we are all such great drivers, so shouldn’t apply to any o us but for the others.. Should traffic fine be proportional to income?

TRAFFIC fines in Australia should be proportional to how much an offender earns, a think tank is proposing.

Adopting a system like one in Finland, which considers incomes, would be fairer and provide modest revenue increases in most states, The Australia Institute says in a new report.

Researchers who produced “Finland’s fine example” argue the value of Australian fines do not take into account the capacity of the driver to pay.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT INCOME-BASED TRAFFIC FINES? TELL US IN THE COMMENTS FIELD BELOW

“The impact of a fine on low-income earners can be very hard, leading to financial stress or even to jail time,” they write.

The institute cites an example of a 22-year-old Aboriginal woman who died in custody after being unable to pay $1000 in fines in Western Australia.

Finland uses a “day fine” model, which considers the monthly income of drivers, as well as the number of dependants they have.

In Finland the lowest income earners nabbed doing less than 10km/h over the speed limit would pay about $33, while the highest income would pay about $295.

Australians would be fined around $130 for such an offence, depending on the state.

The paper does note downsides to the Finnish system, including claims of “revenue raising”.

“Although our analysis … shows that changes in some states are modest and in high-fine states like South Australia, less revenue may be collected,” the institute says.

It also recognises some drivers may have high degrees of wealth yet very little disposable income.

But it concludes Australia’s system leaves billionaires and pensioners effectively facing two punishments for the same crime.

i think they are a good system. and funnily enough as a co-incidence my sis just posted this.

nice try.

Should traffic fine be proportional to income?

it should be proportional to the traffic hazard

ie

speeding
tailgating
failure to give way

but they all have spectrum’s

ie someone doing 2 km over the limit vs 100km over the limit

ChrispenEvan said:

i think they are a good system. and funnily enough as a co-incidence my sis just posted this.

!https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/11173338_1029509560522980_6989810990107507257_n.png?oh=bb72adb74579cb08f5ff1f28b4c23a0b&oe=5742731D

nice try.

hoax?

yes. i doubt the afp are into traffic fines.

if Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan. is going to waste his time with sending people warnings about their driving… maybe the AFP is catching up with their paperwork.. :)

perhaps they should offer a system where they financially reward good drivers… three years without an infringement – have some movie passes… five years without an infringement – free rego for the year

Over 1000 Australians are killed in vehicular collisions each year. Excessive speed is a causative factor in 46% of these. Alcohol, fatigue, failure to wear seatbelts are the next three major factors.

The effort to eliminate this kind of law breaking, then, are among the most important work the police ever do. No one dies from marijuana possession, and it is exceedingly rare for anyone to be killed as a result of a burglary in Australia. Probably from a utilitarian perspective all the police currently involved in the prohibition of marijuana or burglary cases should be assigned to the policing of the speed limit.

With regard to balancing the disincentives with incentives, I’m rather of the view that all of the revenue raised by traffic offences in a given year should be distributed evenly among all license holders who did not incur an infraction in that year. Depending on your state, this would result in around an annual cheque of around $400 for the non-offenders.

This would have two effects:
a) it would decouple the police’s budget from revenue, meaning they could pursue evidence based prevention rather than having to maximise their revenue from fines
b) it would make it clear that it was US (the police and law abiding citizens) against them (the law breakers who risk our lives to save a few minutes of travel time), rather than all drivers versus the cops.

Sounds like a good idea, but I see it being very labour-intensive and time consuming to look up each offender’s details and calculate the fine. One size fits all is a lot quicker and cheaper. In Australia we would also have the particular problem that tax records (which I assume is what they’d use to measure income) are the property of the federal government while the states handle things like traffic infringements; not sure if the federal government is allowed to share records for this purpose.

dv said:

Over 1000 Australians are killed in vehicular collisions each year. Excessive speed is a causative factor in 46% of these.

(snip)

Probably from a utilitarian perspective all the police currently involved in the prohibition of marijuana or burglary cases should be assigned to the policing of the speed limit.

FWIW excessive speed and speed limits are very different things.
The total number of people who have died from speeding sits at zero, the number of people that have died from excess speed is in the millions.

To answer the question here about hitting people up for more money – No.
Just use the points system more effectively. The current system is quite poorly thought out and punishes lower income people far more than ones with a good income.

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW excessive speed and speed limits are very different things.
The total number of people who have died from speeding sits at zero, the number of people that have died from excess speed is in the millions.

Reasonable point

dv said:

Over 1000 Australians are killed in vehicular collisions each year. Excessive speed is a causative factor in 46% of these. Alcohol, fatigue, failure to wear seatbelts are the next three major factors.

The effort to eliminate this kind of law breaking, then, are among the most important work the police ever do. No one dies from marijuana possession, and it is exceedingly rare for anyone to be killed as a result of a burglary in Australia. Probably from a utilitarian perspective all the police currently involved in the prohibition of marijuana or burglary cases should be assigned to the policing of the speed limit.

With regard to balancing the disincentives with incentives, I’m rather of the view that all of the revenue raised by traffic offences in a given year should be distributed evenly among all license holders who did not incur an infraction in that year. Depending on your state, this would result in around an annual cheque of around $400 for the non-offenders.

This would have two effects:
a) it would decouple the police’s budget from revenue, meaning they could pursue evidence based prevention rather than having to maximise their revenue from fines
b) it would make it clear that it was US (the police and law abiding citizens) against them (the law breakers who risk our lives to save a few minutes of travel time), rather than all drivers versus the cops.

Last time I renewed my 10 year licence (Victoria) a couple of years ago, it was discounted because I had no infringements over a certain period of time (3 years). I can’t remember what the period of time was. But as I haven’t had any ever since I started licensed driving in 1977, I guess I deserved it anyway. Mr buffy thinks that has been abandoned as a strategy now.

dv said:

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW excessive speed and speed limits are very different things.
The total number of people who have died from speeding sits at zero, the number of people that have died from excess speed is in the millions.

Reasonable point

hmmm…. not sure about that. We are talking about average drivers here

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW excessive speed and speed limits are very different things.
The total number of people who have died from speeding sits at zero, the number of people that have died from excess speed is in the millions.

Define excess speed

Still get a discount in the premier state iirc.

Arts said:

dv said:

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW excessive speed and speed limits are very different things.
The total number of people who have died from speeding sits at zero, the number of people that have died from excess speed is in the millions.

Reasonable point

hmmm…. not sure about that. We are talking about average drivers here

I think an evidence-based approach would be better which would probably involve some tolerance.

dv said:

Arts said:

dv said:

Reasonable point

hmmm…. not sure about that. We are talking about average drivers here

I think an evidence-based approach would be better which would probably involve some tolerance.

has he 40ms /hour in school zones made a difference in kids getting squished? 50km/h in suburban areas?

Ooh, in Vic it’s now done as an incentive for the young invincible ones:

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licences/demerit-points-and-offences/demerit-points/driver-reward-scheme

exceeding the speed limit by a small amount may not be overly dangerous if the speed limit is at overly low

Ian said:

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW excessive speed and speed limits are very different things.
The total number of people who have died from speeding sits at zero, the number of people that have died from excess speed is in the millions.

Define excess speed

Speed that is excessive for the conditions.
For example the main highway near my place is quite safe for me to do 150 km/h most of the time, yet under poor conditions I might not want to go faster than about half that.

Spiny Norman said:

Ian said:

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW excessive speed and speed limits are very different things.
The total number of people who have died from speeding sits at zero, the number of people that have died from excess speed is in the millions.

Define excess speed

Speed that is excessive for the conditions.
For example the main highway near my place is quite safe for me to do 150 km/h most of the time, yet under poor conditions I might not want to go faster than about half that.

So more than just speed

Spiny Norman said:

Ian said:

Spiny Norman said:

FWIW excessive speed and speed limits are very different things.
The total number of people who have died from speeding sits at zero, the number of people that have died from excess speed is in the millions.

Define excess speed

Speed that is excessive for the conditions.
For example the main highway near my place is quite safe for me to do 150 km/h most of the time, yet under poor conditions I might not want to go faster than about half that.

Should speed limits be imposed on sharp bends ie 50 instead of 100?

How does not seeing around a bend effect conditions?

Don’t approve. People without money to pay traffic fines already get out of paying them several ways, such as by claiming inability to pay.

High income already gets hit multiple ways.
1. Higher income to tax
2. Higher tax bracket
3. More expenditure is taxed again
4. Any money left over after immediate expenses (ie savings) is taxed again each and every year until nothing (CPI adjusted) is left.

mollwollfumble said:

Don’t approve. People without money to pay traffic fines already get out of paying them several ways, such as by claiming inability to pay.

Do they?

“The institute cites an example of a 22-year-old Aboriginal woman who died in custody after being unable to pay $1000 in fines in Western Australia.”

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Don’t approve. People without money to pay traffic fines already get out of paying them several ways, such as by claiming inability to pay.

Do they?

“The institute cites an example of a 22-year-old Aboriginal woman who died in custody after being unable to pay $1000 in fines in Western Australia.”

There should be no deaths in custody.

there was an aborigine that was cooked alive in the back of a prison van travelling between prisons

the air con packed up in the back, he tried alerting the guards but they either couldnt give a fuck or just thought it was a scam – he was banging on the cab – they had no way of communicating

another one bites the dust – the sentence they got was a slap on the wrist

wookiemeister said:

there was an aborigine that was cooked alive in the back of a prison van travelling between prisons

the air con packed up in the back, he tried alerting the guards but they either couldnt give a fuck or just thought it was a scam – he was banging on the cab – they had no way of communicating

another one bites the dust – the sentence they got was a slap on the wrist

I remember that story

No fines, just disqualify times.

bob(from black rock) said:

No fines, just disqualify times.

A lot of fines are revenue

useless speeding fines on the Hume going 2 km over

there’s a difference between extremes

someone doing a 100 in a sixty zone deserves some time off

Wont work, business owners don’t get a wage and their incomes are manipulated by accountants. What happens when a millionaire gets a lower fine than a truckdriver. Do we employ thousands of number crunchers to means test every person that get done for speeding.

headsie said:

Wont work, business owners don’t get a wage and their incomes are manipulated by accountants. What happens when a millionaire gets a lower fine than a truckdriver. Do we employ thousands of number crunchers to means test every person that get done for speeding.

You could base it on the value of the vehicle being driven, rather than income.

The person who is punished with a fine is responsible for giving accurate information concerning their income. Lying about one’s income (Finnish: sakkovilppi, Swedish: bötesfusk) is a crime punishable with a fine or up to three months in prison. The police can, however, access the taxation data of Finnish citizens and permanent residents via a real-time datalink, so the chance of lying successfully is minor. There is no maximum day-fine, which may lead to considerably high fines for high-income persons. For example, in 2001, a Finnish businessman with a yearly income of 10 million euros, received a relatively mild punishment of six day-fines, amounting €26,000, for driving though a red traffic light. In 2009 a businessman was fined €112,000 for travelling at 82 kilometres per hour in an area with a speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour. As speeding is punished with a petty fine if the offender is exceeding the speed limit by up to 20 km/h, but with a day-fine if exceeding the limit by 21 km/h or more, the monetary amount of the fine can increase from €115 to over €100,000 although the actual change in speed is less than 1 km/h. This has given rise to some criticism, most vividly expressed by a Finnish member of parliament, avid motorist Klaus Bremer and other MPs of right-wing parties

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

The Rev Dodgson said:

headsie said:

Wont work, business owners don’t get a wage and their incomes are manipulated by accountants. What happens when a millionaire gets a lower fine than a truckdriver. Do we employ thousands of number crunchers to means test every person that get done for speeding.

You could base it on the value of the vehicle being driven, rather than income.

What about work vehicles, some people drive or require expensive vehicles for work.

The Rev Dodgson said:

headsie said:

Wont work, business owners don’t get a wage and their incomes are manipulated by accountants. What happens when a millionaire gets a lower fine than a truckdriver. Do we employ thousands of number crunchers to means test every person that get done for speeding.

You could base it on the value of the vehicle being driven, rather than income.

Or the potential damage your particular vehicle might cause…….

they do work. just do a search on day fines and one will see the various countries that have them, there effectiveness and safeguards for making people be honest about their income. to say they wont work is ignoring the evidence.

bring back the whip

The Rev Dodgson said:

headsie said:

Wont work, business owners don’t get a wage and their incomes are manipulated by accountants. What happens when a millionaire gets a lower fine than a truckdriver. Do we employ thousands of number crunchers to means test every person that get done for speeding.

You could base it on the value of the vehicle being driven, rather than income.

Won’t always work. I used to know a Porsche owner who also had a beaten shit-box for incursions into the inner city.
And there are millionaires who drive average priced vehicles because they’re working on their next million.

How much would those Googlecars be fined?

How can we keep the IEcars in the left lane?

dv said:

Over 1000 Australians are killed in vehicular collisions each year. Excessive speed is a causative factor in 46% of these. Alcohol, fatigue, failure to wear seatbelts are the next three major factors.

The effort to eliminate this kind of law breaking, then, are among the most important work the police ever do. No one dies from marijuana possession, and it is exceedingly rare for anyone to be killed as a result of a burglary in Australia. Probably from a utilitarian perspective all the police currently involved in the prohibition of marijuana or burglary cases should be assigned to the policing of the speed limit.

With regard to balancing the disincentives with incentives, I’m rather of the view that all of the revenue raised by traffic offences in a given year should be distributed evenly among all license holders who did not incur an infraction in that year. Depending on your state, this would result in around an annual cheque of around $400 for the non-offenders.

This would have two effects:
a) it would decouple the police’s budget from revenue, meaning they could pursue evidence based prevention rather than having to maximise their revenue from fines
b) it would make it clear that it was US (the police and law abiding citizens) against them (the law breakers who risk our lives to save a few minutes of travel time), rather than all drivers versus the cops.

Really good idea. I like it.