BF2S Forums Euro-socialist trash attack rich speeders with higher fines ($290,000)

JohnG@lt wrote:

cl4u53w1t2 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Germany's record is $190,000 so this is false.

no way!

source?

Germany, France, Austria and the Nordic countries also issue punishments based on a person’s wealth. In Germany the maximum fine can be as much as the equivalent of $16 million compared to only $1 million in Switzerland. Only Finland regularly hands out similarly hefty fine to speeding drivers, with the current record believed to be a $190,000 ticket in 2004.

http://www.cecilwhig.com/articles/2010/ … 195941.txt
I read the article wrong, it's actually Finland that held the record. Germany can fine up to $16M though.

that article is simply wrong, at least regarding germany. over here, maximum fine for speeding is 680 €

(that's why i would support fines that are based on a person's wealth)

dude had the money to pay for a better lawyer

lowing wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Just read it. How does it apply here? And how does it apply in the context of making people for whom a €50 fine constitutes less than a days interest accrual not feel free to speed as merrily as their heart desires? Practicality.

Equal protection under the law. Fining one person one amount and another a different amount for the exact same crime is not equal protection under the law.

You want deterrent? Jail them for 30 days. Regardless of race, creed, color or bank account, lock them up.

Surprisingly, my knee jerk reaction to this is agreeing with it. Although normally I believe in equality for the rich and poor alike.

The rich buy justice not afforded to the masses already. They can even buy themselves out of a murder charge that I would be found guilty of given the same evidence. So I am thinking fine, if you can buy your way out of a murder conviction, buy your speeding ticket as well with my blessing.

No, how can you buy your way out of a murder charge? That's just silly. If you're guilty, then how is money going to help you out? Surely you'll get tried the same.

In the case of speeding tickets, if you have loads of money, then you should be expected to pay a heftier fine. Don't want to pay it? Don't speed in your 200mph+ Ferrari which youc an afford because you're minted.

Last edited by CammRobb (2010-01-11 09:43:58)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Just read it. How does it apply here? And how does it apply in the context of making people for whom a €50 fine constitutes less than a days interest accrual not feel free to speed as merrily as their heart desires? Practicality.

Equal protection under the law. Fining one person one amount and another a different amount for the exact same crime is not equal protection under the law.

You want deterrent? Jail them for 30 days. Regardless of race, creed, color or bank account, lock them up.

I think equal protection under the law could be argued in the way the euros have gone with this. A $200 fine is harsh to someone making $20k a year but is nothing more than a nuisance for a millionaire. I wouldn't be opposed to them making it a percentage of income as it would affect all offenders at an equal ratio.

Btw, socialism has nothing to do with this. It's logical to fine all people at the same proportion of their income. The only real problem I see with it is that hard pressed municipalities will probably target rich people over poor people when sending out their police to fill their monthly quotas.

An extremely sensible post.

Personally I think taking peoples licenses away if they're caught speeding a few times is a simpler solution which hits everyone equally. It also keeps persistent speeders off the road, making other road users safer.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I think equal protection under the law could be argued in the way the euros have gone with this. A $200 fine is harsh to someone making $20k a year but is nothing more than a nuisance for a millionaire. I wouldn't be opposed to them making it a percentage of income as it would affect all offenders at an equal ratio.

Btw, socialism has nothing to do with this. It's logical to fine all people at the same proportion of their income. The only real problem I see with it is that hard pressed municipalities will probably target rich people over poor people when sending out their police to fill their monthly quotas.

An extremely sensible post.

Personally I think taking peoples licenses away if they're caught speeding a few times is a simpler solution which hits everyone equally. It also keeps persistent speeders off the road, making other road users safer.

Yes, because it's absolutely impossible to drive without a license It's also impossible to drive without insurance too.

Both are completely unenforceable laws.

Well they kinda are, you just impose tough penalties for those that break the rules. Start deterring people by making the consequences harder. This should be brought in across the board tbh.

No insurance, X amount of points on your license. Oh, no license to accumulate points on? X hours of community service and a hefty fine.

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

An extremely sensible post.

Personally I think taking peoples licenses away if they're caught speeding a few times is a simpler solution which hits everyone equally. It also keeps persistent speeders off the road, making other road users safer.

Yes, because it's absolutely impossible to drive without a license It's also impossible to drive without insurance too.

Both are completely unenforceable laws.

The people who drive without licenses and insurance are almost exclusively those on lower incomes, so that doesn't really have much relevance to this particular case.

Those laws are as enforcable as speeding laws. Moreso in fact.

They're not though. If a guy is driving without a license or insurance and never drives erratically or speeds he won't be pulled over. He could, in reality, go his entire life without being caught without a license or insurance. The speeder will be caught because he's obviously breaking the law.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yes, because it's absolutely impossible to drive without a license It's also impossible to drive without insurance too.

Both are completely unenforceable laws.

The people who drive without licenses and insurance are almost exclusively those on lower incomes, so that doesn't really have much relevance to this particular case.

Those laws are as enforcable as speeding laws. Moreso in fact.

They're not though. If a guy is driving without a license or insurance and never drives erratically or speeds he won't be pulled over. He could, in reality, go his entire life without being caught without a license or insurance. The speeder will be caught because he's obviously breaking the law.

In the UK you need a tax disc to be displayed in your windscreen. If police see a car without a tax disc they can and will clamp/impound it. To buy a tax disc for your car you need a license, MOT and insurance.

Therefore if any police officer or traffic warden ever looks at your car, you could get charged for these things. That's more likely than being pulled over for speeding.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yes, because it's absolutely impossible to drive without a license It's also impossible to drive without insurance too.

Both are completely unenforceable laws.

The people who drive without licenses and insurance are almost exclusively those on lower incomes, so that doesn't really have much relevance to this particular case.

Those laws are as enforcable as speeding laws. Moreso in fact.

They're not though. If a guy is driving without a license or insurance and never drives erratically or speeds he won't be pulled over. He could, in reality, go his entire life without being caught without a license or insurance. The speeder will be caught because he's obviously breaking the law.

Without insurance yo can't register the car. Without registration you wont get (or lose) the number plates. Cars with no number plates are very easy to spot. Also you can always get pulled over at an RBT.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

They're not though. If a guy is driving without a license or insurance and never drives erratically or speeds he won't be pulled over. He could, in reality, go his entire life without being caught without a license or insurance. The speeder will be caught because he's obviously breaking the law.

In the UK you need a tax disc to be displayed in your windscreen. If police see a car without a tax disc they can and will clamp/impound it. To buy a tax disc for your car you need a license, MOT and insurance.

Therefore if any police officer or traffic warden ever looks at your car, you could get charged for these things. That's more likely than being pulled over for speeding.

The only thing we display in the windscreen is registration and inspection.

This thread is about Europe. Some countries in Europe (UK, Spain, France?) do have car tax (with others opting for widespread usage of toll roads instead). The UK certainly does have car tax which is handled in the manner I've just described. This makes it easier to catch people without licenses and insurance than those speeding.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Some people fail to see this.

Last edited by CammRobb (2010-01-11 10:36:10)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You can carry minimum insurance for a month, get registered and then drop the insurance the same day.

You can't get the insurance without a license though, can you?

Yes. I actually had a registered and insured vehicle at one point without a license. Did it for about a year and never had any issues.

Well you can't here. I'm shocked that you're able to in the US.

I couldn't even add my brother to my insurance, because when they did the license check it showed he had only held his license for 9 months and he needed to have had a license for at least a year to drive my car.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-11 10:45:00)

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You can't get the insurance without a license though, can you?

Yes. I actually had a registered and insured vehicle at one point without a license. Did it for about a year and never had any issues.

Well you can't here. I'm shocked that you're able to in the US.

I couldn't even add my brother to my insurance, because when they did the license check it showed he had only held his license for 9 months and he needed to have had a license for at least a year to drive my car.

Well, driving here is considered to be more of a 'right' than it would be there. It's very difficult to move around this country without a car due to the lack of public transportation in much of it. And no, I'm not advocating more public transportation because it would cost much much more than it would be worth to implement.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yes. I actually had a registered and insured vehicle at one point without a license. Did it for about a year and never had any issues.

Well you can't here. I'm shocked that you're able to in the US.

I couldn't even add my brother to my insurance, because when they did the license check it showed he had only held his license for 9 months and he needed to have had a license for at least a year to drive my car.

Well, driving here is considered to be more of a 'right' than it would be there. It's very difficult to move around this country without a car due to the lack of public transportation in much of it. And no, I'm not advocating more public transportation because it would cost much much more than it would be worth to implement.

Such a right that you can do it without a license or insurance?

Not to say you don't get lots of people doing it over here, but the rate of convictions for it is far higher than the rate of convictions for speeding.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, those who drive without licenses or insurance are not the high earning sportscar drivers that these fines would target anyway, so none of this is really relevant.

The threat of losing your license is an equal threat to those on high and low incomes alike. Making it quite easy to lose your license for speeding acts as a good deterent. Here you can lose your license for a single speeding offence if you are caught doing an average speed of either double the speed limit or 100mph (whichever is lower). This deters the vast majority of people from speeding excessively. You won't ever really deter people from speeding a bit, but by making the penalties for extreme speeding harsher, you deter people from that.