. The goal is to discourage
> distracted driving. That's a laudable goal, even
> if you think it's the first step on the road to a
> totalitarian police state, which is nonsense.
> Here's reality - if a cop decides he wants to pull
> you over, he can find a reason. He doesn't need
> this law to do it.
>
> As for the other folks in the thread, questioning
> Dave's motives, he didn't introduce this bill to
> enrich himself. He's got plenty of money and his
> law firm does just fine. He didn't push for the
> abusive driver fees for that reason either. If
> anything the abusive driver fee legislation (which
> I didn't and don't support) was designed to raise
> revenue for transportation, and do it by
> penalizing habitual offenders. Better to raise
> money from folks who won't stop breaking the law
> than by raising taxes on everyone. But it was a
> flawed bill and that's why it was repealed.
>
> That's how the process works. If this bill passes
> and it's bad, it can be repealed.


Your logic is just flawed Brian and no I will not apologize. It's not the governments job to enact these type of laws.

Instead, why not simply increase the penalty for causing an accident? That way you are actually penalizing people for their harm to others, not a victimless crime like texting.

And I find it flat out disgusting that you'd say that a cop will just pull over a person without cause, and then find a reason. That would assume that police have no respect for the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution. But it doesn't surprise me one bit. People like you have no regard for the Constitution.

Regardless, I'm done debating you on the internet about this. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to debate in person at any time.

In the meantime I will be contacting Dave Albo and reminding him that we as constituents deserve better.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Matt Cholko ()
Date: January 15, 2012 03:03PM

The question here, Brian and Mike, is do you believe that people should be punished for doing things that are potentially dangerous, whether or not any loss results from doing them. Brian's position seems to be that potentially dangerous things should be banned. Mike's position seems to be that people who engage in dangerous activities should be responsible for the results of those activities.

The problem with Brian's position is, as Mike correctly points out, that following the logic tells you that there are tons of things that should be banned. The first accident I ever got into was caused in part because I was distracted by my radio. I was looking at it, and ran into the back of the car in front of me. Brian doesn't seem to think that radio use should be banned, but if we accept that any potentially dangerous activity can be banned, who decides which ones?

In Mike's world, if I wreck into your car while playing with my radio, staring at a beautiful woman, reaching for the bottle of water in my back seat, or while paying perfect attention to the road in front of me, I am responsible for the damages that result. I chose to engage in a dangerous activity (driving), I have to accept the consequences. However, if I stare at hot chicks, text my friend, or do anything else, and don't cause a loss, then there is no reason for me to be punished.

In Brian's world we would have to ban alcohol (altogether, not just in cars), because drinking alcohol makes many people more likely to get in fights, have unprotected sex, or do any number of other stupid things. In Mike's world, drinking alcohol is fine, and when the drinker gets his ass kicked in a bar fight, he has paid the price for his actions.

So, as I was saying, it is really a big difference in philosophy. Mike believes that people should be able to do what they want, so long as no harm comes to others. Brian believes that he, or Dave Albo, or a group of Joe Blows in Richmond should be able to tell everyone what they can and cannot do, based on whatever set of criteria they wish. Clearly, Brian's thinking is flawed, as is common among politicians. Both Democrats and Republicans seem to think that they have some right to codify their beliefs/wants into law, and to force them onto others. This is the crux of the problem in this, and virtually every, country.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 15, 2012 05:18PM

Mike, increasing the penalty for the accident may achieve my goal of penalizing the conduct, but it does nothing to discourage texting while driving, which is the point of the legislation. It's about prevention as well as penalization.

I have plenty of regard for the Constitution. I also have a law degree and I've read plenty of cases where police have ignored the 4th amendment. And I also live in the real world where I recognize that cops don't always scrupulously respect people's rights. That's just from what I've read - I've never had an experience with a police officer that has led me to question them. Maybe you have. The fact that I recognize that there are enough moving violations on the books that can justify probable cause for a traffic stop has nothing to do with my regard for the constitution.

Running away from the argument is a convenient thing to do. I have no problems engaging anyone in any format, but I don't see the point in debating you in person. You won't learn anything. By the way, you're not Dave Albo's constituent. If you were, you'd have run against him. But feel free to call him anyway.

Warhawk - I can only speculate that there was a federal constitutional concern there or some kind of adminstrative problem, but I am not sure. That the fees didn't impact out-of-state drivers was a big reason why I didn't support them.

Matt, it's a question of balance. I simply don't think it's so critical to fundamental liberty that people be able to text and drive. And I think that the benefit to the individual does not outweigh the potential risk. Thus, I think we should discourage that behavior. Not everything should be banned - the whole point of having an elected legislature is to make sure that there are people debating and deciding where to draw the line. If we didn't need to balance things, we could have robots make these decisions, but we can't.

In my world, all of those things you listed are weighed and balanced. If the risk outweighs the benefits, then we should do something about it. But in each of those situations, the risk doesn't outweigh the benefit so there's no law banning the behavior.

I too believe that people should be able to do what they want so long as no harm comes to others. But when the behaviors folks are engaging in are so risky that the present a danger to others, we have to make a judgment call as to whether we should regulate that behavior. That's what laws do. In this case, I think the risk outweighs the benefit so I support regulating the behavior.

My way of thinking is what republican democracy (little R and little D) is all about. We, collectively, through our representatives, make those decisions for ourselves. And if we disagree with what they do, we throw them out and replace them with people who we agree with. If this were some dictator telling us what he thinks is best for us, I would agree with you. But we don't have that kind of a system.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Mike Kane ()
Date: January 15, 2012 06:34PM

Increasing the penalty for crashing will act as a deterrent to people who drive recklessly and cause harm to others(regardless of if they are texting, or doing whatever) which will would ultimately promote safety , which you have claimed is the end goal.

If you can't realize this simple fundamental fact then you need help.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Mike Kane ()
Date: January 15, 2012 06:37PM

Matt summed up both arguments near flawlessly.

As I said before, feel free to contact me for a debate in person for this topic or any other for that matter.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Kilton ()
Date: January 15, 2012 06:58PM

Mike Kane Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Increasing the penalty for crashing will act as a
> deterrent to people who drive recklessly and cause
> harm to others(regardless of if they are texting,
> or doing whatever)

Pure speculation.

People already don't want to get into accidents. Everyone tries to avoid them already. In addition to basic instinct, accidents are costly, are a major inconvenience, injuries are likely, etc. The reason people drive distracted is because they're idiots: they either don't realize they're distracted, or they think that *they* can drive distracted in a safe fashion because their brains are superior to other drivers.

So this idea that increasing penalties for causing accidents would have some kind of major effect is highly debatable. It's nice that you seem 100% convinced of it, but I'm not.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: pester ()
Date: January 15, 2012 07:10PM

Fine if Albo wants to put forth more anti-personal-liberty legislation, just make sure he can't represent people who are caught as a result of it-CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DUH!!!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 15, 2012 07:11PM

Increasing the penalties only works if you're trying to curb a behavior that people desire to do. Nobody wants to get into an accident. Folks who text don't believe that their driving is distracted by texting, so they don't expect to get into an accident. That's why the penalty has to be attached to the behavior, not the result. Yes, I want somebody who was texting to get a ticket if he hits me, but I also want him not to text and cause the accident in the first place.

There's nothing simple or fundamental about this stuff. If there was, it wouldn't be a debate. Another ridiculous facet of the libertarian world view. Everything is easy, black and white, simple. Not in the real world, Mike.

I have no need to debate you in person. I'm not running for anything. If I want to argue with a brick wall, I can do that whenever I want. But I'm fine arguing on the internet while I watch the Giants beat Green Bay, which sucks.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 15, 2012 07:16PM

pester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fine if Albo wants to put forth more
> anti-personal-liberty legislation, just make sure
> he can't represent people who are caught as a
> result of it-CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DUH!!!!

So basically every legislator who is also a lawyer should quit their jobs? Chap Petersen can't defend folks if he's voted for a law that affects them? Or Scott Surovell? Come on.

It's not a conflict of interest. His intent isn't to pass the law to make money for himself. Not every politician is trying to act like Phil Hamilton or Harry Thomas Jr. And when they do, it's usually more obvious, like with Thomas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2012 07:17PM by BrianSchoeneman.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: of course ()
Date: January 16, 2012 04:12PM

Brian- of course every legislator who is a lawyer should excuse himself from voting for or advocating for legislation that will generate business for him. Take a drink of ethics next time.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Matt Cholko ()
Date: January 16, 2012 09:35PM

I sure wish there were fewer lawyers in the legislature. People from all walks of life need to step up and run for office. It is quite clear that the lawyers writing our laws are out of touch with what the rest of the population wants. However, since they're the ones who run, they're the ones who get elected.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: January 16, 2012 09:51PM

Of course - that doesn't make any sense. The fact that the legislation may result in people seeking representation doesn't necessarily mean they'll go to the person who voted for the bill. The two don't follow.

If someone is drafting legislation with the specific intent to drum up business, that's one thing. But the fact that a law passing may result in work for attorneys doesn't mean the point of the legislation was to create work for attorneys. That's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Matt, there are plenty of non-lawyers in the legislature. They're probably the majority. Of the Northern Virginia delegation, only a handful are practicing attorneys. Most aren't. Some have law degrees but don't practice.

It's tough to be a member of a part-time legislature. Most folks don't have jobs that can allow them to take two months off every year.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Richard Cummings ()
Date: January 17, 2012 03:53PM

Albo is at it again.

(1) Pass the laws to arrest them.
(2) Rake in the dough to represent them.

There is not a more transparent, irresponsible legislator in Richmond than Dave "Fluff Head" Albo.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: crospoint ()
Date: January 17, 2012 04:01PM

Richard: I agree, the scam to get over the top legislation passed with ridiculous medievil fines then charge huge fees to represent the poor slobs is pure Albo 101.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: Norma Gibney ()
Date: February 24, 2012 08:29PM

HE IS INDEED AN INGNORAMUS, WITH THE IQ OF 2 AND HOPEFULLY SOMEONE WIIL PUT THIS PIECE OF SHIT IN HIS PLACE! LOOOOOOSER! I would love to debate this chauvinistic fear mongering piece of crap!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Dave Albo is at it again, New bill for distracted drivers.
Posted by: ddty ()
Date: February 26, 2012 07:12AM

he comes from my district and really illustrates how stupid the electorate must be, what a fool and a tool

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********  **     **   *******   ********         ** 
 **    **  ***   ***  **     **  **     **        ** 
     **    **** ****         **  **     **        ** 
    **     ** *** **   *******   **     **        ** 
   **      **     **         **  **     **  **    ** 
   **      **     **  **     **  **     **  **    ** 
   **      **     **   *******   ********    ******  
This forum powered by Phorum.