And I want to point out that it makes very much sense to have fines adjusted to one's wealth.
When speeding, you're endangering people's lives. There has to be some measure that will make you think twice about speeding the next time around -- if you know that the ticket fine will be a paltry amount to you (relative to your total wealth), that is no deterrent.
If you get a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 1 mph, there are larger issues at hand than how much this ticket will cost you.
Yes, speed limits are to an extent arbitrary, but practical alternative is a total judgment call.
Do you always know the entirety of the condition of your car, and if not, should you be limited to 30 mph? Should drivers' licenses include a quantifiable evaluation of your skill and ability to drive and be tied into different speed limits, and how will that be tested? How will police officers know who is exceeding their license's conditions and therefore who to pull over?
Perhaps we should acknowledge that a simple single number "your speed" is a significantly flawed measure of the level of risk you're exposing the rest of society to, and while speed enforcement is a good _revenue_ generator, it does not do nearly as much to reduce the full range of risk behaviours as we might desire.
What continually boggles me is seeing people lose their drivers licence for 6 months or more for a string of speeding tickets - without having actually had an accident, while I read newspaper stories about people who actually do crash and hurt of kill someone receiving more lenient sentences.
How about we start punishing people who actually have and/or cause "accidents" rather that people we claim are increasing the risk of accidents by exceeding some arbitrarily set limit? Sure doing 90 past a school is "wrong", as is driving in a way that causes someone else to crash, but surely we're at a point where technology can help there - for less than $100 I could have 4 video cameras with ~1hr of recording time fitted to my car. Is it a crazy idea to say we encourage people to record other drivers, and pay them a commission on the fines their cameras generate from actual risk events, rather than risk behaviours?
(Full disclosure: I'm a motorcyclist. I enjoy going fast. I'm fully prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, and in one sense I don't mind current speed enforcement since my personal opinion is I'm happy to go fast where it doesn't affect anyone else, and if I _do_ get "caught" speeding it's a sign that I wasn't paying enough attention - if there was someone in position to catch me speeding I shouldn't have been speeding there. I'm not happy with cops who "hide" while doing speed enforcement, but I've also never been caught by one hiding...)
What driving culture are you referring to? The wealthy everywhere have a preference for sports cars. That alone doesn't constitute "driving culture", but a lot of what you're talking about is just compression. The US has much more wide open space than Germany does.
It's also been shown that you can maximize the throughput of a highway if the speed limit is 45mph. Too high, and you need to increase the space between cars.
Although 55mph != 45mph, it's pretty close. It also doesn't serve the individual, but if can't get the cars through fast enough, the traffic will build up eventually.
How was it debunked that 55 saves gas? I'm interested in this, as I sometimes like to drive in such a manner as to economize, and according to my instant and average mpg readouts cruising at or below 60mph consumes far less gas than cruising at or above 70mph.
Obviously, an old guy in a very old rusty driving at 5 mph over the limit is more dangerous than a young professional nascar pilot, running a brand new porsche at the same speed.
However this is a bout equality versus equity. Equity means : you pay fines proportionally to what you earn; on the other hand you could then discuss the fact that different drivers and different vehicles may be treated differently (for instance, the speed limit is the speed at which your vehicle comes to full stop in 2.5 seconds). equality means everybody is treated the same way. The current system tends to equality, but is not equitable.
Except with wealth you can pay a local lawyer to plead it to a non-moving violation, a ludicrously inflated "court cost", and a "donation" to the local law enforcement retirement fund. (Kirksville Missouri, I'm looking at you.)
The wealthy can opt for a "pay X now" instead of "Y over time where Y>X" option. Wealth buys you a discount.
And all of that is likely to cost much more than just paying the fine and moving on. It sounds like the rich guy got taken to task for his attempts to weasel out of it in the case you're referring to. He eventually got what he wanted, I guess, which is no points, but it sounds like it cost a lot of money (unless his donation to the pension fund and his lawyer's hourly rate was $25).
The points would have cost much more in future insurance policy premiums.
The total cost of the fix is about $250 and you get to keep your "safe driver" rate or whatever the insurance company does for point-free/accident-free drivers.
I find it interesting that the points have only been talked about in terms of the money they can cost you as a direct affect....The fact that they can make you lose your right to drive a car, and the myriad costs that carries, has been completely ignored.
When speeding, you're endangering people's lives. There has to be some measure that will make you think twice about speeding the next time around -- if you know that the ticket fine will be a paltry amount to you (relative to your total wealth), that is no deterrent.