Virginia becomes first state to launch statewide court-ordered speed-limiting te

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Beltway probably can't hear you over the sound of how right he insists he is.

[hbelkins]

I'm still trying to figure out what COVID has to do with speeding.

[Beltway]

You're responding to a different sentence than the one I addressed. 

The sentence I referenced was the one that defines who the ISA program applies to -- the one that includes "to target chronic and extreme speeding offenders." That's the scope clause. Your earlier ellipsis removed that clause when quoting me, which is why I pointed it out.

The sentence you're quoting now ("like license suspension or vehicle impoundment") isn't the scope clause.  It's just listing other penalties. Removing that part doesn't change meaning. Removing the scope clause does.

And yes -- the article's second sentence does say the program targets chronic and extreme offenders. 

That's exactly why the article's headline and lead are misleading: they describe a statewide court‑ordered speed‑limiting program for dangerous drivers, which reads as a driver‑level statewide system.

The statute creates a court‑level option, not a statewide driver‑level program.

That's the distinction the article blurs.  The bill authorizes ISA only as a discretionary alternative for a narrow offender class. The article's framing makes it sound like a statewide GPS speed‑limiting program for "dangerous drivers" in general.

The scope clause buried later contradicts the framing in the headline and lead.

So yes -- the article is misleading. 

The statute creates statewide availability (courts anywhere may order ISA).

The article describes statewide application (a program for dangerous drivers statewide).

Those are not the same thing.

[kalvado]

clash of the titans 2.0

[kphoger]

The program gives judges a new alternative to traditional penalties ...

No it doesn't.

The ellipsis in your quote removes the part of the article's sentence that defines who the "alternative" applies to.

You're responding to a different sentence than the one I addressed.

No I'm not.  The sentence you addressed is the article's sentence to which I applied an ellipsis.  That sentence states:  "The program gives judges a new alternative to traditional penalties like license suspension or vehicle impoundment."  And that sentence says nothing about whom the alternative applies to.

The sentence I referenced was the one that defines who the ISA program applies to -- the one that includes "to target chronic and extreme speeding offenders." That's the scope clause. Your earlier ellipsis removed that clause when quoting me, which is why I pointed it out.

The second sentence of the article, yes.  But that's not the sentence I had originally quoted and applied an ellipsis to.  So it's not the sentence that, according to what you asserted, defined whom the alternative applies to.  If you meant a different sentence than the one I put an ellipsis in, then fine, but that's not what you said.  I can't read your mind, only your words.

The sentence you're quoting now ("like license suspension or vehicle impoundment") isn't the scope clause.  It's just listing other penalties. Removing that part doesn't change meaning.

I agree.  In fact, that's what I said.

Removing the scope clause does.

Which I didn't do, because that's not the sentence that had my ellipsis in it, which is the sentence you accused me of misrepresenting.

And yes -- the article's second sentence does say the program targets chronic and extreme offenders.

That's exactly why the article's headline and lead are misleading:  they describe a statewide court‑ordered speed‑limiting program for dangerous drivers, which reads as a driver‑level statewide system.

Unless I missed something, this is the first time you've brought up the wording of the headline and lead.  Sure, I suppose those could be understood in a number of ways at first glance, and thus could have been worded better.  But when you accused the article of being misleading, I assumed you meant—you know, the article.

The statute creates a court‑level option, not a statewide driver‑level program.

Yep.  Which is what the article says.

That's the distinction the article blurs.

Nope.  The headline might mislead a casual reader into thinking that's the case, but the article itself does no such blurring.

blah blah blah

Same responses.  See above.

[kphoger]

clash of the titans 2.0

Most impleasing.

[Dirt Roads]

That's exactly why the article's headline and lead are misleading: they describe a statewide court‑ordered speed‑limiting program for dangerous drivers, which reads as a driver‑level statewide system.

Is it the article or the title of this thread that is misleading?  Currently, the title reads Virginia launches first statewide program that limits some drivers' speeds.

I'll raise a different concern here.  I see misleading headlines and bylines all the time (just not usually from local sources).  And because of those difference, the same article may also run at different times with different headlines (sometimes misleading and sometimes not) just to get you click again.  I'm actually enjoying reading news articles with the intention of critiquing both titling and content.  All the while hoping to find out something new and interesting to keep me from becoming too stodgy and tainted in my old age.

[Beltway]

I wasn't talking about only that sentence. My point was about the article's framing --the headline, the lead, and the scope clause in the second sentence. The statute creates a court‑level option for chronic/extreme offenders, not a statewide driver‑level program. That's the distinction the article blurs.

[1995hoo]

clash of the titans 2.0

Makes a certain smiley that much more appropriate.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

I wasn't talking about only that sentence. My point was about the article's framing --the headline, the lead, and the scope clause in the second sentence. The statute creates a court‑level option for chronic/extreme offenders, not a statewide driver‑level program. That's the distinction the article blurs.

I don't think despite the walls of text and meta-level analysis you've tried to provide that you've convinced a single person that you're correct.

[Beltway]

The question isn't whether anyone is "convinced." The question is what the statute actually authorizes and how the article frames it.

The statute creates a court‑level option that judges may use for a narrow class of offenders -- specifically chronic/extreme speeders under §46.2‑861/862. It does not create a statewide driver‑level program that applies to "dangerous drivers" in general.

That's the distinction I've been pointing out.

The article's headline and lead describe a statewide court‑ordered speed‑limiting program for dangerous drivers, which reads as a driver‑level statewide system. The scope clause later in the article ("to target chronic and extreme speeding offenders") quietly limits the program to a very narrow offender class.

Those two things don't match.

That's why the article's framing is misleading.

The statute: statewide availability (courts anywhere may order ISA)

The article's framing: statewide application (a program for dangerous drivers statewide)

Those are not the same thing.

[Beltway]

clash of the titans 2.0

If that's meant to be a reference to me, the only label I'm interested in is "contributor."

[TheHighwayMan3561]

clash of the titans 2.0

If that's meant to be a reference to me, the only label I'm interested in is "contributor."

And I think that's fine. I think most people are fine with you being a contributor. You've been around this community a long time.

It takes a lot less effort, and builds up a lot more good will to just say "I was mistaken" rather than providing more and more complicated mental gymnastics because you just don't want to be wrong.

[Beltway]

clash of the titans 2.0

If that's meant to be a reference to me, the only label I'm interested in is "contributor."

And I think that's fine. I think most people are fine with you being a contributor. You've been around this community a long time.
It takes a lot less effort, and builds up a lot more good will to just say "I was mistaken" rather than providing more and more complicated mental gymnastics because you just don't want to be wrong.

When the LIS link was posted, I read the bill text and acknowledged that I needed to modify my previous position. That is basically saying that I was at least partly mistaken in the points I made.

There is nothing wrong with being 'wrong' sometimes. Everybody makes mistakes. You try to learn from them. That's life.

[vdeane]

I'm still trying to figure out what COVID has to do with speeding.

During the pandemic, the lack of traffic in urban areas made it possible to travel a lot faster on city streets than before.  People got used to that and traffic patterns are still different with increased telecommuting over pre-pandemic conditions, and there's more reckless driving than there was before.

[hotdogPi]

COVID has only been mentioned in the context of spreading (hopefully not COVID itself).

[Max Rockatansky]

Is COVID butter any good?  Does it have less calories compared to the traditional bovine sourced variants?

[Scott5114]

Is COVID butter any good?  Does it have less calories compared to the traditional bovine sourced variants?

I had no idea you could even milk a coronavirus.

[kphoger]

I had no idea you could even milk a coronavirus.

Restaurants sure seemed to milk the coronavirus, for all it was worth, by adding surcharges to your bill...

[Scott5114]

I had no idea you could even milk a coronavirus.

Restaurants sure seemed to milk the coronavirus, for all it was worth, by adding surcharges to your bill...

How did they turn that into butter?

[kphoger]

When the LIS link was posted, I read the bill text and acknowledged that I needed to modify my previous position. That is basically saying that I was at least partly mistaken in the points I made.

Other than claiming it wasn't from 2025, what did you admit to being wrong about?

[kphoger]

How did they turn that into butter?

I don't know.  I stopped going to those restaurants.

[Beltway]

When the LIS link was posted, I read the bill text and acknowledged that I needed to modify my previous position. That is basically saying that I was at least partly mistaken in the points I made.

Other than claiming it wasn't from 2025, what did you admit to being wrong about?

My mistake was relying on the WVEC description; the LIS bill text made clear my initial interpretation wasn't accurate.

[Max Rockatansky]

I had no idea you could even milk a coronavirus.

Restaurants sure seemed to milk the coronavirus, for all it was worth, by adding surcharges to your bill...

How did they turn that into butter?

It started when two little mice fell into a bucket of cream.

[Road Hog]

The only reason Texas hasn't become the second state to enact this law is because the Legislature only meets in odd-numbered years. I guarantee you this very law is in some committee right now in Austin with Texas substituted for Virginia.