• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Income adjusted traffic violation fines

lionking said:
I think it would cost too much to administer.

What really hurts rich drivers who get fines are the demerit points which come with them. They can rack up enough points to lose your licence quickly. Leave things as they are.
Click to expand...
I agree about the demerit system, but something linked to declared income isn't that difficult to process. Certain levels and the equivalent of a certain number of weeks income, coupled with points on the license depending on the severity seems reasonable to me.
 
acbytesla said:
It is not malicious envy. It is creating actual deterrence in the system.
Click to expand...
Of course, it's malicious envy. Your obvious motivation is to punish people because they are in a higher income bracket than you.
 
jimbob said:
I agree about the demerit system, but something linked to declared income isn't that difficult to process. Certain levels and the equivalent of a certain number of weeks income, coupled with points on the license depending on the severity seems reasonable to me.
Click to expand...
It would drag out what is usually a very brief and straightforward court process.
 
theprestige said:
It would drag out what is usually a very brief and straightforward court process.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Instead of one brief trip to court (if you challenge it), you instead have multiple time-consuming hearings and other paperwork. If you care about the "poor," you wouldn't burden them like that.
 
theprestige said:
It would drag out what is usually a very brief and straightforward court process.
Click to expand...

Why does it even need a court process? My understanding is as follows.

Say you drive along the road, get caught going 50 in a 40 limit by an automatic camera; you get a letter in the post. You don't dispute the evidence, or claim any mitigating aspects, so the penalty is predetermined and stated in the letter, which will probably be a fine and possibly penalty points, maybe with the chance to reduce your penalty by attending a speed awareness course.
 
Trausti said:
How is a point system not actually a deterrent? You're just laser focused on punishing people you don't like.
Click to expand...
I don't dislike anyone without merit. I see the point system as only a minor deterrent.

I just know that a fine to someone with little means actually stings and it doesn't for someone with means. I know that people with money are able to hire representation in courts and often do not receive the same demerits. I use to sit in courts and watch the administration of justice in the US. Those with means regularly avoided the consequences for their actions. And those without means were ran over by the system barely receiving any consideration.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I don't dislike anyone without merit. I see the point system as only a minor deterrent.

I just know that a fine to someone with little means actually stings and it doesn't for someone with means. I know that people with money are able to hire representation in courts and often do not receive the same demerits. I use to sit in courts and watch the administrative of justice in the US. Those with means regularly avoided the consequences for their actions. And those without means were ran over by the system barely receiving any consideration.
Click to expand...
Dude, the OP you started was about traffic infractions not murder, robbery, assault, etc. The penalty is possibly a fine and points against your license. The vast majority of people don't contest because (1) they know they did it and (2) the time/expense in challenging the ticket just ain't worth it. The points system is fair to everyone.
 
jimbob said:
Why does it even need a court process? My understanding is as follows.

Say you drive along the road, get caught going 50 in a 40 limit by an automatic camera; you get a letter in the post. You don't dispute the evidence, or claim any mitigating aspects, so the penalty is predetermined and stated in the letter, which will probably be a fine and possibly penalty points, maybe with the chance to reduce your penalty by attending a speed awareness course.
Click to expand...
Your tax information is confidential. The court cannot impose a wealth based fine without your consent.

Courts can subpoena your tax records to help it resolve child support and bankruptcy cases.

It's not at all clear to me that speeding tickets should be added to that list of exceptions. My hatred for rich people simply does not extend that far.

On the other hand, my hatred for people who come crying about how they can't afford a speeding ticket and it's just not fair? My hatred for those people knows no bounds.
 
Trausti said:
Dude, the OP you started was about traffic infractions not murder, robbery, assault, etc. The penalty is possibly a fine and points against your license. The vast majority of people don't contest because (1) they know they did it and (2) the time/expense in challenging the ticket just ain't worth it. The points system is fair to everyone.
Click to expand...
Traffic Courts are no different
 
theprestige said:
Your tax information is confidential. The court cannot impose a wealth based fine without your consent.

Courts can subpoena your tax records to help it resolve child support and bankruptcy cases.

It's not at all clear to me that speeding tickets should be added to that list of exceptions. My hatred for rich people simply does not extend that far.

On the other hand, my hatred for people who come crying about how they can't afford a speeding ticket and it's just not fair? My hatred for those people knows no bounds.
Click to expand...
You guys keep changing it to hate. When it has nothing to do with animus. It has to do with fairness and deterrence. I'm only arguing that the sting of a fine be commensurate. I'm saying the system is patently unfair without considering income and or wealth.
 
I would think that getting rid of the fines and keeping the demerits is about the best we can do. The poor will still be worse off, but better than now.
 
acbytesla said:
You guys keep changing it to hate. When it has nothing to do with animus. It has to do with fairness and deterrence. I'm only arguing that the sting of a fine be commensurate. I'm saying the system is patently unfair without considering income and or wealth.
Click to expand...
You're wanting to punish someone on a basis other than having committed the infraction.
 
acbytesla said:
Traffic Courts are no different
Click to expand...
Traffic courts are often very different. The right to a lawyer doesn't apply. The standard of evidence is relaxed for both parties. The proceedings are informal. This is because the infractions in question are considered civil, not criminal, and no prison time attaches. This is very different from murder, robbery, etc.

It would be a draconian society indeed, that tried speeding tickets on the same footing as murder charges. And a wasteful one.
 
Trausti said:
You're wanting to punish someone on a basis other than having committed the infraction.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not. I'm saying that punishment should be real for everyone. And a fine to some is truly a punishment and isn’t to others.
 
theprestige said:
Traffic courts are often very different. The right to a lawyer doesn't apply. The standard of evidence is relaxed for both parties. The proceedings are informal. This is because the infractions in question are considered civil, not criminal, and no prison time attaches. This is very different from murder, robbery, etc.

It would be a draconian society indeed, that tried speeding tickets on the same footing as murder charges. And a wasteful one.
Click to expand...
You have a right to a lawyer in traffic courts. I've been there watching lawyers argue for their clients in traffic courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom