Proposed Bill to Ban Radar Detectors

Not yet posted to legislative Website for Cain

 

BATON ROUGE -- The state Highway Safety Commission unveiled a 16-bill legislative package Thursday for the March 27 general session, calling for a ban on cell phone use by drivers younger than 18 and a prohibition on radar detectors in cars and trucks.

Commission attorney Mike Barron sought backing for the proposals from the Louisiana Property and Casualty Insurance Commission, a state agency that was formed to look at the availability and affordability of insurance. Barron said the agenda, a mix of old and new ideas, is designed to lower insurance costs.

Richard Clements, an insurance agent from St. Bernard Parish who chairs the property and casualty insurance commission, said the panel will vote on the recommendations at its March meeting before the opening of the session. "It is a tough wish list," he said.

Some of the recycled ideas that have failed in past sessions include banning anyone younger than 21 from bars and lounges; expanding the mandatory seat belt law to include all occupants of a car, truck or van, not just the front-seat passenger; and raising the fines for failing to wear seat belts from $25 to $100 for a first offense, from $50 to $100 on a second offense, and from $50 to $200 for subsequent violations.

The proposed prohibition on using a cell phone by drivers younger than 18 could result in a fine of $175, 30 days in jail or both for a first offense, and up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine for subsequent violations, as well as loss of driving privileges for 90 days.

Violators of the ban on radar detectors would face a fine of $100 plus court costs.

Sen. James David Cain, R-Dry Creek, an insurance commission member and chairman of the Senate Insurance Committee, said some of the concepts may have trouble finding legislative sponsors.

The list also recommends adoption of a "point system" for drivers that would assess fines and could result in the loss of a license when a driver accumulates a certain number of points. The bill passed the House two years ago but died in a Senate committee.

Barron said the proposal would sanction the driver for various infractions, such as three points for running a stop sign to six points for driving while intoxicated. After accumulating six or more points in a 36-month period, the driver could be fined $100 for the sixth point and $25 for each additional point.

Failing to pay the fines would result in suspension of a driver's license. Barron did not say what the suspension period would be.

The proposals also include allowing cities and parishes to enforce traffic laws by installing cameras to monitor violations, a measure that has failed in the past.

Cain said that although many of the ideas are solid, "we have a lot of good legislation on the books now that can't be enforced." He said he is working on a bill that would give state, parish and city police departments a cut of the proceeds from tickets they write as an incentive to better enforce existing laws.

"We could lower rates if we enforce the laws we have," Cain said. "It is just wonderful feel-good stuff unless we enforce it."

Chuck McMains, a former state legislator and a member of the insurance commission, said all the ideas are good. "We need to target the ones we think are good ideas, as well as those with a good chance of passing," he said.

Considering the problems with homeowners insurance and other post-hurricane issues, McMains said, "I don't think the legislators' attention is going to be focused on auto insurance" at the session.

****

I think Mr. McMains fails to understand that radar detectors actually SLOWs drivers. Cops are always driving around with their radar on. Do you think I speed KNOWING I'm being hit with radar? NO. The real motive? More $$$ for the state (either catch them speeding without a radar detector, or fine them for having one). Either way they win. And now they can't be proven wrong in court. BS!

I don't live in LA, but I'm gonna e-mail him and let him know that is one reason I'd drive AROUND LA. I doubt he wants that!

 

More laws designed purely to enhance government revenue.
Enacting fines on drivers for using Radar Detectors will not lower our insurance rates one dollar.

 

From State Senator James David Cain

Thanks for your email Mr. Grant. I do not have legislation pending on
this issue. I have been in contact with the President of Escort and he
is in the process of retracting the letters he sent to everyone. I am
very much in support of radar detectors and have one myself. The
problem was that my quotes from the Times Picayune were taken out of
context. The state Highway Safety Commission is proposing the
legislation, the problem is they can't find a legislator to sponsor
their bill. If you'll read the article in the Times Picayune you will
understand.

(http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/capital/index.ssf?/base/news-3/11407671873
9890.xml

You should receive a retraction letter shortly from Escort.

Please contact me on any matter.

James David Cain

 

If anything it could raise your rates once they report your "lawbreaking" back to your insurance company. Why would the insurance industry be sponsoring legislation designed to LOWER their rates?? The answer is, they wouldn't, and they're not. They are backing legislation designed to create more reportable offenses (increased enforcement, camera enforcement, detectors use a new offense to enforce, etc.), so they will have more excuses to RAISE your rates. Of course they have to make a big show about how they are trying to "lower insurance rates" and "uphold the law", but they really just want an excuse to gouge you for more money. If anyone thinks they are going to lower ANYBODYS rates I'd love to have some of the Kool-Aid you're drinking.

I get so tired of the government trying to save us from ourselves.

 

If you think that:
1) the 55 mph was put in place to save fuel,
2) required seatbelts,
3) 5 mph bumpers,
4) Required airbags and,
5) the banning of RADAR detectors were legislated for your safety, by a benevolent government, think again.

They were done to protect the insurance companies! Remember how GW Bush was always whining about how the the poor abused insurance companies had to pay out so much in injury and malpractice awards. The truth is that they pay more for advertising and legislative influence that they do for these settlements. Typically less than 1% of a medical malpractice insurance company's yearly expenditure is paid out in awards.

legal disclaimer, there are too many rabid attorneys sitting around waiting for something like this to latch on to! (Of course the preceding information is all just my opinion and in no way reflects the belief of this website, it's owner or it's adminstrative personnel)