Safe Speed Forums

Going by the measure of affordability, as is the idea with the fines, the jobless scrote who has plenty of free time on his hands should go to jail for a lot longer than a working, family man who doesn't have the luxury of so much free time. But then, they're probably doing the scrote a favour by sending him down for a long time - free board and lodging.

No, fines are not a fair means of punishment. People should be punished fittingly and equally for breaking the law, but the law should be such that normal, reasonable people can reasonably be expected to stay within the law.

And all laws should be in place for a good reason.

Regards
Peter

This is another example of this pathetic labour government desperately trying to get new ideas before the election. In this case they have in my opinion fallen flat on their face. The reason is simple, this is supposed to be a socialist government, so we should as per rules of socialism, all be treated equally. The poor man gets a £60 fine, so does the rich man. I earn more than some people, but why should I be punished more than them, because I've worked hard and have a better paid job than them. Pooee to labour

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

This subject in the The Telegraph today.

mega link

Contains: "A scheme to link fines to income was scrapped in 1993 after grotesque anomalies emerged.

That would absolutely be a "deal breaker" for me, although I think the underlying idea has merit.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Sorry Paul but i can't see where you are coming from with this. Now I know some will argue that a £60 fine is nothing to a millionaire, but it's a real punishment for me. I firmly believe thatlaw and punishment should be the same for all. Did the government put this in their last election manifesto? I think not, and I'm surprised that they are stupid enough to do it this close to another election. This is another example of those with, bearing the load of those supposedly without. If the government want to raise money, then they can put income tax or VAT up a penny, that way everyone pays a little bit equally.

_________________
'Detritus, get yer stoney arse over ere'

This isn't something I feel strongly about. I'm more concerned about "grotesque anomolies" than any potential benefit.

I agree that fines should be the same for everyone, but there are several possible measures of sameness. One measure of sameness is monetary value. £100 is always £100. Another measure of sameness might be a days' income. Clearly this wouldn't be the same monetary value, but then in one very real way it would be the same for everyone. Another measure of sameness could be by percentage of personal wealth.

The two points for discussion seem to me to be:

1) What's the best measure of sameness? (I reckon it's a "days' net income")

2) Can we use that measure without "grotesque anomolies"? (I don't think we can.)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

This absolutely does not work fairly, however you try and rig it.

So we go off "nett income". So the £40k yuppie in his one bed maisonette gets the same fine as the £40k man with a wife, four kids and a big mortgage? That doesn't work does it?

Ok, so we means test and use "disposable" income as our base figure instead. Now we have a situation where the prudent person who has their finances in order and is currently saving carefully for (say) their next new car or whatever has a high disposable income; whereas their next door neighbour who has a massive loan for his car, and is still paying off the credit card debts for last years binge holiday has a low disposable income. Result is we dish out the heftier fine to the more responsible citizen!

Ok, next attempt is to start excluding "luxuries" and credit card debts from the means-testing equation. How do we define a luxury? What about the genuinely hard up person who has credit card debts because the washing machine went bang, and mortgage rates have just risen unexpectedly etc.

The more complicated we make it the less fair it seems to get, and the more bizarre anomalies we end up with. Eg if we get a summons then dash down to the local Mercedes dealer and get a new car pronto on the never-never to lower your disposable income!

If we must use fines as a system of educating road users then the nearest thing to a fair system is to fix the fines solely according to the severity of the offence. Everyone then knows what the penalty is, so if they deliberately commit an offence they do so knowing the penalty.

But I still hold that the best way forward would be to do away with fines completely, and fund road safety and enforcement out of vehicle excise revenue. Taking revenue raising out of the equation would serve road safety a massive service.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

If we are to have this kind of scheme (which I don't agree with anyway), the variation between the minimum and maximum fines needs to be capped, to avoid the grotesque anomalies that have been mentioned.

So the maximum fine would be no more than three or four times the minimum fine.

Also, it would need to be structured so that someone trying to raise a family on £25,000 a year (who probably has very little spare cash) doesn't end up paying two or three times as much as a feckless waster.

Another point made in the "Telegraph" today is that professional criminals tend to have a very low "official" income and so would get away with the lowest level of fine.

A good leading article, in fact, entitled Class war in court:

Squeezing the rich until the pips squeak is, as a principle of Left-wing politics, all too familiar; but it is still a novel principle of criminal justice.

The new Management of Offenders and Sentencing Bill establishes a new basis for calculating fines, based on a multiple of disposable income. The maximum fine that magistrates can impose will triple to £15,000, but those with little or no visible earnings (most professional criminals, for example) will pay a fraction of this.

The Home Office insists that this complex and opaque system will make for "greater consistency and fairness", but such inflationary increases have nothing to do with justice. The intended targets - the long-suffering people of Middle Britain - can spot a revenue-raising measure when they see one.

It is obvious that a £100 fine penalises a poor offender more than a wealthy one, but the courts already have ample discretion to take wealth into account. The new fines diminish that discretion; in practice, fines will reflect the offender's income far more than the gravity of the offence.

Designed by bureaucrats to ensure that the bourgeoisie shall foot the bill for the lumpenproletariat, this scheme actually amounts to what the Left calls "class justice".

Its iniquity may only dawn on the public once it comes into effect. Whenever that penny drops, it is bound to make the law-abiding even more cynical about the law than they are already.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Only a matter of time before speeding fines go the same way!

All the more reason to claim your impoverished student niece was driving

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Perhaps the speed camera computer recognition system should not only be used to identify the registered keeper of the vehicle but the make, model, age and value. Thus, new Mercedes owners could be automatically fined say, £500 for speeding, while old Micra owners could pay £20. Serve the slimy plutocrats right!


Seriously, this whole idea is fraught with problems. Is income the measure or is it assets? Also, the cost of means testing would be likely to swamp the fine income in a lot of cases.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

This could result in say a low earner being fined £60.00 for driving at 50 in a 30 limit. A high earner paying £100.00 for driving at 40 in a 30 limit.

This would encourage Lower earnings (declared ), to use higher speed

_________________
Steve

And the career criminal with no official income pay a low fine or do they go for his assets? In which case won't he just go and rob some more stuff to replace what the courts attach? Nice idea in theory, but in practice it's a stop short of Upney.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Is it up to the Daily Torygraph to define what constitutes a "grotesque anomaly"? £1,500 for a drunk driver offence seems fair enough if the bloke had a bob or two and could afford it, although £104 for the bum's offence seems on the low side, I have to say. Perhaps we should be very harsh on everybody, but twice as harsh on toffs, i.e. keep it simple.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I am not sure why this is such a big issue. Fines are no deterant anyway.

How many of us actualy know what the fines are for any given offence. On that basis how can it possibly influence our view of law abidance.

Just remember that illegaly copying a video or CD carries a maximum sentance of 10 years in prison...see if that puts you off...

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

I don't think we need to rely on the Telegraph. The law depends on the perception that it's fair. As soon as people think it's unfair then the law itself is undermined.

The law must be fair and must be seen to be fair.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

What's the maximum sentence for using unlicenced software?
I can't think of one person I know who hasn't committed this crime.

Does it? If the well off are forced to pay higher fines than those on lower wages then former may think this is unfair, the latter would probably maintain that it was fair.
If on the other hand everyone has to pay the same fine for similar offences, the less well off may argue that they are paying out more of their disposable (er) income than the 'toffs'. In other words, the former think this is fair, the latter, unfair.
So by who's perception does the law have to be seen to be fair?

I think in the vasy majority of non-profit cases, copyright isn't a criminal matter. The likes of FACT tend to take a very loose interpretation of the law in their warnings.

It's the Law which must be seen to be fair. You're talking about the punishment.

If there was a law against stepping on cracks on the pavement, or against coughing in a public place, and the police were ready to pounce on everybody who accidentally stepped on a crack, or coughed, the law would be seen as being grossly unfair by virtually everyone. Nobody would be arguing over the amount of the fine, they'd be rightly calling for the law to be scrapped.

Regards
Peter