Speeding Fines

[andrewducker]

octopoid_horror let me know about the Finnish system of administering speeding fines:
KPH over the speed limit x daily salary.

So if you're 10KPH over the speed limit and earn hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, then you're in for quite a large fine.

Apparently this is how all reasonable sized fines work in Finland - they're expressed in days of pay.

I'm in favour.

Comments

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

No, but being fined more money for being rich is just going to further encourage people like Lewis Hamilton, who move away because other countries are less critical of success. And don't get me wrong, I think that the rich should pay taxes to support stuff like the NHS - I'm just unsure that this fine system is as good a way to get that support.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm cracked, here, but I fail to see how "getting caught speeding" and "success" are supposed to be correlated.

And a set rate of "0.5% of your annual income per X full km/hr over the limit" has a much better case towards being fair than "an extremely variant percentage, heavily weighted towards punishing the poor far more than the rich".

I *do* totally see your point with regards to minimum limit, inability to pay, and odds of jail time - but, right now, there are all kinds of things a poor person can do where the punishment is far less than that a rich person would experience, simply because the poor can't pay fines and have no wages to garnish, etc. And yet, for some reason, we have yet to see rich people saying "Well, shit, I want to piss in public and sleep under bridges without consequences! It's not FAIR! Quick, I need to become poor in a hurry!"

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

Rich people don't like paying money for things. Rich people move to country that makes them pay less as a result. Same reason that richer people tend to move to tax havens, as Lewis Hamilton has done in his move to Switzerland.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

And then you have fewer inconsiderate rich twits running other people off the roads and thereby driving up insurance rates; I fail to see the down-side of this.

-- Steve frankly doesn't care much about the bruised egos of the super-rich, especially given the huge economic car-wreck resulting from others' coddling of them.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

What I love about you left-wingers is the consideration you have for others. :)

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Happy to oblige.

In this case, though, I actually think that I am looking out for others; we're talking about fines for exessive speed in traffic, aka "breaking the law". Law and order types interested in strict enforcement as an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour should be all over this like ants at a picnic.

-- Steve thinks that you have nothing to fear from indexed traffic fines if you have nothing to hide.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree with you. Same principle as ID cards - there's no harm to them as long as you have nothing to hide. :)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Nice try, but "not needing to identify yourself without cause" is different in many significant ways from from "paying an equivalent price for breaking the law."

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's not that part I was disagreeing with (although I was interested to see the counter argument, nicely put). It's the part where all rich people are twits who are menaces on the road that pissed me off - that just seemed, well, rather bigoted.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Ah!

Okay. In understand. The argument is not that all rich people are twits and menaces.

It's that, without income-indexed fines, rich people are *free* to be twits and menaces while poorer twits and menaces lose their licenses and go to jail.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

Isn't a fairer way to do it to eliminate fines completely, and go after people's time? I suppose it could be argued that a rich person's time is worth more than a poor person's, but to me, community service would be a better suggestion.

(And surely the rich person loses their license either way?)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Possibly, but that's not what they're doing. They're charging money, and that means either income-indexing or rich people ignore it.

And no, no, the rich person doesn't lose their license, not always. In general, you will lose your license fast if you can't pay. In particular, you'll get a fine that suspends your license UNTIL you pay.

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

But if you get 12 points, you get banned. Regardless of fines.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Sorry, what country are we working in, again?

(Regardless: Someone who can't pay the "pay or lose it" fee will lose their license. Somone who can will pay, then get another pay-or-lose-it, then another, and another, and then finally lose their license. And still be able to pay the fines for driving without a license.)

[johncoxon.livejournal.com]

Britain. Once you get twelve points on your license, your license is taken away, regardless of how promptly you pay your fine. And I don't believe failure to pay the fine gets you more points, either, so actually, in this country, the likelihood of losing your license doesn't depend on financial status in any way. I'm assuming you aren't from round here.

[andrewducker]

4 points + a fine. Rich person can pay fine without thinking, poor person can't. Poor person loses license for not paying the fine. Therefore the penalty affects the rich and poor differently.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I'm in Canada.

Around here, you can lose your license for failing to pay fines, and for some offenses, your license is suspended until you pay the fine. Don't pay, license suspended on the first offense.

[andrewducker]

Going after people's time would be a fair way of doing it, yes. I'd be absolutely fine with that.