3 ms·
If this were the case, then rich people everywhere else would be speeding like crazy and just paying the small fines. That clearly is not the case, because fin
by manigandham 7y ago
If this were the case, then rich people everywhere else would be speeding like crazy and just paying the small fines.
That clearly is not the case, because fines are not the only thing rendered as a penalty. Driving privileges and criminal prosecution are quickly added on as behavior changes, even if it's small violations that add up.
Everyone faces the same financial, driving access, and legal risk which equally discourages everyone from driving badly, no matter how wealthy you are.
Unless you think rich people should get sentenced to twice as much time for the same crime, then altering the fine for wealth makes no sense.
- throwaway2048 7y agoIt is objectively not the same financial risk for a wealthy person, if everyone pays the same fee.
- manigandham 7y agoNo, the same way living in general is not the same for a poor or wealthy person. As I just said, finance is not the only part of the calculation nor has flat pricing led to crazy rich drivers everywhere.
- Joakal 7y agoBy your logic, why is there a monetary cost? Rich people are not deterred by cost but by driving privilege penalties, right?
- manigandham 7y agoFor administrative reasons to fund the system and as a first line of penalty. Cost is a cost, regardless of how much you may care about it, but yes the larger non-financial penalties is what keeps rich people from driving however they want and shows that the system works fine as is.
- dwild 7y ago> If this were the case, then rich people everywhere else would be speeding like crazy and just paying the small fines. It's an issue, they call this affluenza. > That clearly is not the case, because fines are not the only thing rendered as a penalty. Sure but then if your deterrent are the others penalty, why is there the first penalty in the first place?