3 ms·

My solution would be to use dangerous/anti-social driving as an extreme revenue generator for Govts. Why print so much money when there are so many ignorant foo

by dazc 5y ago

My solution would be to use dangerous/anti-social driving as an extreme revenue generator for Govts. Why print so much money when there are so many ignorant fools we can tax to death whilst also improving the lives of law abiding people as a happy side-effect. Get caught speeding and get an automatic 1K fine. Do it again and it's 5K. Tailgating would be 10K and an instant 12 months ban. Same for using a phone/texting. What reasonable excuse do people have for committing these crimes in the first place? They deserve no sympathy or leniency.

mikepurvis 5y ago
I completely agree, and you can tell where the Ontario government start to take speeding seriously— going 149km/h where it's signed for 100? $400 fine. Going 151km/h on the same road? Now it's $10000 and roadside vehicle seizure. Pretty clear message about which one actually matters to them. But ultimately it's the same issue here with everything else; except in extreme cases, it's not realistic to take away people's licenses when driving is a critical part of getting themselves to work.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Perhaps they can fund public transit with all the fines and property seizure, like rural bus/van routes.
giantg2 5y ago
"whilst also improving the lives of law abiding people" I think only people who think they know the law and believe the system is fair/without error, would take such a hard line. "Get caught speeding and get an automatic 1K fine. Do it again and it's 5K. Tailgating would be 10K" These values seem wildly out of touch with, not only severity of criminal fines, but also with the ability of people to pay them. Most people in the US don't even have $1k saved. Now we could make it a means based fine, like 1% of AGI. It would still be a stiff penalty for people making $50k or $200k. As it stands now, $150 ticket is nothing for some high earners, but may be sufficient punishment for a first time offense for some low earners (eg <$25k). https://finance.yahoo.com/news/58-americans-less-1-000-090000503.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/58-americans-less-1-000-09000...
- dazc 5y ago
  > Most people in the US don't even have $1k saved Most people in the US would, therefore, be extremely incentivised to stay within the law then? If you want financial penalties to be affordable then you get where we are now with offenders accepting the odd fine as part of the game. I agree with the means test based fine concept but I would make the consequences equally life changing.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Well, if that's your opinion, then my opinion is that I'm glad you aren't a leader. The law should provide a punishment that disincentivises bad behavior. But openly advocating for "life changing" penalties for some minor infraction like speeding is inappropriate. Should we then be executing people for misdemeanors so that the weighting is proportionate for other offenses? If you can't pay the fine, then they might put you in jail, starting a loop where you can't find work and dance never pay. If you make minor, often unintentional traffic offenses oppressively punished with "life changing" penalties, then you can actually have the opposite effect. If I know it's an all or nothing penalty then I might as well go all out in my offense. If I don't have money to pay, then what do I actually lose - the punishment changed basically nothing (aside from the removal of hope/potential which leads to additional crime). Do you drive? If you don't, then perhaps there is bias in your opinion. If you do, do you really think you've never violated any law or regulation? Have you read all of the statutes and regulations?
    - dazc 5y ago
      I'm looking at driving behaviour in isolation to most other crimes and misdemeanors because there are no mitigating factors for driving in a dangerous and anti-social manner. If a large fine is going to hurt you then you have a simple choice and the correct choice has no negative consequences to you whatsoever, unless reaching the next stop sign a few seconds earlier is that important to you. Yes I do drive and I don't claim to be always perfect but I do not willingly drive in a dangerous and reckless manner.
      - 5y ago
ihattendorf 5y ago
The problem is most driving laws are selectively enforced. I'd say 90%+ of drivers on the road near me are speeding to some degree. Where do we draw the line, right at the speed limit so that someone going 2 mph over gets a 1k fine? Tailgating being enforced more heavily (it's already probably illegal under reckless driving laws) would be great.
- dazc 5y ago
  Current law in the UK is 10% plus 2 mph, which I think is fair? Majority of drivers seem to have a default of limit plus 20% which results in a lot of tailgating for those of us who insist of staying legal.

by dazc 5y ago

mikepurvis 5y ago

I completely agree, and you can tell where the Ontario government start to take speeding seriously— going 149km/h where it's signed for 100? $400 fine. Going 151km/h on the same road? Now it's $10000 and roadside vehicle seizure. Pretty clear message about which one actually matters to them. But ultimately it's the same issue here with everything else; except in extreme cases, it's not realistic to take away people's licenses when driving is a critical part of getting themselves to work.

giantg2 5y ago
Perhaps they can fund public transit with all the fines and property seizure, like rural bus/van routes.

giantg2 5y ago

"whilst also improving the lives of law abiding people" I think only people who think they know the law and believe the system is fair/without error, would take such a hard line. "Get caught speeding and get an automatic 1K fine. Do it again and it's 5K. Tailgating would be 10K" These values seem wildly out of touch with, not only severity of criminal fines, but also with the ability of people to pay them. Most people in the US don't even have $1k saved. Now we could make it a means based fine, like 1% of AGI. It would still be a stiff penalty for people making $50k or $200k. As it stands now, $150 ticket is nothing for some high earners, but may be sufficient punishment for a first time offense for some low earners (eg <$25k). https://finance.yahoo.com/news/58-americans-less-1-000-090000503.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/58-americans-less-1-000-09000...

dazc 5y ago
> Most people in the US don't even have $1k saved Most people in the US would, therefore, be extremely incentivised to stay within the law then? If you want financial penalties to be affordable then you get where we are now with offenders accepting the odd fine as part of the game. I agree with the means test based fine concept but I would make the consequences equally life changing.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Well, if that's your opinion, then my opinion is that I'm glad you aren't a leader. The law should provide a punishment that disincentivises bad behavior. But openly advocating for "life changing" penalties for some minor infraction like speeding is inappropriate. Should we then be executing people for misdemeanors so that the weighting is proportionate for other offenses? If you can't pay the fine, then they might put you in jail, starting a loop where you can't find work and dance never pay. If you make minor, often unintentional traffic offenses oppressively punished with "life changing" penalties, then you can actually have the opposite effect. If I know it's an all or nothing penalty then I might as well go all out in my offense. If I don't have money to pay, then what do I actually lose - the punishment changed basically nothing (aside from the removal of hope/potential which leads to additional crime). Do you drive? If you don't, then perhaps there is bias in your opinion. If you do, do you really think you've never violated any law or regulation? Have you read all of the statutes and regulations?
  - dazc 5y ago
    I'm looking at driving behaviour in isolation to most other crimes and misdemeanors because there are no mitigating factors for driving in a dangerous and anti-social manner. If a large fine is going to hurt you then you have a simple choice and the correct choice has no negative consequences to you whatsoever, unless reaching the next stop sign a few seconds earlier is that important to you. Yes I do drive and I don't claim to be always perfect but I do not willingly drive in a dangerous and reckless manner.
    - 5y ago

ihattendorf 5y ago

The problem is most driving laws are selectively enforced. I'd say 90%+ of drivers on the road near me are speeding to some degree. Where do we draw the line, right at the speed limit so that someone going 2 mph over gets a 1k fine? Tailgating being enforced more heavily (it's already probably illegal under reckless driving laws) would be great.

dazc 5y ago
Current law in the UK is 10% plus 2 mph, which I think is fair? Majority of drivers seem to have a default of limit plus 20% which results in a lot of tailgating for those of us who insist of staying legal.