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

elmarko · 27 May 2015 at 00:58

stopper said:
Speeding fines aren't fair, in fact a penalty for any victimless crime is unfair, not to mention unlawful.
Humans are cash cows.

So if I fired a weapon randomly in a public place I should face no penalty if nobody gets hit by a bullet?.

Speeding increases the risk of deaths in the event of an accident, people make mistakes, humans are fallible. Combine this with increased speed & you get more deaths. This is why nations (on average) with stricter driving licence requirements & speed limitations in most situations have lower death rates. Everybody thinks they are a great driver, until they crash - then when some of them do the chances of them or the person they hit surviving is significantly decreased the faster the vehicle is travelling - this isn't up for debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

413x · 27 May 2015 at 01:21

stopper said:
Speeding fines aren't fair, in fact a penalty for any victimless crime is unfair, not to mention unlawful.
Humans are cash cows.

I like my motorway speeding (71 mph of course) but this point is ridiculous
If I drive through a village at 100mph and hit no one I'm all good?
The potential is horrendous.

I agree with it being proportional
Is not so bad here with points. It does add some balance

I don't really know how anyone can really argue against it.
It shouldn't stop a family on the poverty line eating for a week and at the same time be one sheet of a millionaires 50 quid note bog roll

dowie · 27 May 2015 at 01:44

elmarko said:
So if I fired a weapon randomly in a public place I should face no penalty if nobody gets hit by a bullet?.

Speeding increases the risk of deaths in the event of an accident, people make mistakes, humans are fallible. Combine this with increased speed & you get more deaths. This is why nations (on average) with stricter driving licence requirements & speed limitations in most situations have lower death rates. Everybody thinks they are a great driver, until they crash - then when some of them do the chances of them or the person they hit surviving is significantly decreased the faster the vehicle is travelling - this isn't up for debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

though actually looking at that data the UK is doing a bit better than Finland without means testing the fines...

sure they've got ice roads etc.. but then looking at Norway and Sweden they're doing better too

I'd have assumed there would be a stronger deterrent effect but I'm not sure there is...

fear of losing your license in itself is probably a strong deterrent, perhaps stronger than even a means tested fine for some

413x · 27 May 2015 at 01:49

dowie said:
though actually looking at that data the UK is doing a bit better than Finland without means testing the fines...

sure they've got ice roads etc.. but then looking at Norway and Sweden they're doing better too

I'd have assumed there would be a stronger deterrent effect but I'm not sure there is...

fear of losing your license in itself is probably a strong deterrent, perhaps stronger than even a means tested fine for some

It is for me.
I'd pay a months whole salary than take the points of I had 6
If I had 9 I'd pay even more
(I'm assuming 12 points for loss?)

Without transport I'd be buggered. Royally

mccarf · 27 May 2015 at 01:54

I hate driving in finland, been pulled over twice there and fined 120e once out of those times (they didn't means test me because I'm a UK citizen I believe)

. Having said that I do think the means tested way of fining people is quite fair because the current system here in the UK punishes the people on minimum wage a massive amount more than people on a decent wage.

Cosimo · 27 May 2015 at 07:29

Crazy Finns, been doing this for a while, blame it on those long dark nights...

DJMK4 · 27 May 2015 at 07:56

Minstadave said:
Do you earn £10 million a year?

Nope but read my post

"I'd be annoyed if I got an 80k fine for doing 3mhp over a limit

Seems stupid to me.

Milk and money comes to mind

If I was that rich it wouldn't mean I would speed "because i can afford it " I would still be worried about loosing my licence

no licence, no ability to drive the nice cars, I could buy

If I wanted to race them, then I have plenty of money to stick them on the track.

Freakbro · 27 May 2015 at 08:00

Seems fine to me.

Dolph said:
Terrible idea, but no doubt popular with the jealousy driven on the forum who don't understand that the punishment should not vary based on irrelevant factors to the crime.

lol Dolph, you are always a source of amusement.

elmarko · 27 May 2015 at 08:22

dowie said:
I'd have assumed there would be a stronger deterrent effect but I'm not sure there is...

fear of losing your license in itself is probably a strong deterrent, perhaps stronger than even a means tested fine for some

I'm not arguing that fines are a strong deterrent, just that if fines are going to be used as a deterrent they should at least match the logic they were created within.

The increase in speed does increase the likely fatality rate, this can be mitigated against in part by wealthier citizens having higher quality cars with better safety/protection.

But the physics regarding force transfer don't lie.

The Geezer · 27 May 2015 at 08:30

For me the penalty points are the deterrent not the actual fine.

We only have 12 points before we face a ban, protecting your points is paramount given you see other costs related to your speeding go up such as insurance

snips86x · 27 May 2015 at 08:42

mmj_uk said:
Fantastic idea.

I have to agree, It's a great idea.

We could really make a difference in this country by adopting methods from other countries where national health & public safety are concerned.

cheesyboy · 27 May 2015 at 08:44

Used to know a care home owner who drove a fast mercedes. He literally had a stack of speeding fines on his desk, which he would just attribute to his Polish workers - they, of course, couldn't get points on their licence and he would cover the cost of the fine. He had plenty of money, so was happy to carry on driving fast. The standard fine was no deterrent to him.

Haggisman · 27 May 2015 at 08:59

The Geezer said:
For me the penalty points are the deterrent not the actual fine.

We only have 12 points before we face a ban, protecting your points is paramount given you see other costs related to your speeding go up such as insurance

But then when you're earning 10m, an extra £1-2k on your insurance is pocket change.

If you lose your licence you can easily afford to pay Jeeves £30k/year to drive you around.

If fines are supposed to be a punishment/deterrent, then they should be an equal punishment/deterrent* to all, regardless of wealth.

* equal punishment/deterrent does not mean equal amount. a £100 fine for someone earning £100/week is a far higher punishment/deterrent than for someone earning £100/5 minutes.

BuffetSlayer · 27 May 2015 at 09:39

I think to some degree it is fallacy to believe that just because a person earns X amount they can afford a fine of Y amount.

Most people live to their means, so even though a person may be on a good wage it does not mean they can afford a higher fine. My brother earns twice what I earn, but he also gets taxed more and runs a household on a single wage where as my wife and I have two wages coming in. Under this system he would have to pay a lot more than me when in reality I am better placed to pay more - not him.

Tone1979 · 27 May 2015 at 09:49

sounds about right to me!

Logical fining is logical.

tom_e · 27 May 2015 at 09:50

Seems sensible a £100 fine to someone earning that much is down the back of the sofa change, £100 to someone on minimum wage is almost half their weekly pre tax earnings.

dowie · 27 May 2015 at 10:34

elmarko said:
I'm not arguing that fines are a strong deterrent, just that if fines are going to be used as a deterrent they should at least match the logic they were created within.

The increase in speed does increase the likely fatality rate, this can be mitigated against in part by wealthier citizens having higher quality cars with better safety/protection.

But the physics regarding force transfer don't lie.

if they don't act as a deterrent then they're just a penalty and I could only then see the use of means testing in certain more extreme circumstances where a strong message needs to be sent by the court...

the points system does seem to be a deterrent, if there is no evidence that means tested fines accomplish anything then I'm not sure I do support them and in the UK I'd wager they'd encourage a market for people to take fines on behalf of others... plenty of wives, partners, secretaries might well be admitting to driving some execs BMW yet again... and a fair few Romanian 'friends' might well be said to have borrowed it frequently. (obviously not if the police stop the exec in person or backwards facing cameras are used)

Stopping people and issuing tickets does cost money, a standard fine is still appropriate therefore regardless of the seeming lack of deterrent and the points system can act as the deterrent... I think for extreme offences where a heavy fine is levied as a serious punishment then perhaps the courts could means test to some degree but when it's implemented as part of a very crude system where they just look at a single parameter (tax paid the previous year) there are some rather obvious flaws to it. It would need to be assessed in court with expenditure etc.. taken into account - a married man with spouse who doesn't work and three kids shouldn't be getting the same fine as a single man with the same income level.

Haggisman · 27 May 2015 at 10:50

dowie said:
in the UK I'd wager they'd encourage a market for people to take fines on behalf of others... plenty of wives, partners, secretaries might well be admitting to driving some execs BMW yet again... and a fair few Romanian 'friends' might well be said to have borrowed it frequently. (obviously not if the police stop the exec in person or backwards facing cameras are used)

A points system doesn't avoid this however, there have been cases of people "selling" points and claiming they were the driver.

dowie said:
It would need to be assessed in court with expenditure etc.. taken into account - a married man with spouse who doesn't work and three kids shouldn't be getting the same fine as a single man with the same income level.

This sort of thing is already taken into account, and also in the points system - there are apparently 8,000 people in the country with more than 12 points who are still driving.

elmarko · 27 May 2015 at 10:58

A penalty is still meant to be a punishment, would we set a fine to be 1p?, or would that be so low it would be no longer be a meaningless punishment?.

If 1p is too low to be a punishment (because paying it is a joke) then by the same logic £100 is too low for somebody who has millions for the exact same reason.

dowie · 27 May 2015 at 11:01

Haggisman said:
A points system doesn't avoid this however, there have been cases of people "selling" points and claiming they were the driver.

Indeed, that is part of the reason I think it will likely happen with means tested fines too.

This sort of thing is already taken into account, and also in the points system - there are apparently 8,000 people in the country with more than 12 points who are still driving.

it isn't really, at least not to the extend of what I'm suggesting - fines can be reduced perhaps when people would struggle to afford them but you can't show me anything similar to this Finnish example... there would be a fair few premiership footballers with outrageous fines otherwise.

Yes the points system takes into account the impact on people's career, how the punishment might affect them - that is the reason why I'd suggest that if we were to means test and adjust fines upwards based on income then it should be done in court where other factors can be taken into account like extra expenditure due to a larger family etc..etc..