LogFAQs > #904858463

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Goddamn the cost for traffic violations has gotten completely out of control
adjl 07/10/18 11:04:51 PM #87:	zebatov posted... You think that's bad? Try losing your license for drinking in BC. I'd rather not, because that would entail being a complete and utter idiot, and the only way I see myself ever doing something that stupid is if I lobotomize myself with a rake. LinkPizza posted... That's assuming it was unsafe. Being pulled over on the side of a highway is always unsafe. You really don't have to look hard to find stories of cops or other people being killed by drivers that didn't give them a wide berth while they were pulled over. Hence laws exist to mitigate that danger. If anyone (cop or otherwise) is pulled over on the side of the road, slow down and give them some extra room. It's just a good idea. LinkPizza posted... Income is way to tricky to actually implement. Well, if you want to avoid ruining people's lives, anyway. Just basing it on income doesn't mean it won't ruin your life if you were already barely scraping by... There'd need to be some degree of nuance, including a community service option in lieu of a monetary fine. Defining a poverty line as is done with taxes would also cut down on the "barely scraping by" issue. The exact details, I don't have, because this isn't my job. All I can say for sure is that having a flat fine means there are many people for whom a ticket is absolutely devastating, and many more for whom the fines are going to be negligible. Ideally, fines should be a significant enough deterrent to change behaviour for everyone receiving it, but not enough to ruin any lives (at least not for occasional violators), and that means it has to scale based on the violator's means. Questionmarktarius posted... The only actual beneficiary of such a policy would be uber, as cops wonder why speeders picked up in the utter blockade of speed traps in gated communities only seem to have an income around $15k. Meanwhile, kids end up splatted in the "poor" parts of town, because municipalities have no financial interest in speed enforcement there. Also you can't get a traffic lawyer anymore, since they're all making buckets of money turning $10000 rolling stop tickets into parking violations somehow. Again, some nuance is needed. You can come up with policies that ensure the region is uniformly covered. Enforcing those policies is another story, since the ones who would be enforcing them are the ones who need to follow them, but this is not an insurmountable issue. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:904858463] in Goddamn th... [t:76792338]...</cite> <quote><cite>zebatov posted...</cite> <quote>You think that's bad? Try losing your license for drinking in BC.</quote> I'd rather not, because that would entail being a complete and utter idiot, and the only way I see myself ever doing something that stupid is if I lobotomize myself with a rake. <cite>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>That's assuming it was unsafe.</quote> Being pulled over on the side of a highway is always unsafe. You really don't have to look hard to find stories of cops or other people being killed by drivers that didn't give them a wide berth while they were pulled over. Hence laws exist to mitigate that danger. If anyone (cop or otherwise) is pulled over on the side of the road, slow down and give them some extra room. It's just a good idea. <cite>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>Income is way to tricky to actually implement. Well, if you want to avoid ruining people's lives, anyway. Just basing it on income doesn't mean it won't ruin your life if you were already barely scraping by...</quote> There'd need to be some degree of nuance, including a community service option in lieu of a monetary fine. Defining a poverty line as is done with taxes would also cut down on the "barely scraping by" issue. The exact details, I don't have, because this isn't my job. All I can say for sure is that having a flat fine means there are many people for whom a ticket is absolutely devastating, and many more for whom the fines are going to be negligible. Ideally, fines should be a significant enough deterrent to change behaviour for everyone receiving it, but not enough to ruin any lives (at least not for occasional violators), and that means it has to scale based on the violator's means. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>The only actual beneficiary of such a policy would be uber, as cops wonder why speeders picked up in the utter blockade of speed traps in gated communities only seem to have an income around $15k. Meanwhile, kids end up splatted in the "poor" parts of town, because municipalities have no financial interest in speed enforcement there. Also you can't get a traffic lawyer anymore, since they're all making buckets of money turning $10000 rolling stop tickets into parking violations somehow.</quote> Again, some nuance is needed. You can come up with policies that ensure the region is uniformly covered. Enforcing those policies is another story, since the ones who would be enforcing them are the ones who need to follow them, but this is not an insurmountable issue. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1