And you thought our speeding fines are bad!

[GasoLane]

From BBC.com

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27774455

Magistrate court fines 'may rise 300%' under new plans"
Maximum fines imposed by magistrates are set to rise dramatically under new proposals for England and Wales.

The highest maximum limits, for offences including motorway speeding, could increase from £2,500 (AU $4500) to £10,000 (AU $18,100)

[johnydep]

Making fines a percentage of your income would be fairer to all, rather than a set fine which hurts low income earners.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Making fines a percentage of your income would be fairer to all, rather than a set fine which hurts low income earners.

Yep completely justified and the penalty/blow would actually be equal to all offenders.

It's pretty unfair to punish some people for speeding more than others ie the current flat rate. $300 is either the familys weekly dinner budget, or some blokes johnny blue. I know which bloke would have more to lose if he ever got the urge to speed...that's the whole concept behind speeding fines and how they justify them in the first place.. but with the flat rate it doesn't affect some people at all, some people can afford an occasional joy ride and are more likely to naturally drive with less care in regards to getting caught speeding.

You meet some of the low income earners who can't actually afford to speed. If everyone was in the same situation as them no one would actually speed!

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Making fines a percentage of your income would be fairer to all, rather than a set fine which hurts low income earners.

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Yep completely justified and the penalty/blow would actually be equal to all offenders.

But then you get Fred dork on the dole with his old Commodore, who will go as fast as he likes knowing that the system will feel sorry for him and not fine him much.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

But then you get Fred dork on the dole with his old Commodore, who will go as fast as he likes knowing that the system will feel sorry for him and not fine him much.

I don't agree.

A percentage system would be fairer because everyone gets fined, according to their income. Someone on unemployment benefits still has to pay a fine.

Say the fine is 20% of a monthly wage (guestimates):

Unemployed - $700 = $140 fine
Average low wage - $2400 = $480
Average wage - $4400 = $880
High wage - $12000 = $2400

That's fairer than hitting all with a $375 fine (or whatever it is).

[smoo]

Originally Posted by johnydep

I don't agree.

A percentage system would be fairer because everyone gets fined, according to their income. Someone on unemployment benefits still has to pay a fine.

Say the fine is 20% of a monthly wage (guestimates):

Unemployed - $700 = $140 fine
Average low wage - $2400 = $480
Average wage - $4400 = $880
High wage - $12000 = $2400

That's fairer than hitting all with a $375 fine (or whatever it is).

Yeah because personal responsibility is a foreign concept these days.
Should the same also apply for income tax...
All things aren't made or born equal, get over it.

[JC]

High income usually means high expenses, which may mean low non-essential expenditure. You may be surprised to learn that "low" income earners may in fact have more disposable income than "high" earners. It's like a trade in for your car - it's not what the actual trade in is, it's the changeover......

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Yep completely justified and the penalty/blow would actually be equal to all offenders.

It's pretty unfair to punish some people for speeding more than others ie the current flat rate. $300 is either the familys weekly dinner budget, or some blokes johnny blue. I know which bloke would have more to lose if he ever got the urge to speed...that's the whole concept behind speeding fines and how they justify them in the first place.. but with the flat rate it doesn't affect some people at all, some people can afford an occasional joy ride and are more likely to naturally drive with less care in regards to getting caught speeding.

You meet some of the low income earners who can't actually afford to speed. If everyone was in the same situation as them no one would actually speed!

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by JC

High income usually means high expenses, which may mean low non-essential expenditure. You may be surprised to learn that "low" income earners may in fact have more disposable income than "high" earners. It's like a trade in for your car - it's not what the actual trade in is, it's the changeover......

It's a life choice. Want that $100,000 BMW, it's yours. Want that 2 mill $ home, it's yours. Want a bottle of Grange, here it is. Want a $300 dollar restaurant dinner twice a week, lets go. But when the speeding fine for 6 KM/H over comes in at $1200 pay it and shut up. I have, it hurts but..

Whereas the person on $660 per week paying the rent, the car expenses, medical insurance, the water, gas & electricity bills, etc is going to struggle to pay the existing fine system. In SA they just went up again.

A fine system in percentage terms hurts everyone, but it's fairer than the system we have now that hurts the poorer people in society to an unfair amount.

Has anyone looked at the stats - drivers losing their licence and still driving. It's quite high in SA. The State government had to waive millions of dollars in unpaid fines; which I disagree with but is most likely caused by people that just do not have the money, or a licence to take way or any assets to confiscate.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Has anyone looked at the stats - drivers losing their licence and still driving. It's quite high in SA. The State government had to waive millions of dollars in unpaid fines; which I disagree with but is most likely caused by people that just do not have the money, or a licence to take way or any assets to confiscate.

In Victoria if you have a massive amount of fines you've been dodging, when you go onto payment plan and agree to start paying they will wipe off a fairly large amount of $$$ from it.

My supervisor had around $30,000 in unpaid driving offense fines, when he went onto payment plan right off the bat they wiped off a few thousand $$$ when he started paying.

[Itsme]

Won't effect on the spot fines unless you consider taking it to court & I always thought our fines penalties have always been considered & set by magistrates.

[mik]

Even then ours are pretty wimpy by comparison................. im told .

[simon varley]

but at least in England there is a reasonable tolerance imposed before you get done for speeding. Ususally it's 10% + 2 according to the ACPO guidelines.

[tweeked]

Yeah but low income earners driver more dangerous cars that are not maintained properly. High income earners cars are safe to drive well over the speed limit, so we need to fine low income earners more as a proportion of their earnings.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
OK it would have been fun to post that and watch the result, but it is only Monday so I will add a lol and admit to only joking......

[xisled]

Fines based on income is a bad idea.

Excluding all on the spot fines, people with a high income will find people with low income to dump the fines on and basically pay less to get out of the fine, while the low income earner cops the fine and gets paid.

in Victoria, if you get done by a speed camera, you can nominate a driver. This is used if another person was driving your car.

Unemployed - $700 = $140 fine - High Wage, pays Low income unemployed $1000 plus pays $140 fine. High income does not lose points but saves $1260.
Average low wage - $2400 = $480
Average wage - $4400 = $880
High wage - $12000 = $2400

The system will be abused by the rich and the poor will suffer with loose of licence etc.

[Outbackjack]

Talking of speeding....

http://www.news.com.au/technology/de...-1226963566269

Bloody good add I reckon.

[FPV GTHO]

I can see the intention, but it's a bit like giving someone with terminal cancer 6 months jail for first degree murder.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

I can see the intention, but it's a bit like giving someone with terminal cancer 6 months jail for first degree murder.

Nothing like it. Can not even be put in the same category or sentence as a speeding fine.

[Xauterus]

What do you do when a person has his own business and declares a minimal income due to good accounting? Will he be considered a low income earner?

You know what they say " Everyone is innocent until they run out of money"

High fines for high income earners will mean they just make the legal profession richer.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Xauterus

What do you do when a person has his own business and declares a minimal income due to good accounting? Will he be considered a low income earner?

You know what they say " Everyone is innocent until they run out of money"

High fines for high income earners will mean they just make the legal profession richer.

Business's already get an advantage - A business owner will not lose demerit points, by not putting a name to the fine.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Business's already get an advantage - A business owner will not lose demerit points, by not putting a name to the fine.

Business's HAVE to name the driver. It's the driver that gets fined, not the company.

[JC]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Business's HAVE to name the driver. It's the driver that gets fined, not the company.

In the ACT, if the business doesn't name the person driving, the fine is 5 times less $120. So for speeding less than 15km/h, the usual fine is $203, but if it's by camera and the driver is not identified and it is a business registered car, the fine is (5 x 203) - 120 = $895.

If the fine is issued to the registered owner and that is a person, not a corporation, then the onus is on that person to declare the driver of the vehicle or the owner cops the fine. Too many unpaid fines and the cancel your rego, then your license, or vice versa if you don't have a car registered in your name.....

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Business's already get an advantage - A business owner will not lose demerit points, by not putting a name to the fine.

This is no longer the case in all state as far as I know, driver has to be identified.

Your wealth based fine system would not work, what about a partner who is not the primary income earner, they get a small fine but the household income could be huge? Or are you going to base it on household income?

Demerit points tend to impact the wealthy to the same extent as the non-wealthy.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Cashie

This is no longer the case in all state as far as I know, driver has to be identified.

.

Not in SA. The option is given - nominate driver and pay standard fine, or pay an extra $300 on top of the fine with no driver nominated.

[Franco Cozzo]

^ Pretty sure in Victoria they aren't, get no demerrit points but pay a larger fine.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

^ Pretty sure in Victoria they aren't, get no demerrit points but pay a larger fine.

You are sort of right, they have to nominate. If they dont they get an 800 odd dollar fine on top of the original fine. If they are found to be doing this deliberately, the fine goes to $8500

So not many businesses would cop that just to avoid points

[blackf6]

Now I understand why humans are trying to recreate life on another planet.

[johnydep]

$100 million in unpaid fines waived by the State Government and $265 million outstanding

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1226831619061

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by johnydep

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-1226831619061

How does this support your argument? If the fines aren't getting paid how is charging the wealthy more going to change it?

Oh, and out if interest, do you assess yourself in the wealthy bracket who should be paying more for fines..?

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Cashie

How does this support your argument? If the fines aren't getting paid how is charging the wealthy more going to change it?

Oh, and out if interest, do you assess yourself in the wealthy bracket who should be paying more for fines..?

Some people are cheating the system, breaking laws and not paying. Others are struggling and making a decision on what to pay.

I believe that all those people should have paid their fine, and the government and police should have followed up and retrieved the money. However, decisions were made not to, most likely due to an election no far off.

This is unfair to all those that paid their fines. So is having to pay a fine that may be 50% of their weekly wage, but it's ok for another person to pay a fine that is 5% of their weekly wage? Fines are meant to be a deterrent, at the moment it is not for all. The ones it hurt the least are the most vocal, for a reason. They speed.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Why the anger?

[Cashie]

Originally Posted by johnydep

You have your opinion, I have mine. Why the anger?

Yes we do, and that's healthy.
Anger, I've got no anger on the topic, any fine I've ever received I've always paid, even when I first started working 30 years ago on $50 a week. Oh and "touch wood" I haven't had a speeding fine for many years.

I am just surprised you think factoring fines to a persons income is going to change anything. People who habitually break the law generally have no respect of the law and any amount of fines will make zero difference, as you have proven with the media links you've posted.
The police don't police unpaid fines because they don't have the resources to do it. If you read the unpaid fine link you posted, it appears the SA police are setting up a task force to better police unpaid fines.
Remember these same drivers lose their licences in court and continue to drive regardless, I think the problem is far larger than dollars and cents.