[NameNickHN]

This is an interesting notion. Does this mean that wealthy people are allowed to put everyone including themselves and their families in danger because they can afford to laugh about the fines? I know from personal experience that while I'm shrugging off speeding tickets when I get them, they really cut deep into the budget of some people I know. Do you think that's right?

[andyhmltn]

But a few comments up, someone mentioned points. Sure, they can decide to do that, but they will get their license taken away (and I know people that have.) It does have consequences.

I think fining the rich more because they are rich is not the way to go about it. Should we charge them more for their leisurely items? It's about choices at the end of the day. If you are worried about not being able to feed your family because of a $50 fine then don't speed! It's not something people do against their own will or because they have to (bar being late for work which I would argue isn't an excuse anyway.) That's the point of the fine: to put people off doing it.

[beezlebob]

I disagree with your line of thinking.

If poor people are deterred from speeding because of the cost of the fine, then why are we talking about poor people getting fined at all, after all they wouldn't be speeding.

Just because someone has money it does not mean they will flaunt the law because they can afford the fine.

In both cases correlation does not imply causation.

Where demerit point systems are in place both poor and rich lose their licenses after too many infringements.

[NameNickHN]

> Just because someone has money it does not mean > they will flaunt the law because they can afford > the fine.

Apparently, it does:

"It is generally the case that people getting less absolutely risk averse as they get wealthier."

http://marcfbellemare.com/wordpress/2012/02/speeding-fines-t...