Should speeding fines be proportionate to earnings?

[aliceBB]

The last figures I saw for people killed on Britain's roads were less than 2,000 per year.

 

In 1970 it was just less than 8,000 killed.

 

The roads are massively safer than they used to be.

 

Killed or seriously injured, I said.

 

You are forgetting all the people who as a result of speed-related accidents end up with brain-damage, paralysed, incontinent, traumatised, unable to live or work independently.

[truman]

Killed or seriously injured, I said.

 

You are forgetting all the people who as a result of speed-related accidents end up with brain-damage, paralysed, incontinent, traumatised, unable to live or work independently.

 

A "serious injury" could also be one that doesn't require any in-patient time eg. a cut that required a stitch or even shock.. not all SI's are in a wheelchair... just for balance ...

[harvey19]

If fines are proportional to a person's earnings then should other things be proportional.

Would a person who pays most tax because of their earnings get better healthcare than one who pays less.

It is a 2 edged sword and many would regret the day if such a system was introduced.

[L00b]

If the fines from speeding are to act as a deterrent then should they be proportional to the earnings of the speeder? After all a £60 fine is nothing to a millionaire but could land someone on NMW up the proverbial creek. Is the same fine for all fair or does it give carte blanche to the rich to do as they please?

In the UK as in many other countries, the serial-speeding rich run out of license at 12 points the exact same as the serial-speeding poor, so I'm failing to understand your argument that "the rich" could be "doing as they please" because the fine is financially inconsequential. It's not as if the rich can buy more point slots.

 

I could be talked into supporting this notion of proportionality, but only beyond a clearly dangerous threshold, e.g. 50% beyond the posted speed limit (i.e. 45+ in 30 zone, 90+ in 60 zone, 105+ in 70 zone)...certainly not for 31 or 33 in a 30 zone.

 

If anything, it should firstly be made proportional to the law-abiding status of the offender: license valid, car MOT'd and insured = normal tariff; invalid license, car out of MOT or uninsured = heavier tariff (on top of the usual tariff for these offences).

Would a person who pays most tax because of their earnings get better healthcare than one who pays less.

There is a resources-based argument that yes, they should: put the person who pays most tax back into shape sooner than the person who pays less or no tax, for continuing to (earn and-) pay that most tax soonest.

 

I'm quietly confident fellow humanist/socialist SF posters will be along to flame me shortly

Edited March 5, 2015 by L00b

[Magilla]

Speed was a factor is what it says. It doesn't say excess speed was a factor. Anything above 5mph does of course make speed a factor.

 

Quite, there's nothing to suggest that the speed of any accident wasn't already below any speed limit at the time. If you're drunk and crash into someone at 10mph, then speed will still be a factor, despite not being the root cause.

 

Perhaps this is part of the problem, the figures are manipulated/collated in a way that supports an argument, rather than to present information in a way that's meaningful.

[barleycorn]

In the UK as in many other countries, the serial-speeding rich run out of license at 12 points the exact same as the serial-speeding poor, so I'm failing to understand your argument that "the rich" could be "doing as they please" because the fine is financially inconsequential. It's not as if the rich can buy more point slots.

You only need to start worrying about that after you've been caught a few times. If the deterrent was high enough you would hope that no one would want to be caught more than once, if at all. A £60 fine to the rich is no deterrent, a £6,000 one might be. Three points is no real deterrent to anybody, it only becomes such if you already have nine.

 

I could be talked into supporting this notion of proportionality, but only beyond a clearly dangerous threshold, e.g. 50% beyond the posted speed limit (i.e. 45+ in 30 zone, 90+ in 60 zone, 105+ in 70 zone)...certainly not for 31 or 33 in a 30 zone.

Proportionality could come in a sliding scale, something like the following could work:

0.5% of net monthly income per mph above the limit for the first 1-5mph above the limit.

1% of net monthly income for each additional mph above for the next 5mph.

2% of net monthly income for each additional mph above for the next 5mph.

 

On a 20K or 200K wage this would equate to:

£6.90/mph or £48.6 for first 5mph above limit.

£13.80/mph or £97.2 for each additional mph above limit for next 5mph

£27.60/mph for £194.4 each additional mph above limit for next 5mph

 

In a 30 zone you'd be looking at the following:

33mph £20.7 or £145.8 fine for 20k and 200k earners respectively.

37mph £62.6 or £437.4

45mph £241.5 or £1701

 

If anything, it should firstly be made proportional to the law-abiding status of the offender: license valid, car MOT'd and insured = normal tariff; invalid license, car out of MOT or uninsured = heavier tariff (on top of the usual tariff for these offences).

You could also just make these proportional to earnings too.

 

jb

 

---------- Post added 05-03-2015 at 16:22 ----------

 

If fines are proportional to a person's earnings then should other things be proportional.

Would a person who pays most tax because of their earnings get better healthcare than one who pays less.

It is a 2 edged sword and many would regret the day if such a system was introduced.

 

I've asked you to justify this statement already.

 

A fine is meant to be a deterrent and a punishment, by making it in line with earnings you ensure that the same deterrent applies regardless of how much you earn.

 

Perhaps we should look at who pays the most tax as a proportion of their earnings and see how fair the system looks then...

 

jb

Edited March 5, 2015 by barleycorn

[willman]

No disrespect to any fellow posters discussing this matter but neither fines or points are real deterrents.

 

The only true "deterrent" to speeding offences is restriction of speed, as i've said i have no issue with speed cameras they do their job well. Similarly appropriate traffic calming measures can help to reduce speeding in estates and near schools where it is important.

The less wealthy and the rich can always make a case for poverty or financial suffering, which is why motorists get off with paying a few quid a month for the fine after allowing it to go to court.

 

There is already a heavier tariff for other offences but they can charge them seperately, occasionally penalising the most severe. I know someone charged with failure to provide, instant 6 points but they didn't add the other 3 points for the actual speeding to it.

[purdy]

I fail to see the comparison, are jail sentences somehow more bearable the more money you have?

 

jb

 

It's quite simple. The follow up question would be what fine would you apply to someone on benefits with no savings who drove a car with no insurance, no tax and no MOT?

[barleycorn]

No disrespect to any fellow posters discussing this matter but neither fines or points are real deterrents.

Public flogging then, with the number of lashes determined by how far over the limit you are. That'll sort it

 

jb

[purdy]

No disrespect to any fellow posters discussing this matter but neither fines or points are real deterrents.

 

The only true "deterrent" to speeding offences is restriction of speed, as i've said i have no issue with speed cameras they do their job well. Similarly appropriate traffic calming measures can help to reduce speeding in estates and near schools where it is important.

The less wealthy and the rich can always make a case for poverty or financial suffering, which is why motorists get off with paying a few quid a month for the fine after allowing it to go to court.

 

There is already a heavier tariff for other offences but they can charge them seperately, occasionally penalising the most severe. I know someone charged with failure to provide, instant 6 points but they didn't add the other 3 points for the actual speeding to it.

 

 

I've never understood why it is that cars these days have engine management and cruise control that can limit top speed, but no one has thought of tailoring this into the GPS to restrict top speed in built up areas.