6 ms·

Exceeding the speed limit isn't exclusive to the poor and downtrodden. Should fines for breaking the law be different for different incomes? Edit: for those o

Exceeding the speed limit isn't exclusive to the poor and downtrodden. Should fines for breaking the law be different for different incomes? Edit: for those of you saying 'yes': who decides what is "fair"?

caskance 11y ago
Why not? They are in some countries, like Finland. It seems to work OK.
samd 11y ago
Absolutely. How is it just to punish one person with financial catastrophe while another with mild inconvenience for the same crime?
zer00eyz 11y ago
In some places it is: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-...
klodolph 11y ago
What is the purpose of the fine? Is it to discourage people from breaking the law, is it to recover damages, or is it to make income for the government?
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
scottwhudson 11y ago
This is already being done in places like Finland, where speeding tickets are calculated as a percentage of income. This makes a lot of sense given the simple fact that $300 means very different things to different people. If the goal of a fine is deter law-breaking activity, why not use a system that incentivizes everyone equally?
tomjen3 11y ago
Nah it is pretty much a universal crime. And I actually think it would be correct to fine different people different amounts - say 10 minutes of income for every mile above the limit, up to a max of some percentage (say 20%) over the limit. That way you have the minimum necessary fine to make it not worth speeding without it being so that rich people can speed with impunity.
- astral303 11y ago
  This is what Finland does. It's called a Day-fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
astral303 11y ago
If the objective of the fine is to provide a financial disincentive to commit a violation, then the fines should absolutely be scaled for different incomes. Otherwise, there is no real financial disincentive to the rich (who can hire lawyers with chump change), as is obviously demonstrated today. Finally, it is extremely difficult to drive perfectly enough to avoid violating the speeding limit. Signs are often missing or covered. Limits change at unexpected locations, sometimes nasty ones (at the end of descents, etc). There is very little culture of speed change warning (varies state to state, but nowhere like, say, the UK). The poor and the downtrodden have to apply a significantly larger effort to maintain speed limit compliance in their driving, because the downsides of getting a speeding ticket are so financially devastating.
maxerickson 11y ago
Edit: for those of you saying 'yes': who decides what is "fair"? This applies to basically everything that a society does. Even in small local elections you have decisions where a significant portion of the voters don't get their way, and those sorts of elections tend to be over things that people largely agree on (paving roads and plowing snow and ...).
- MrZongle2 11y ago
  This applies to basically everything that a society does. I completely agree. Couldn't we say, then, that the current system of traffic fines (or at least the one that applies to the woman in this article) is something that has been approved by our society...rich and poor alike?
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Would that previously existing agreement somehow render a new agreement less fair? I don't think so.

caskance 11y ago

Why not? They are in some countries, like Finland. It seems to work OK.

samd 11y ago

Absolutely. How is it just to punish one person with financial catastrophe while another with mild inconvenience for the same crime?

zer00eyz 11y ago

In some places it is: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-...

klodolph 11y ago

What is the purpose of the fine? Is it to discourage people from breaking the law, is it to recover damages, or is it to make income for the government?

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

scottwhudson 11y ago

This is already being done in places like Finland, where speeding tickets are calculated as a percentage of income. This makes a lot of sense given the simple fact that $300 means very different things to different people. If the goal of a fine is deter law-breaking activity, why not use a system that incentivizes everyone equally?

tomjen3 11y ago

Nah it is pretty much a universal crime. And I actually think it would be correct to fine different people different amounts - say 10 minutes of income for every mile above the limit, up to a max of some percentage (say 20%) over the limit. That way you have the minimum necessary fine to make it not worth speeding without it being so that rich people can speed with impunity.

astral303 11y ago
This is what Finland does. It's called a Day-fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

astral303 11y ago

If the objective of the fine is to provide a financial disincentive to commit a violation, then the fines should absolutely be scaled for different incomes. Otherwise, there is no real financial disincentive to the rich (who can hire lawyers with chump change), as is obviously demonstrated today. Finally, it is extremely difficult to drive perfectly enough to avoid violating the speeding limit. Signs are often missing or covered. Limits change at unexpected locations, sometimes nasty ones (at the end of descents, etc). There is very little culture of speed change warning (varies state to state, but nowhere like, say, the UK). The poor and the downtrodden have to apply a significantly larger effort to maintain speed limit compliance in their driving, because the downsides of getting a speeding ticket are so financially devastating.

maxerickson 11y ago

Edit: for those of you saying 'yes': who decides what is "fair"? This applies to basically everything that a society does. Even in small local elections you have decisions where a significant portion of the voters don't get their way, and those sorts of elections tend to be over things that people largely agree on (paving roads and plowing snow and ...).

MrZongle2 11y ago
This applies to basically everything that a society does. I completely agree. Couldn't we say, then, that the current system of traffic fines (or at least the one that applies to the woman in this article) is something that has been approved by our society...rich and poor alike?
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Would that previously existing agreement somehow render a new agreement less fair? I don't think so.