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.

[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 .

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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......

[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.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by smoo

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.

Sorry, I don't understand your comment.

There was a highly publicised incident several years ago, a high profile person on a nice wage had received many speed fines. The fines did not deter him from continuing to speed. The fine was too low for his income for it to hurt.

On the other side; there are people scraping by on a wage of $660 odd dollars per week, receiving $300+ fines for minor speed infringements. They can't afford to appeal the fine, can't afford to lose their licence. They're the ones that will struggle to pay the water bill, cloth their kids, put food on the table.

The guy on $3000 per week may be over committed but he's more likely to flick a fine like a night out.

I hate speeding fines, but they are required. They hurt a persons budget, at the moment they hurt some too much to the detriment of society, and others hardly feel it.

It's all about disposable income.

[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!

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Sorry, I don't understand your comment.

There was a highly publicised incident several years ago, a high profile person on a nice wage had received many speed fines. The fines did not deter him from continuing to speed. The fine was too low for his income for it to hurt.

On the other side; there are people scraping by on a wage of $660 odd dollars per week, receiving $300+ fines for minor speed infringements. They can't afford to appeal the fine, can't afford to lose their licence. They're the ones that will struggle to pay the water bill, cloth their kids, put food on the table.

The guy on $3000 per week may be over committed but he's more likely to flick a fine like a night out.

I hate speeding fines, but they are required. They hurt a persons budget, at the moment they hurt some too much to the detriment of society, and others hardly feel it.

It's all about disposable income.

Demerit points look after those who dont care about the money

The guy who is earning a lot has already paid tax that finances the family benefits that the low earner gets. He pays more for healthcare. he effectively is forced to buy health insurance, even though he is paying for the free system. There is luxury car tax.

It is a slippery slope when people are not treated equal - income and other taxes should be the only leveller.

What is next? Different prices for food? Different prices overall for everything?? If you dont have the money, just as you have to spend carefully, you have to really try to miss speeding, parking and other fines more than others. That is life.

[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.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Sorry, I don't understand your comment.

There was a highly publicised incident several years ago, a high profile person on a nice wage had received many speed fines. The fines did not deter him from continuing to speed. The fine was too low for his income for it to hurt.

On the other side; there are people scraping by on a wage of $660 odd dollars per week, receiving $300+ fines for minor speed infringements. They can't afford to appeal the fine, can't afford to lose their licence. They're the ones that will struggle to pay the water bill, cloth their kids, put food on the table.

The guy on $3000 per week may be over committed but he's more likely to flick a fine like a night out.

I hate speeding fines, but they are required. They hurt a persons budget, at the moment they hurt some too much to the detriment of society, and others hardly feel it.

It's all about disposable income.

No it's all about personal responsibility. You can't afford to do the time then don't do the crime simple as that.
There are just as many if not more examples of low income earners or dole bludgers with thousands of racked up fines with no intention of paying it back because they know they can get away with it.
You want a flat rate based on percentage of income for fines then why not income tax too. After all aren't you commies in disguise all about equality?
If faced with a 2400 speeding ticket on a 160hp bike v police Commodore she will be hammer down every time no two ways about it.

[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.

[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.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by smoo

No it's all about personal responsibility. You can't afford to do the time then don't do the crime simple as that.
......

That's correct.

There are too many people that can afford the fine and the lawyer costs getting away with unsafe driving.

This makes the system biased. People that can afford to pay keep speeding. The demerit point system has been softened, to allow for more fines & less demerit. Someone with a good lawyer can have fines/demerit points lessened or dropped.

Do the crime, pay the time (fine); only works when it hurts the person that committed the crime. A 300$ fine is not going to hurt Clive Palmer, but it's going to hurt the apprentice on $500. Both have committed the same crime. One is hurt severely, the other loses some petty cash and may have to get his chauffeur to drive everywhere.

[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.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by johnydep

That's correct.

There are too many people that can afford the fine and the lawyer costs getting away with unsafe driving.

This makes the system biased. People that can afford to pay keep speeding. The demerit point system has been softened, to allow for more fines & less demerit. Someone with a good lawyer can have fines/demerit points lessened or dropped.

Do the crime, pay the time (fine); only works when it hurts the person that committed the crime. A 300$ fine is not going to hurt Clive Palmer, but it's going to hurt the apprentice on $500. Both have committed the same crime. One is hurt severely, the other loses some petty cash and may have to get his chauffeur to drive everywhere.

And you're assuming that those on higher incomes have a generous amount of disposable cash to throw at lawyers fees.
Idealistic views held by those so far removed from reality, sounds like a lot of the ****wits I have to deal with on a daily basis... and the country's decision makers. Do us all a favor and keep it in ya head.
Or maybe sell off one of your late model cars to help pay for the hard done by apprentice who can't control his urges?

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by johnydep

That's correct.

There are too many people that can afford the fine and the lawyer costs getting away with unsafe driving.

This makes the system biased. People that can afford to pay keep speeding. The demerit point system has been softened, to allow for more fines & less demerit. Someone with a good lawyer can have fines/demerit points lessened or dropped.

Do the crime, pay the time (fine); only works when it hurts the person that committed the crime. A 300$ fine is not going to hurt Clive Palmer, but it's going to hurt the apprentice on $500. Both have committed the same crime. One is hurt severely, the other loses some petty cash and may have to get his chauffeur to drive everywhere.

And going by your reasoning a low income earner pays pittance in fines will not care & still rack up fines like the well off people you speak of.

Fines are meant to hurt & deter you from doing illegal acts.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by trublu

And going by your reasoning a low income earner pays pittance in fines will not care & still rack up fines like the well off people you speak of.

Fines are meant to hurt & deter you from doing illegal acts.

Where did you get that from?

The fine would be a percentage of a persons income. Everyone would have the same pain - Do the crime, pay the time.

A person on $500 per week is going to hurt with a 20% fine. A person on a $1000 per week is going to hurt with a 20% fine. A person on $3000 per week is going to hurt with a 20% fine. Etc.

Don't get me wrong. I hate speeding fines, especially the way the SA government has it set up at the moment - safer cars, safer roads = lower speed limits, lower tolerances, etc. However, speeding is illegal for all, and the pain needs to be equal for all. At the moment it is not.

If I received a fine by percentage it would hurt me more than the current system. So I'd hate it, but it is fair for all.

I could be wrong, but looks like the people that can afford to pay the current fine system are the ones against the percentage system. If you think it hurts you, put yourself in the shoes of someone that is just scraping through with no savings.

Yes fines are meant to hurt us. However, the current system only hurts some, while others get emboldened knowing that they can afford it.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by johnydep

Where did you get that from?

The fine would be a percentage of a persons income. Everyone would have the same pain - Do the crime, pay the time.

A person on $500 per week is going to hurt with a 20% fine. A person on a $1000 per week is going to hurt with a 20% fine. A person on $3000 per week is going to hurt with a 20% fine. Etc.

Don't get me wrong. I hate speeding fines, especially the way the SA government has it set up at the moment - safer cars, safer roads = lower speed limits, lower tolerances, etc. However, speeding is illegal for all, and the pain needs to be equal for all. At the moment it is not.

If I received a fine by percentage it would hurt me more than the current system. So I'd hate it, but it is fair for all.

I could be wrong, but looks like the people that can afford to pay the current fine system are the ones against the percentage system. If you think it hurts you, put yourself in the shoes of someone that is just scraping through with no savings.

Yes fines are meant to hurt us. However, the current system only hurts some, while others get emboldened knowing that they can afford it.

You are arguing the high income earners can afford the fines, afford for the fines to be contested in court.
I'm saying if the fines are lower for low income earners most will not care as it is affordable.
What most people here forget is that fines can be paid off under hardship conditions.
My last comment is why should I have to pay more for the same offense & low income earner pays less, that is not fair since we committed the same illegal act.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by trublu

You are arguing the high income earners can afford the fines, afford for the fines to be contested in court.
I'm saying if the fines are lower for low income earners most will not care as it is affordable.
What most people here forget is that fines can be paid off under hardship conditions.
My last comment is why should I have to pay more for the same offense & low income earner pays less, that is not fair since we committed the same illegal act.

NO. I'm 'discussing' a system that causes pain for all, not just some.

No one can "afford" a fine, though it affects people differently. Some feel the pain but can absorb it by missing out on a non-essential item. Some may have to defer an important item, or go without an essential item. Both feel the pain, it's just that some feel the initial sting when they open the envelope and pay the fine, the other feels it for many months.

Why should you "pay more for the same offence"? Because it would hurt you equally as much as the "low income earner". And after all, isn't that what fines are about - hurting people.

[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.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by johnydep

NO. I'm 'discussing' a system that causes pain for all, not just some.

No one can "afford" a fine, though it affects people differently. Some feel the pain but can absorb it by missing out on a non-essential item. Some may have to defer an important item, or go without an essential item. Both feel the pain, it's just that some feel the initial sting when they open the envelope and pay the fine, the other feels it for many months.

Why should you "pay more for the same offence"? Because it would hurt you equally as much as the "low income earner". And after all, isn't that what fines are about - hurting people.

Sorry mate it does not work that way in life, I don't mine people getting concessions for low income but if you break the law then pay the pain in fines, they will have to be more extra careful when driving.

[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.