£180,000 speding fine . . .

[Hatter The Mad]

they are not working as a deterrent, even for those less well off.

And perhaps because the deterrent isn't enough.

Because like goods and services, fines are a fact of life.

This still doesn't make sense. You cannot compare them. This is an informal fallacy: just because A is B and A is C doesn't make C a B.

 

[Kenai]

Fines are a poor detterant. Points/demerit system/whatever is far better and removes the earnings issue altogether.

Very true but surely whilst we are stuck with fines as a deterrent for many things, surely it is better that they provide an equal deterrent for whoever may wish to commit an offence, rather than gradually becoming more and more ignorable the richer you are?

 

[Hatter The Mad]

because points do the job better.

I never argued with that.

 

[Spie]

And perhaps because the deterrent isn't enough.

Having accepted that motoring offence fines are not a deterrent across all income groups, would you like to see a blanket increase in these fines?

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why has this forum started using terms like 'fallacy' and 'strawman' all the time since Dolph decided to put them in every post he makes in SC

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Why has this forum started using terms like 'fallacy' and 'strawman' all the time since Dolph decided to put them in every post he makes in SC

SC?

The Straw Man is a well known notion. The word 'fallacy' is also well known. I did Computer Science at University, so I'm acutely aware of logic and illogic, which is why I toss around labels like 'informal fallacy'. (For your interest: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ - handy in debates).

Having accepted that motoring offence fines are not a deterrent across all income groups, would you like to see a blanket increase in these fines?

I'm not sure - I'll have to give more thought as to what I would like as a whole system (specific to deterring speeding).



Edit: Oh, speakers corner.

 

[Fr0dders]

once you get past 25mph over the limt we have exactly the same system here. Once your speeding gets you into trouble with the magistrates your fine is means tested.

I had to fill out a form declaring my earnings, my mortgage, how many people there were in the hosehold etc..

I was caught at 109, but was only fined £70 as it was means tested. The 28 day ban was a deterrant not to do it again.

Only difference is in this country is there is a ceiling to the maximum penality. Obviously in switzerland where they ban motorsport, and tried to ban the car as well, it comes as no suprise they dont have this limit.

 

[Fr0dders]

SC?

The Straw Man is a well known notion. The word 'fallacy' is also well known. I did Computer Science at University, so I'm acutely aware of logic and illogic.

ohhh get you.

Sorry but that statement just comes across as arrogant and eliteist.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Sorry but that statement just comes across as arrogant and eliteist.

Well, sorry about that. I didn't mean to. But I took Fox's blanket statement to be ignorant, and thought I should explain my credentials because I do know what I'm talking about:

Why has this forum started using terms like 'fallacy' and 'strawman' all the time since Dolph decided to put them in every post he makes in SC

 

[Glaucus]

Because like goods and services, fines are a fact of life. I do not know a single person who hasn't been fined for a motoring offence, so clearly they are not working as a deterrent, even for those less well off.

They are perfectly avoidable. It is not goods or services and are not comparable. You should now I'm against the tax bans and all the other fasts to fleece the rich. But these are not one of them. Motoring fines are not income linked as we have points.

Maybe if it was means tested the fines would work. I bet 100% of people in here don't give a second thought about the fine, but do worry about the points.

So let's stop kidding ourselves that means tested fines are equitable. It's just another way for Governments to raise cash from easy targets. As motorists you should all be concerned about that.

Motorists aren't means tested, but many fines are. They are a deterrent. which means they have to have an impact on the person you are fining. A £60 fine has no barring on most people.

Oh and I do agree we are an easy target for the government and it is a concern. But that does not mean, Means tested fines are stupid and can be compared to goods and services.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I'm entirely aware of what it is, I just find it a bit interesting that up until about a month or so ago it had probably never been used by anyone in Motors ever, now its all over threads

 

[Kenai]

Having accepted that motoring offence fines are not a deterrent across all income groups, would you like to see a blanket increase in these fines?

Given that in the case of speeding the points on your license present far more of a deterrent to speeding than a fine does, it would need to go so high to also cause a deterrent as to be ludicrous no matter who recieved it, even if means tested, so I think a better solution would be to remove the fine aspect altogether (this will of course never happen though, too much money in it) and perhaps increase the number of points you get (4 points instead of 3 points so 3 offences gets you banned instead of 4 for example) if you wanted to increase the deterrent.

In areas where the deterrent is solely the fine then unless a competely different type of deterrent can be established that is more balanced, then a means tested fine is a better solution than flat rate fines that have varying impact and thus deterrent depending on how rich you are. Quite simply being rich should be no excuse to be able to flaunt laws easier, so unless fines can be replaced, means tested is better than flat rate.

 

[Spie]

They are perfectly avoidable. It is not goods or services and are not comparable. You should now I'm against the tax bans and all the other fasts to fleece the rich. But these are not one of them. Motoring fines are not income linked as we have points.

Maybe if it was means tested the fines would work. I bet 100% of people in here don't give a second thought about the fine, but do worry about the points.

Motorists aren't means tested, but many fines are. They are a deterrent. which means they have to have an impact on the person you are fining. A £60 fine has no barring on most people.

Oh and I do agree we are an easy target for the government and it is a concern. But that does not mean, Means tested fines are stupid and can be compared to goods and services.

I disagree. In the real world most people would expect to get a speeding or parking fine every few years. It is considered part of the risk associated with motoring. Unless of course you are one of the 0.0001% of drivers who always observes every speed limit and has never parked illegally for a few minutes. This is why I consider means tested fines to be no better than means tested goods and services pricing.

As mentioned many, many times in this thread, fines are not a deterrent even for poor people. They simply don't work so please stop pretending they do, at whatever level.

 

[Rich_L]

I sense a poll coming...

If most people got a speeding fine every year, everyone would be driving round only one offence from disqualification (9 points)

Or a statistical approach, approx 2 million people are caught speeding a year out of about 20-30 million (depending on estimates) which would point to those people getting caught being only 10% or so of the driving population.

 

[Spie]

On a side note I find it amazing that anyone in the OcUK Motors forums thinks that stiff motoring fines are a good idea, especially given the dubious motives of our governments.

 

[Glaucus]

As mentioned many, many times in this thread, fines are not a deterrent even for poor people. They simply don't work so please stop pretending they do, at whatever level.

They are a deterrent to some people and nowhere near everyone has a motoring offence. If you got one every year you would permanently be on 9 points.

The points are much more of a deterrent than the fine.

Do you want laws with no deterrents?

Motors forums thinks that stiff motoring fines are a good idea,

I don't, I'm simply saying comparing it to goods and services is totally ridiculous and that points is a much better deterrent.

 

[Spie]

They are a deterrent to some people and nowhere near everyone has a motoring offence. If you got one every year you would permanently be on 9 points.

The points are much more of a deterrent than the fine.

Do you want laws with no deterrents?

Post corrected - every few years.

Agreed, points are more of a deterrent, but the OP refers to the level of fines.

Do you want a deterrent just for the rich and not the poor? Present fines are not a deterrent. What would you do about that regarding fines? Scrap them altogether and have points only?

 

[[TW]Fox]

I think some sort of fine is appropriate - £60 seems fair. Mostly to cover the costs involved with charging you etc.

 

[Amps]

Post corrected - every few years.

Agreed, points are more of a deterrent, but the OP refers to the level of fines.

Do you want a deterrent just for the rich and not the poor? Present fines are not a deterrent. What would you do about that regarding fines? Scrap them altogether and have points only?

In my opinion the current fines at least cover or contribute towards covering the cost of implementing speeding detection be it cameras or traffic cops.

I also agree that points are the main deterrent against speeding , for me anyway.

 

[Kenai]

Do you want a deterrent just for the rich and not the poor?

I'd like to see a deterrent equally affect anyone regardless of how much they earn, in the case of speeding, points do an excellent job at this.

Present fines are not a deterrent. What would you do about that regarding fines? Scrap them altogether and have points only?

Ideally yes. We all know that anything that involves the government pocketing less money from motorists is highly unlikely to happen though. A nominal fee to cover admin costs maybe but not to act as the deterring element of the punishment.

If you wanted to increase the deterrent for speeding, up the punishment to 4 points or 6 points so it only takes 3 or 2 offences to lose your license rather than 4.

In terms of other issues, such as parking on a double yellow where a fine is the only deterrent, it is only logical that the fine should deter you just as much as it would deter me. If you have 100 times as much disposable income as me, how is it logical that the fine for parking on a double yellow is effectively 100 times less deterring for you? Surely the deterrent should aim to deter all as equally as possible?