Got nailed speeding in my fcar

The regressive nature of fines is what it is. Progressive taxation (and fining) is insulting, IMHO. Other European Countries fine based on your income, so speeding fines can end up at absurd numbers. Recall the driver in SWE (maybe) that had a speeding fine of tens of thousands of Euros. Hogwash!

And, 308geo, as smart alecky as the comment may be, the truth is that speed is only a problem in the event there is an accident. No guarantees that that will occur.

CW

 

It was Finland and the driver was CEO of Nokia. Fines are based on your last years income and he had unfortunately cashed in some shares that year, leading to a massive penalty. From what I remember, he wasn't doing anything insane and the ticket was total BS.

Edit - [urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm]Here's the story[/url].

He was a director of Nokia.

His fine was 116,000Euros / $103,000US based on his income of $14MM Euros / $12.5MM US (exchange rates at the time)

His "crime"? 75 km/h (47 mph) in a 50km/h (31 mph) zone! Complete crap!

 

Brilliant. Let's apply that logic to everything.

Poor person pays $3.99 for a gallon of milk.
Richer person pays $20.99 for a gallon of milk.

After all, the percentage of income spent on milk is proportionally higher for the poor person.

The income tax argument is only valid if they tie the fine structure to the value of the car, not the income of the driver.

I'd just buy and old beater and put a turbo on it and go 90+ all day long.

Property tax is not tied to the income of the owner. Idiotic concept that tickets should be tied to the income.

Kai

 

Yes it is 10 more reduced to 6, thanks for the clarification. The extra 3mph clearly is a threat to society

 

I think I'm for real, but ontology was never my long suit.

A quick brush of the pedal will get most modern sportscars up to 100+. Sending someone to jail for that speed - as I said, without more - is idiocy. Law enforcement and the justice system have more important fish to fry, though you'd never know it.

My views on this subject are heavily influenced by my political leanings:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Paris, 30 January 1787

As for visiting The Treasure State with my out of state plates to do 100 - that's a long drive, from the East Coast, just to stick it to the man. However, I promise here, before God and everybody, that if I ever drive drive in Montana, I will do so at 103 mph, at least for a little while.

 

"So the Ferrari driver suffers the same penalty for committing the same crime. Where's the injustice?"



It's justice! If it weren't for lotteries and regressive fees and taxes, we'd have to pay for everything.

 

Arguably, Ferrari owners DO pay for everything. At least the lion's share...

The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all income taxes. I'm going to guess that a fair number of Ferrari owners are in the top 1% of earners.

No fun being in the bottom 1%, though.

CW

 

The cost of a gallon of milk is not intended to deter you from buying it.

There is a certain logic to applying a sliding scale to civil penalties (which is what speeding tickets are.)

Consider this: If BP were to be fined, say $50,000 for the oil spill, that's a minute percentage of their daily profits. Therefore, there's no incentive not to be negligent in future. However, if they're fined $50 billion, that's significant enough to motivate them to clean up their act.

If a speeding ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 10-15 mph is $600, this might be 50% of the monthly take-home pay for a blue collar worker. It's not just an incentive to avoid speeding; it is, for him, financially devastating. But a corporate CEO who takes home $10, 15, or 30 million a year? He won't even miss it!

I don't think it's fair to say that one is entitled to break the law simply because he can pay the fine. A tiered structure for civil penalties is far more just.

No, it's not "idiotic."

And it's not at all the same thing as charging the rich and the poor different prices for consumer goods.

 

It is idiotic to charge different fines based on how much money you make.

Both people commit the exact same transgression. The income is irrelevant.

You don't want to open that can of worms to determine financial penalites based on a person's income.

Never mind the fact that this violates the Constitution where the idea is of everyone being treated the same under the law.

The vast majority of speeding fines are revenue generation, not deterrent, which is the basic problem in the first place. This would be a money grab of monumental proportions. Traffic ticket revenues are a tax grab. Of course it does appeal to socialists so no surprise that it already exists in Europe.

An idiotic law like that would be all about equity, not safety.

Otherwise, the fines could also be based on your cars ability.

Soccer mom in a 10 year old mini van going 75mph in a 60mph? 10x more dangerous than a Ferrari 430 doing the same due to better handling and ability to stop.

Therefore the mom should be fined more because she did something more dangerous.

Even the Finns themselves agree that there has been no statistically relevant drop off in traffic fatalities since instituting their law. Pure cash grab. Plain and simple.


Kai

 

..."3 mph threat to society"...sometimes yes and sometimes no, dependant upon terrain, weather conditions, traffic volume, vehicle driven and skill of the operator.

 

I was hit with this in the same area about 2 years ago, 84 - 55 on HWY 17 in Tappahanock

i went to the court house and there were about 25 of us with speeding tickets (reckless driving)

here is what will happen.

they will say, if you are not fighting it stand here and go in, most of us went in. All rise, judge comes in. they called my name, cop states 84mph and I said, "i am sorry it won't happen again" Done - pay court cost and do a saturday class. No record, No ticket - court cost = $60.00

3 people showed up with a lawyer, including some dude who was prowling outside for a customer.... they proably paid court cost, laywer fees and got the same thing....
Hope this helps

nice little town

 

I do live by the rule that of I get a speeding ticket...I deserved it. I think someone complaining about getting a 20+ over ticket is really a joke. I'm sure that I'm going to be looked at as an ****** here but I think if you get caught speeding pay your fine and learn your lesson. Sure fight it all you want but take what you get.

 

Stupid logic.

 

You have got to be kidding me. In the same thread you actually post that LE should have even handed application for everyone. Then just a few post later you say people should be treated differently by their driving ability and the type of car they drive. You even say you have been a long time proponent and you save the best for last. LEO's are to lazy to enforce different standards to the special drivers like you I guess. Do you even comprehend how absolutely arrogant? The best part is you resorted to name calling in a response to Jerry and calling other drivers morons. You seriously need to read your own double talk.

 

If the idea of the Constitution is of everyone "being treated the same," shouldn't civil penalties apply as a percentage of one's wealth? Otherwise, the rich and the poor are not being treated equally!

If you know a tort lawyer, discuss this idea with him. The amount of a settlement when one sues a giant corporation is designed to ensure that the corporation is sufficiently "hurt" financially to provide a deterrent.

Or perhaps you believe that it's perfectly fair for the rich to speed with de facto impunity because the fines mean nothing to them, while a single $300 ticket can be financially catastrophic to a poor family.

Is that "equal treatment" under the law? Hardly.

 

Maybe the problem is we're too many pages in to this thread, but did you read it? He's not complaining about the ticket or the fine, it's the accompanying criminal record that comes with 20+ in VA, for what was probably an innocuous event. (Of course we don't know the full details though.)

 

Since you and I just disagree (and have disagreed previously elsewhere in the past), there's obviously no point in even arguing with you.

However, for the sake of entertainment...

Yes, law enforcement should be even handed. What I mean, and I thought it was crystal clear from my post (but, FOR YOU I will clarify), if an out of state driver gets nicked for 10 over, the in-state driver should also get nicked. Shouldn't be playing favorites based on where you live. That's how the current enforcement SHOULD BE. Got it?

Saying those who have different skills or tools and under different conditions isn't in conflict with what I wrote previously. First, that's the IDEAL. Second, if legislation approves such a plan, then you would have to meet X, Y and Z conditions. In essence, you go out and earn yourself a "Super License". So, this is a pay to play environment. Just as, say, driving on a toll road is. You have to have the ability to acquire and interest in acquiring the license required (denoted by a specially-colored license plate), acquiring a vehicle with the appropriate rating and adhering to the rating of the road you're on, then this is merely a certification process. Certification allows people to do things because it certifies them to do it. Do tell how THAT's in conflict? And, even if in some altered universe this is even possible, this is only my ideal way of dealing with it, as opposed to the existing circus on the roads we have today. But, perhaps, that's something that went right over your head?

What I said, sir, (and I'm just making the suggestion here that you might actually want to read what I posted more carefully next time) was that the "DMVs and POLITICIANS" are likely too lazy to make such a radical reform. Or gutless, so they won't even propose it. Or, it's too expensive to implement. There are plenty of reasons why my suggestion isn't likely to happen. I didn't say LEOs were too lazy to enforce it. What I said was that it was likely a "huge PITA for them to enforce." But, I specifically excluded them from my comment that the politicians and DMVs are lazy. So, you can't read...and I'm arrogant? Next time, get your facts straight. And, IIRC, you're LE or ex-LE. I would think that small things are important.

Let's consider what Annunaki said. Essentially, from WAY across the country, he says, "take it like a man and don't try to weasel out of it." Well, my good friend in GA, in NoVA they are freaking maniacs when it comes to speeding in Fairfax County, and unless either of you have experienced it (which is unlikely), I suggest you are uninformed. You are (just as Annunaki is), of course, entitled to your opinion. However, when a man can lose his ability to earn a living (as mentioned, it's possible someone can lose their clearance as a result of this, and, thus, lose their job), is that just? Is that fair? Over SPEEDING? Are you serious, or are you just pulling our legs? I mentioned my neighbor who will potentially lose his business that employs 150 people over this DUI. I guess the whole nightmare, civil suit and EVERYTHING else this man must endure isn't enough for you, though. Is it? I do think that's extreme, and going too far. And, if you think otherwise, we are at an impasse. However, in probably most other jurisdictions, I don't think you'd see the draconian results as you do in NoVA. So, what justifies that in your mind? I moved from VA, because I don't want to support such absurdities. Perhaps YOU should move there? And, I'm guessing Annunaki can defend himself if he wanted to. What's YOUR interest in defending his posts?

And, for the grand finale, I called other drivers "morons". This got me laughing (and, sincerely, THANKS for that). As if everyone hasn't probably called another driver a moron at least once a day. Oh, the horror! Have you ever heard of the Bell Curve? Which means if you take the median point, half are above AND half are BELOW. So, while my pseudo-attempt at some humor in that post didn't go over with you (my bad), it's the truth. Take your average driver. Half are better. And, half are worse. By definition. Although, I admit to taking a small liberty and using median and average interchangeably. Again, my bad. But, there you have it. I was just back in DC, and I can assure you, sir, that DC-metro drivers are, indeed, MORONS. Yes, all caps MORONS. Frankly, I don't know how they tie their own shoe laces, let alone operate heavy machinery. But, perhaps all the drivers where you are are aces. Happy for you, but I'll wager that that's not the experience of most drivers.

Taking my posts out of context and juxtaposing them for effect and trying to spin them into something they weren't was pretty fun, though. Thanks. Have a nice day.

CW

 

Look, we can disagree here, but if you don't think that what I wrote is right, present a well-reasoned response.

I have never called any individual any names in this thread.

I think that it's unfair to impose a flat fine for everyone because the consequence is that the rich go essentially unpunished with a fine which, for them, amounts to a pittance; while the poor suffer disproportionately by paying a fine for the same amount.

Explain why you think the current system is more fair. Maybe, if you present your point of view in as rational a way as I did, I might change my mind.

But calling my logic "stupid" isn't logic at all.

Let's try to be civil - and present a reasoned argument - even when we disagree, all right?

 

Cry me a river. Is it "fair" that the "rich" pay for virtually everything, while 50% of this country doesn't pay income taxes? Life's injustices.

CW

 

.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

But, you're readin' it.

CW

 

I did read it. My point is if you get caught speeding and can't deal win the results then don't do it. I have been to Virginia and know what happens when you get caught. You do the crime do the time.

 

So, taking a breadwinner's ability to win bread is ... reasonable and just?

ESPECIALLY when in other jurisdictions high rates of speed are not prima facie evidence of reckless driving?

Really? Hmmm....

CW

 

I wasn't being sarcastic, I do love this thread

 

It's a humdinger, alright!

Cheers,

CW