Over the speed limit by 35 mph? Pay fine of $300K

bobman1235

Sami wrote: »

Maximum penalty for murder is life in prison in which they are automatically eligible for parole in 15 years or 6 if you're a first timer. Now that is screwed up, not the traffic fines for rich people.

:eek: That's unreal.

Kex

hearingimpared wrote: »

I am disabled and you are correct people who aren't disabled and claim to be and are somehow able to beat the gauntlet that the Social Security Administration puts one through IMO should be jailed.

Much like people who, like this speeding driver, seem to think that community laws do not apply to them, and park their car in disabled spaces so that they can rush in (on foot) to grab some stuff from the store etc. etc. ...

hearingimpared

Kex wrote: »

Much like people who, like this speeding driver, seem to think that community laws do not apply to them, and park their car in disabled spaces so that they can rush in (on foot) to grab some stuff from the store etc. etc. ...

Yeah I never got that . . . talk about entitled and lazy!

Demiurge

Sami wrote: »

Anssi is actually a former "co-worker" of mine and I was born and raised in Finland. His fines for speeding were 120k (exchange rate at the time) and they were based on his previous years income which was 12.5 million. A $150 fine for speeding for him would be pocket change but $120k would make him think twice and that's the purpose of the law when they designed it. It still would not put him in financial stress as much as $150 for a person making minimum wage and struggling to put food on the table for his family (and that doesn't make him automatically a lazy person not willing to work hard).

I understand the argument and the intention. If that's how they want to do things in Finland, and the people are fine with it, so be it. It's not really any of my business unless I'm a citizen or as a guest. Personally I disagree with it, but I do get the reasoning. It opens the door to to many other things.

Here, we're all equal in the eyes of the law and it's a part of what this country as founded on. As others pointed out...yeah, someone who is wealthy is going to have more options. That's what having money does for you. All the more incentive to do what it takes to succeed (whatever success is to you). It's also possible they did nothing but inherit the money. I'm just not concerned with that.

I've been the person struggling before and getting parking tickets and other things were certainly a huge pain in the ****. There were always things that I could cut out and things I could do to improve my finances so that such things turned from a huge pain in the **** to a minor inconvenience. I'd get an extra part time job if I had to and I'd always be on the lookout for other opportunities.

Sami wrote: »

I personally would prefer jail time for repeat offenders but the way laws are in Europe, they can't even control drunk drivers. Luckily drunk drivers are not as rampant as here in the US but at least here the penalties are harsh when one gets caught. In Finland drunk driver gets off with a slap on the wrists even for vehicular manslaughter. Maximum penalty for murder is life in prison in which they are automatically eligible for parole in 15 years or 6 if you're a first timer. Now that is screwed up, not the traffic fines for rich people.

Yeah, that's pretty screwed up.

Sami

tonyb wrote: »

Sami- it is very cool of you to offer up the vacation pad, but you may be considered rich my friend and because of that,you will be relieved of some of that wealth.

To the poor I am rich, to the rich I am poor. That pretty much makes me wealthy middle class. As such, yes, I indirectly pay some of the bills for other people I don't know. I don't have any kids in school yet I pay ISD taxes on the properties I own. I think at some levels of court here in Texas it was deemed illegal practice but I don't think that case changed anything. I can afford it and I consider it as part of the cost of owning a property. Fair? I guess as that money goes into the community where the property is. Traffic fines fair? I guess as they money goes to the community where you committed the violation. That's my view and I guess if it is socialism it's an acceptable evil but something I can live with.

Demi, I guess the disagreement comes from the fact that you don't consider fines to be deterrent. I am all for harsher non-monetary penalties as long as they punish the wealthy and poor equally. In my view jail time is equal to everyone, community service for the wealthy also if it is done right. Make the paris hiltons of the world do some real world work, I could live with that kind of punishment.

Sami

hearingimpared wrote: »

Yeah I never got that . . . talk about entitled and lazy!

Again, that brings up the question, what do you want to accomplish with the fines?

A) Collect funds for the community?
Try to decrease/stop the violations? (stopping isn't really realistic)

If it is A then the same fine to everyone is ok. You are satisfied that people are violating the law as it brings in money.

If it is B then with a set fine you have already failed. If you set it too low then for the rich it's a minor inconvenience to drop it off to their lawyers big box of tickets to take care of. If you set it too high to try to make the rich to stop, you will bankrupt the poor.

PSOVLSK

Sami wrote: »

Seriously? How are the brakes going to help him when he already has traveled the distance his brakes would have saved him? That Testarossa still isn't going to break the laws of physics.

Going 85mph on the highway is one thing but on European city where pedestrians are everywhere is another. I don't know if this in the middle of the night with no people (except police) on sight or not but he knew the punishment.

I didn't wade through all four pages so this may have already been addressed, but this is the bottom line.

Demiurge

Sami wrote: »

Demi, I guess the disagreement comes from the fact that you don't consider fines to be deterrent. I am all for harsher non-monetary penalties as long as they punish the wealthy and poor equally. In my view jail time is equal to everyone, community service for the wealthy also if it is done right. Make the paris hiltons of the world do some real world work, I could live with that kind of punishment.

That's about it. I think that if fines were supposed to be a deterrents here they'd be ridiculously high to start with. I really think they're just revenue generators and I'm OK with that. It's a starting point for tracking a pattern of bad behavior and if you don't change your ways you lose your driving privledges. Right or wrong, I don't think jail time comes into the equation until a crime is committed. When it does, it needs to be equal no matter who you are.

Unfortunately the celebs you mention usually get off lightly when they face the judges. That certainly isn't right.

Sami

Demiurge wrote: »

Right or wrong, I don't think jail time comes into the equation until a crime is committed.

Intentional, repeated speeding way over the speed limit, one could make a case it could be considered a crime. Should it be a crime only when an accident happens?

35mph on an empty highway with 70mph limit, not as serious offence as 35mph over the speed limit on 35mph urban road where pedestrians are present (as usually is the case on European cities.

Demiurge wrote: »

Unfortunately the celebs you mention usually get off lightly when they face the judges. That certainly isn't right.

Financial penalties sure are deterrent to those whose well being suffers from it. Not so much for the wealthy. If you resist an arrest, should the fines be based on your wealth? I guess that is a fair comparison as both major speeding violation and resisting an arrest are things you do knowingly, it is unlikely that you do it by accident.

Demiurge

Sami wrote: »

Financial penalties sure are deterrent to those whose well being suffers from it. Not so much for the wealthy. If you resist an arrest, should the fines be based on your wealth? I guess that is a fair comparison as both major speeding violation and resisting an arrest are things you do knowingly, it is unlikely that you do it by accident.

If you're driving your own car, how poor are you? Since rich and poor are subjective terms, I'd say we have two very different views on what being poor is.

In this country, we have the richest so-called poor in the world. Contrast what's considered poor here to what's poor in some African countries and you see the folly.

I've never been completely destitute, but I have been in situations where bills piled up (legit ones, gas, electric, rent, etc.). I always found a way to make do, even if it meant doing without things I enjoyed.

To answer your question, though...I say no for all the same reasons I don't think income should have anything to do with the size of traffic citations. Unless fines are going to be inordinately high for all, the only deterrent for me is prison time and my own well being.

mmadden28

Sami wrote: »

... I don't have any kids in school yet I pay ISD taxes on the properties I own. I think at some levels of court here in Texas it was deemed illegal practice but I don't think that case changed anything. I can afford it and I consider it as part of the cost of owning a property. Fair? I guess as that money goes into the community where the property is. ...
...

I can understand (or agree that its fair) school taxes on properties to an extent with or without kids. But I think a line should be drawn when you have multiple properties. After all only one can be considered a primary residence, and thus only one gets the bigger tax breaks (including when it gets sold). When I owned a rental property in Ocean City, NJ, a mostly vacation property town, I still had to pay school taxes in addition to any rental priveldge taxes or whatever else they could dream up. Granted many people lived there full time, but honestly, the ratio of primary residences in Ocean City to the Vacation Property owners is just way off kilter.
It would also be nice if you did end up sending your kids to a private school that you got a bit of a school tax break while they were school aged (unless of course the town provides some of the school tax money to the private schools as well.

mmadden28

Sami wrote: »

Intentional, repeated speeding way over the speed limit, one could make a case it could be considered a crime. Should it be a crime only when an accident happens?
...

No.

Just like running a red light. You might run a red light often and never crash, but that doesn't make it OK.

Or Driving home drunk all the time. Where they never had an accident in umpteen years--doesn't make it OK.

shawn474

Demiurge wrote: »

If you're driving your own car, how poor are you? Since rich and poor are subjective terms, I'd say we have two very different views on what being poor is.

Without getting into semantics of what is rich vs. what is poor, it cannot be argued that a 300 dollar fine to someone who makes 1,000 a paycheck hurts much more than someone who makes 10,000 per paycheck. And as such it is not likely as much a DETERRENT, if at all to the person who makes 10,000 a paycheck. I think Joe hit the nail on the head. People who want to drive 35 mph over the speed limit (which I can honestly say I have NEVER done) should have their license and driving privileges suspended for a period of time. That in itself will be so inconvenient that it will be a deterrent, even to the person who can afford a driver.

vmaxer

Wealthy, repeat offender

---

JAILTIME:eek:

Demiurge

shawn474 wrote: »

Without getting into semantics of what is rich vs. what is poor, it cannot be argued that a 300 dollar fine to someone who makes 1,000 a paycheck hurts much more than someone who makes 10,000 per paycheck. And as such it is not likely as much a DETERRENT, if at all to the person who makes 10,000 a paycheck. I think Joe hit the nail on the head. People who want to drive 35 mph over the speed limit (which I can honestly say I have NEVER done) should have their license and driving privileges suspended for a period of time. That in itself will be so inconvenient that it will be a deterrent, even to the person who can afford a driver.

I haven't made that argument...so?

I will say, however, if a $300 fine isn't something you can afford you probably shouldn't break the law.

shawn474

Demiurge wrote: »

I haven't made that argument...so?

I will say, however, if a $300 fine isn't something you can afford you probably shouldn't break the law.

Not saying you did and I agree with your statement; someone implied that those who have a car must not be too poor. For MOST people, a car is vital to getting to and from your job which allows people to actually make a living. In the majority of people's cases, a car is a necessity to having a job. Basing "wealth" on ownership of a car is short-sighted.

Most of us (me included) have gotten some sort of moving violation. I won't say I can't afford it, but I will say that at the time it strapped me (as it should - made me think twice about doing it again).

snow

snow wrote: »

I would be impacted less as a rich person in any country if my car and driving priveleges were taken away, as a wealthy person I simply buy another car and hire a driver, as a poor person I walk or take a cab or bus.



REGARDS SNOW

Demiurge wrote: »

Yeah...and?

Why is this a problem for you?

Wealthy people can afford to eat better food than me and more of it. I say good for them. I remember when I could pretty much only afford ramen noodles and other less than spectacular fare. I used that situation to improve my station in life. I'm not wealthy, but I'm certainly comfortable with the life I have made for myself. Aside from disability, which isn't a valid excuse for most, there's no reason others can't do the same.

Fines are not a deterrent or they'd start higher. I'm sorry that it's harder for some to afford a $200 speeding ticket, but it's not my fault. Perhaps they should make choices in their lives to make $200 easier to part with.

Fines only affect the ones who cant afford it, if you were impacted heavily enough by such a fine it may be effective as a deterrent, for some $50.00 may be enough of a deterrent to make them not want to do it again, others even 300k wouldndt have much of an impact. So your argument here....

The real deterrent is losing your driving privledges..

still wouldndt be effective as a deterrent for a wealthy person simply because the impact is less.

The problem I have is this other than equal loss of freedom nothing else is going to be a deterrent for the wealthy and even they would be less likely to be impacted as badly because life behind bars is easier if you have money .

The whole idea of fines, loss of license. loss of car, traffic school, higher insurance, jail time etc is to deter you from re offending and by doing so make the roads safer for everyone. If the punishment meted out has less of an impact on you in a negative way you will be more likely to re offend.



REGARDS SNOW

nooshinjohn

...i can't drive ..............................
.........................................
.........................
........
55!

Kex

One aspect that has not been mentioned is when the offence took place. I can totally picture the type of rural setting in Switzerland where the speed limit, in a village, would be 80km/h (50mph), rather than the more usual 50-60km/h. But was this in winter? Was there a possibility of ice on the road (Switzerland is a mountainous region, after all)? If so I can only imagine the kind of out of control projectile this car might have become at 85mph.

If anyone was caught driving at even 50mph anywhere near my house, where the limit is 25mph (with children present), I would be disgusted if they turned out to be wealthy and just got a $200 fine, despite being repeat offenders, or whatever the penalty is here. There's a Lamborghini up the street, and a Tesla too (we're the local hillbillies, I suppose) that drive by regularly, but those aren't the cars I see even moderately speeding.

Sami

Kex wrote: »

but those aren't the cars I see even moderately speeding.

People wealthy enough to own performance vehicles should have enough money (and brains) to take them to a closed circuit instead of public roads.

hearingimpared

Sami wrote: »

People wealthy enough to own performance vehicles should have enough money (and brains) to take them to a closed circuit instead of public roads.

Now you want to tell them where to drive.:p:D

Sami

hearingimpared wrote: »

Now you want to tell them where to drive.:p:D

No, I don't want to but the law does.

hearingimpared

Sami wrote: »

No, I don't want to but the law does.

That's trouble!

snow

My own personal thoughts on speeding in excess of 35 mph in most places is that constitutes reckless driving, there are im sure areas in texas for example where there is nothing ahead of you for miles of straight flat well maintained road and the odds of endangering anyone but yourself is slim but in a residential setting or heavy traffic etc should be treated no different then a DUI/DWI and off to the pokey you go. Lets say the speed in a residential area is posted at 35 well if your traveling at 70+ your a menace and a fool and should be treated as such, you simply have no rigjht to endanger others simply because your in a hurry.

Now of course in an emergency situation things are different and should viewed as such but those are few and far between, and im late for work aint one of them


Im no angel myself and have been ticketed for speeding once I believe it was for going 43mph in a 35mph zone and there has been times I have been in a hurry and traveled 75 in a 55 and didnt get caught but going 90 mph would have been reckless on my part and I should suffer the consquences for my behavior.

For those that live in areas where it's normal to speed 35 mph in excess of the speed limit feel free to flame me for my oppinion I dont live in an area where thats normal



REGARDS SNOW

tonyb

Hell, here in Chicago, if you are on I-294 in the early morning, if your doing under 80, you'll get run over. Same just before the PM rush hour. Some cops feel it is more dangerous to pull into traffic and try and stop someone at that speed. Me ? I just find a pidgeon and stay behind them, checking the on ramps as I pass them for any local law enforcement just getting on.:)