Caught doing 95 in a 70...

ok... lets put it this way... you and I both get caught doing 40mph in a 30 zone... and get 3 points.

we also work together, and get the same 30k a year.

now, you seem a good guy, sensible, so you live your life within your budget, have a small mortgage, small car that you own, have some savings and don't run out of money each month...

me on the other hand, I'm an idiot... I have a massive mortgage, credit cards debt, I lease cars, don't own them - but they're brand new, check me out... I have no savings, and I run out of money 2 weeks after being paid.

You stil happy for you to get fined £500 while I get fined £50???

that's how means testing works... not based on salary, based on what you can AFFORD to pay... and why do they ask for savings, how many cars etc you own... think about it...

Still think it's fair and OK to use?????

if so, please explain to me why, because I can't see how it is??????

they did have it back in the 90s in the UK... it resulted in 1 person being fined £1200 for dropping a packet of crisps, while another got a £75 fine for driving about without insurance.... :roll:

:thumbsup:
 
the cueball said:
ok... lets put it this way... you and I both get caught doing 40mph in a 30 zone... and get 3 points.

we also work together, and get the same 30k a year.

now, you seem a good guy, sensible, so you live your life within your budget, have a small mortgage, small car that you own, have some savings and don't run out of money each month...

me on the other hand, I'm an idiot... I have a massive mortgage, credit cards debt, I lease cars, don't own them - but they're brand new, check me out... I have no savings, and I run out of money 2 weeks after being paid.

You stil happy for you to get fined £500 while I get fined £50???

that's how means testing works... not based on salary, based on what you can AFFORD to pay... and why do they ask for savings, how many cars etc you own... think about it...

Still think it's fair and OK to use?????

if so, please explain to me why, because I can't see how it is??????

they did have it back in the 90s in the UK... it resulted in 1 person being fined £1200 for dropping a packet of crisps, while another got a £75 fine for driving about without insurance.... :roll:

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Yeh OK, I agree with what you say here, the example you make does make sense and clearly isn't fair. Although I'd like to know for that example what the exact difference would be for the two "culprits".

Are you able to means test yourself and calculate approximately what your fine would be? Or is the system too complicated?

I still believe that the fine should be an equal "punishment" to all. In practice, it's difficult to ever have a truly "fair" system, there will always be cases that highlight the system's flaws, but in general a family with an income of £80k per annum, will be able to afford higher fines than a family with an income of £40k.

original guvnor said:
Can we drop this "working class" bollocks please. It belongs in the Victorian era so lets leave it there.

The vast majority of people in this country between 18 and 65 work for a living therefore we are all working class.
Click to expand...

In the literal sense you are right, but I think it's safe to assume we all know what is meant by "working class", I only used the term to illustrate my argument.

Similarly, public school boys don't attend a "public" school, they are privately educated. But the term "public school" still exists in the original context.
 
StevenH72 said:
Yeh OK, I agree with what you say here, the example you make does make sense and clearly isn't fair. Although I'd like to know for that example what the exact difference would be for the two "culprits".

Are you able to means test yourself and calculate approximately what your fine would be? Or is the system too complicated?

I still believe that the fine should be an equal "punishment" to all. In practice, it's difficult to ever have a truly "fair" system, there will always be cases that highlight the system's flaws, but in general a family with an income of £80k per annum, will be able to afford higher fines than a family with an income of £40k.
Click to expand...

what difference would it make, any difference isn't fair surely???

the crime is the crime, the punishment should be equal, without any measure of means, as that is the only fair way to do it... the real punishment for a motor fine is losing your licence...

I don't know of any self calculation you can do, and the system is even more upsetting as it's up to the judge to set the fine, I don't think there are any "official" guidelines in place...

in your example, how should a 80k a year be able to afford it more??? they may have more debt, a big company car, a wife than "needs" a new range rover.... what if the family on 80k has 6 kids... and the family on 40k has 1...

and 80k a year salary usually goes hand in hand with an 80k lifestyle.... so the family "needs" more, and will actually have less security and less disposable income after all their debt bills have been paid... :wink:

sorry, but the means testing just isn't fair, it favours prople in debt and living outwith their means, but looks like it targets the "high earners" it doesn't.

I keep hearing that money doesn't make the world go round, and just because you earn more doesn't mean you should be treated any differently... but I guess that's all just bollox to some...

what would happen if they fined a black person more than a white one, or a old person more than a younger one or a female over male... the would be an outcry...

but it seems if you are fiscally savvy it's an open book on you, should you make a mistake.... :wink: :roll:

:thumbsup:
 
StevenH72 said:
Completely disagree with you here cueball.

I think all fines should be means tested.

Let's face it if you are living on the breadline, struggling to pay bills etc, a £60 fine could be a very harsh punishment, whereas your city slicker/ yuppy who gets a £60 fine isn't going to have been "punished" at all.

Carlos Tevez, for example, was recently fined £1000 for his driving offence (uninsured and suspended license)....what's £1000 for him, probably doesn't even register as pocket change. If you are going to impose a monetary punishment it should act as a both a punishment and a disincentive to re-offend. To most, the fines for driving offences (especially more severe offences) often have a relatively large impact on cash flow. The punishment should have the same "impact" on everybody.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we live in a democracy where this relatively draconian mindset is few and far between.

How would it be in the slightest fair for one person to pay £60 and another to pay 25k (half a weeks wage for Tevez) for a speeding incident?

The fine has to be in proportion to the fault, just because you're rich doesn't mean breaking the law has any lesser/more bearing on society.
 
Babw said:
StevenH72 said:
Completely disagree with you here cueball.

I think all fines should be means tested.

Let's face it if you are living on the breadline, struggling to pay bills etc, a £60 fine could be a very harsh punishment, whereas your city slicker/ yuppy who gets a £60 fine isn't going to have been "punished" at all.

Carlos Tevez, for example, was recently fined £1000 for his driving offence (uninsured and suspended license)....what's £1000 for him, probably doesn't even register as pocket change. If you are going to impose a monetary punishment it should act as a both a punishment and a disincentive to re-offend. To most, the fines for driving offences (especially more severe offences) often have a relatively large impact on cash flow. The punishment should have the same "impact" on everybody.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we live in a democracy where this relatively draconian mindset is few and far between.

How would it be in the slightest fair for one person to pay £60 and another to pay 25k (half a weeks wage for Tevez) for a speeding incident?

The fine has to be in proportion to the fault, just because you're rich doesn't mean breaking the law has any lesser/more bearing on society.
Click to expand...


Democrasy? Dont make me laugh
 
Babw said:
StevenH72 said:
Completely disagree with you here cueball.

I think all fines should be means tested.

Let's face it if you are living on the breadline, struggling to pay bills etc, a £60 fine could be a very harsh punishment, whereas your city slicker/ yuppy who gets a £60 fine isn't going to have been "punished" at all.

Carlos Tevez, for example, was recently fined £1000 for his driving offence (uninsured and suspended license)....what's £1000 for him, probably doesn't even register as pocket change. If you are going to impose a monetary punishment it should act as a both a punishment and a disincentive to re-offend. To most, the fines for driving offences (especially more severe offences) often have a relatively large impact on cash flow. The punishment should have the same "impact" on everybody.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we live in a democracy where this relatively draconian mindset is few and far between.

How would it be in the slightest fair for one person to pay £60 and another to pay 25k (half a weeks wage for Tevez) for a speeding incident?

The fine has to be in proportion to the fault, just because you're rich doesn't mean breaking the law has any lesser/more bearing on society.
Click to expand...


The fine is not about fairness, it's about making you less likely to do it again.
Do you think Tevez cares at £1000? but if it was £25K he might be more careful, just as a £60 fine to a family that are squeezed will make them more careful.
Besides If Tevez lost his licence he would just employ a chauffeur anyway.
 
Devilsadvocate said:
Babw said:
StevenH72 said:
Completely disagree with you here cueball.

I think all fines should be means tested.

Let's face it if you are living on the breadline, struggling to pay bills etc, a £60 fine could be a very harsh punishment, whereas your city slicker/ yuppy who gets a £60 fine isn't going to have been "punished" at all.

Carlos Tevez, for example, was recently fined £1000 for his driving offence (uninsured and suspended license)....what's £1000 for him, probably doesn't even register as pocket change. If you are going to impose a monetary punishment it should act as a both a punishment and a disincentive to re-offend. To most, the fines for driving offences (especially more severe offences) often have a relatively large impact on cash flow. The punishment should have the same "impact" on everybody.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we live in a democracy where this relatively draconian mindset is few and far between.

How would it be in the slightest fair for one person to pay £60 and another to pay 25k (half a weeks wage for Tevez) for a speeding incident?

The fine has to be in proportion to the fault, just because you're rich doesn't mean breaking the law has any lesser/more bearing on society.
Click to expand...


The fine is not about fairness, it's about making you less likely to do it again.
Do you think Tevez cares at £1000? but if it was £25K he might be more careful, just as a £60 fine to a family that are squeezed will make them more careful.
Besides If Tevez lost his licence he would just employ a chauffeur anyway.
Click to expand...


As I said, the easiest way of making the fine equitable would be to make it the equivalent of the wages for working ten hours - £60 for those on minimum wage, ranging to many thousands for the most wealthy. Of course, there remains an issue of how to fine the wealthy unemployed....
 
It's not about the fine.

OK £60 may be a lot to some people but really??
In the big scheme of things, compared to the cost of driving its nothing.

The biggest worry is the points and how they can accumulate if you are not a good boy. Points and the possibility of loosing my licence is my biggest worry.
I'd be happy to pay a bigger fine and not get points but then that wouldn't be fair because that wouldn't be a deterrent. I'd simply speed until I couldn't afford it anymore. The more money you have the more you would speed.
The government should just change the national speed limit so that it doesn't apply from 9:00pm until 6:00am, would love that :driving:
 
Exactly... the only time I've ever been done for speeding I was clocked at bang on 80mph in a 70 limit stretch of motorway. £60 fine? I'd happily have paid 10 times that to avoid the 5 years of heightened insurance premiums, especially as a young driver in a sports car - at least £1000 extra in all based on premiums with and without declaring (experimenting on comparison sites each year etc). I'm all clear from October 20th - assuming my car's mystery electrical fault is diagnosed and repaired by then :rofl:
 
Quadracer said:
The government should just change the national speed limit so that it doesn't apply from 9:00pm until 6:00am, would love that :driving:
Click to expand...

And just think of the carnage on the roads if that happened, an invitation for every pimped up saxo and corsa :x

Tim.
 
TitanTim said:
Quadracer said:
The government should just change the national speed limit so that it doesn't apply from 9:00pm until 6:00am, would love that :driving:
Click to expand...

And just think of the carnage on the roads if that happened, an invitation for every pimped up saxo and corsa :x

Tim.
Click to expand...
Don't leave out the pimped up Type R, Scooby and Clio owners.

Yeah you're right but what about once a week then :poke:
 
pvr said:
At least you got the maximum amount of fun out of 3 points.

Nothing more frustrating than getting that for 78...
Click to expand...

i got my 3 points + £60 for doing 35 approaching a change from 30 to 40 plus cost me £50 increase in insurance premiums for each of the 2 cars i own
 
Think yourself lucky it was only £60, if you were Richard Branson and you got caught doing 35mph in a 30 you'd be fined £60,000 if some of the jealous people on here had their way!! :headbang:
 
lux good said:
Think yourself lucky it was only £60, if you were Richard Branson and you got caught doing 35mph in a 30 you'd be fined £60,000 if some of the jealous people on here had their way!! :headbang:
Click to expand...
:rofl: :rofl:
:thumbsup:
 
There's nothing like a thread such as this to bring out the holier-than-thou brigade. I sometimes wonder why some of them buy a sports car at all.
 
Well in Switzerland it's just that, fines levied based on your income

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302161/Swedish-driver-gets-worlds-largest-speeding-fine-180mph-chase.html

180 mph, 650,000 euro fine :cry:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom