Finnish man fined £83,000 for speeding because he earns £10.1 million

Minstadave said:
I disagree and I think you should put some more thought into your posts.
Click to expand...

Disagree all you want, points are far more deterrent than money.
You won't fond many people turning down speed awareness despite the fact you have to take time off work and travel somewhere sometimes hundreds of miles, if caught in a different county.

Points can cost you your license and job, a fine can't..

Everyone is more scared of the points and so they should be.
 
An Exception said:
It'd be better for govt to raise the minimum requirements of vehicle manufacturers brakes. Then up the speed limit. That guy was probably driving a car that could stop WAY quicker than an average car, so wasn't likely putting anyone in increased danger compared to an average car traveling within the speed limit.
Click to expand...

Reaction times stay the same.
 
Janesy B said:
Reaction times stay the same.
Click to expand...

But reaction times still don't make up the difference in the massive reduction in braking distance motorway and dual carriageways could both be significantly faster (let's face it most are already it's the odd person doing the speed limit who pulls out into the 80 - 90 mph traffic in the outside elan at 70 that causes more problems than anything)
 
Glaucus said:
Disagree all you want, points are far more deterrent than money.
You won't fond many people turning down speed awareness despite the fact you have to take time off work and travel somewhere sometimes hundreds of miles, if caught in a different county.

Points can cost you your license and job, a fine can't..

Everyone is more scared of the points and so they should be.
Click to expand...

But do people turn it down to avoid the actual points or to avoid the insurance hike? To the average person having 3 points alone is no bother.
 
cainer said:
2002 wants their story back
Click to expand...

There's a new paper clipping up here man gets 10k fine on the a 55 for doing 101.

It's actually a 265 fine but he contested the accuracy of the equipment so they enter an airfield another r8 and tested it.


They awarded the prosecution costs which brought it up to 10k lol
 
The purpose behind the fine is a deterrent, but it's not an effective deterrent to anyone earning above a certain sum of money.

I don't find the idea of a proportional fine repugnant, but maybe some sort of sliding but capped scale would be the most ideal solution.
 
Minstadave said:
A financial penalty should be a deterrent to everyone. A £60 fine to someone on minimum wage is painful, a £60 to a footballer is a joke.

I like the idea, if you're going to fine people make it a proper deterrent.
Click to expand...

That is about it.

IIRC when the mobile phone was first explicitely banned from use in the car the penalty was just a fixed fine, which a lot of companies simply wrote off as a business expense.

They made it a points + fine and it suddenly started to be taken just a little more seriously (although not that seriously unfortunately as the enforcement isn't there).

Court fines are meant to be be a deterrent, which is part of the reason in the UK for many things the fines are based around a multiple of the disposable income (with a cap usually), so that someone with a great job that pays well can't just shrug off a fine in theory.

So if Finland doesn't do points on the licence for speeding, linking the fine to income so that it hurts as much if you're making a million a year, as if you're making 25k is probably the only way to make a deterrent that works at the same sort of level for both extremes of the income range.

Although £83k is rather a lot.
 
Points aren't really going to be much of a deterrent to someone earning that much either, let's face it, he could easily afford a chauffeur...

Also, they aren't really a level playing field, as its entirely possible avoid a ban at 12 points depending on your personal circumstances, so why shouldn't that work the other way too?
 
Last edited:
Aretak said:
Seems fair enough.
Click to expand...

Not really.

It's like a supermarket charging their products as a % of your wage. Earn min wage? That loaf costs you 50p. Earn 10 million? That same loaf costs you £10.

It's the opposite of fair, really.

Only income tax should be a % of your income really. Anything else is bloody cheeky.
 
FoxEye said:
Not really.

It's like a supermarket charging their products as a % of your wage. Earn min wage? That loaf costs you 50p. Earn 10 million? That same loaf costs you £10.

It's the opposite of fair, really.

Only income tax should be a % of your income really. Anything else is bloody cheeky.
Click to expand...

How about no?

You cannot compare a for profit business with competent competition to a public service (justice/police/whatever).
 
FoxEye said:
Not really.

It's like a supermarket charging their products as a % of your wage. Earn min wage? That loaf costs you 50p. Earn 10 million? That same loaf costs you £10..
Click to expand...

Except you don't buy a loaf of bread as punishment for driving like a **** so your analogy is utterly flawed
 
Werewolf said:
That is about it.

IIRC when the mobile phone was first explicitely banned from use in the car the penalty was just a fixed fine, which a lot of companies simply wrote off as a business expense.

They made it a points + fine and it suddenly started to be taken just a little more seriously (although not that seriously unfortunately as the enforcement isn't there).

Court fines are meant to be be a deterrent, which is part of the reason in the UK for many things the fines are based around a multiple of the disposable income (with

Although £83k is rather a lot.
Click to expand...

So is an annual salary of £10.1m though. I agree with the rest of what you've said. Particularly that enforcement is a crucial part of the deterrent. No one worries about punishment of a crime they know they won't get caught at.
 
FoxEye said:
Not really.

It's like a supermarket charging their products as a % of your wage. Earn min wage? That loaf costs you 50p. Earn 10 million? That same loaf costs you £10.

It's the opposite of fair, really.

Only income tax should be a % of your income really. Anything else is bloody cheeky.
Click to expand...
The price of a good is based upon the cost of it's creation & the labour & expenses built up by selling it.

A fine is meant to act as a deterrent & therefore the two are utterly incomparable.

Fixed fines are regressive, they are essentially ignorable for a section of the population - I'm hardly what I'd call wealthy & I could ignore a vast majority of fixed fines without feeling any hardship whatsoever.

Percentage income based fines retain the deterrent aspect of a fine, to those who argue against it being 'fair' then could they please give a logical reason as to the purpose of a fine?. The perhaps explain how this purpose is retained why the individual earns hundreds of thousands times more than the fine in a given month or week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom