Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: General Road and Highway Discussion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(03-20-2017, 04:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]The real solution is to have income based fines.

That is its own can of worms.  Yeah, Finland has it, but they, too, have been gradually reducing its impact.

In any case, if a speeding (or whatever) fine is $500, practically everyone will feel the pain.  And a low-income person can get the fine reduced.  (The reduced fine option doesn't exist in Finland.)
(03-20-2017, 04:47 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-20-2017, 04:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]The real solution is to have income based fines.

That is its own can of worms.  Yeah, Finland has it, but they, too, have been gradually reducing its impact.

In any case, if a speeding (or whatever) fine is $500, practically everyone will feel the pain.  And a low-income person can get the fine reduced.  (The reduced fine option doesn't exist in Finland.)

I'm confused, if Finland has income rated fines, then clearly a low-income person gets a reduced fine, it's just automatic.

It definitely is its own can of worms, but only because I think people misunderstand money.

As for a $500 dollar fine it definitely doesn't make the same impact on everyone.  For a well paid tech worker, a $500 dollar fine would be a bad day, but it wouldn't really practically impact anything they do.  A lower income individual but someone who's not a "low-income" person, they're going to feel some pain, they might forego a dinner out, or at the very least see an impact in their retirement savings.  For a CEO of a big company, they probably spend more on haircuts in a month, they'll barely care about a $500 dollar fine.
Income based fines strike me as ok in theory but seem like they have lots of complications.

I don't actually see what's wrong with the demerit based system we have here. An interview triggered at one level and then automatic suspension after that. Doesn't matter what your income level is.
(03-10-2017, 01:50 PM)GtwoK Wrote: [ -> ]The next closest one would be the Wellington St one just before it, which isn't all that bad of a detour. And before that, the Lancaster one will take you staright downtown as well. The issue I guess is more for those looking to go East of 85, cause they'd have to go all the way along Bingemans Centre.

Yeah, I've been adjusting routes for the last week and quickly found only 2-3 cars can make a left per per light at Wellington onto Lancaster (towards Victoria) during peak hours.  Multiply that by ~20 cars in the queue and you get the idea.  If there is a train crossing Lancaster it's even more backed up (happens more than I'd expected).    For me it actually works out better to keep going southbound to Ottawa exit, cross the bridge, get back on Northbound 85, and get off at the Bruce street exit to go east on Victoria (or wherever else you'd normally go if getting off at the normal Edna exit).  When the rest of the Wellington stuff is done it should be non-issue. 

On the bright side they have some heavy equipment by the Saab dealership and are working away.
(03-20-2017, 06:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-20-2017, 04:47 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]That is its own can of worms.  Yeah, Finland has it, but they, too, have been gradually reducing its impact.

In any case, if a speeding (or whatever) fine is $500, practically everyone will feel the pain.  And a low-income person can get the fine reduced.  (The reduced fine option doesn't exist in Finland.)

As for a $500 dollar fine it definitely doesn't make the same impact on everyone.  For a well paid tech worker, a $500 dollar fine would be a bad day, but it wouldn't really practically impact anything they do.  A lower income individual but someone who's not a "low-income" person, they're going to feel some pain, they might forego a dinner out, or at the very least see an impact in their retirement savings.  For a CEO of a big company, they probably spend more on haircuts in a month, they'll barely care about a $500 dollar fine.

What I am saying is that most people (99.9%+) will feel that $500 is serious money, and will not want to just throw it away.  Maybe there are a handful of people in this city that wouldn't care about $500, but it's surely not even 0.1% (that would be 400 people or so).  And my point is that if the set fine is $500, people with financial hardship can get that reduced today.

So I'm saying fines (let alone demerits) can already have an impact today without switching to a % of income model (and the headline $10K fines).
(03-20-2017, 10:26 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-20-2017, 06:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]As for a $500 dollar fine it definitely doesn't make the same impact on everyone.  For a well paid tech worker, a $500 dollar fine would be a bad day, but it wouldn't really practically impact anything they do.  A lower income individual but someone who's not a "low-income" person, they're going to feel some pain, they might forego a dinner out, or at the very least see an impact in their retirement savings.  For a CEO of a big company, they probably spend more on haircuts in a month, they'll barely care about a $500 dollar fine.

What I am saying is that most people (99.9%+) will feel that $500 is serious money, and will not want to just throw it away.  Maybe there are a handful of people in this city that wouldn't care about $500, but it's surely not even 0.1% (that would be 400 people or so).  And my point is that if the set fine is $500, people with financial hardship can get that reduced today.

So I'm saying fines (let alone demerits) can already have an impact today without switching to a % of income model (and the headline $10K fines).

That wasn't my point, even if 99.9% of people "feel" that $500 dollars is "serious" money, it still affects them very differently.  Someone working full time but earning minimum wage will see a $500 dollar fine as backbreaking, working out to over a week of work.  Someone making 20 dollars an hour, is still making decent money but 500 dollars represents several days of work, and probably some cut to their lifestyle or savings.  A highly paid tech worker or other professional that will represent less than a day of work, and will be upset, but otherwise unaffected, its a huge difference in impact, but they're all still well within the 99.9% you've defined, and I doubt any qualify for financial hardship relief.

The point is, the punishment is the impact a fine has on your life, not the monetary value of the fine, therefore, those fines should be scaled relative to their impact on your life.

Demerit point systems are good too, but they seem to not be acceptable to people for automated enforcement.
(03-20-2017, 10:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-20-2017, 10:26 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]What I am saying is that most people (99.9%+) will feel that $500 is serious money, and will not want to just throw it away.  Maybe there are a handful of people in this city that wouldn't care about $500, but it's surely not even 0.1% (that would be 400 people or so).  And my point is that if the set fine is $500, people with financial hardship can get that reduced today.

So I'm saying fines (let alone demerits) can already have an impact today without switching to a % of income model (and the headline $10K fines).

That wasn't my point, even if 99.9% of people "feel" that $500 dollars is "serious" money, it still affects them very differently.  Someone working full time but earning minimum wage will see a $500 dollar fine as backbreaking, working out to over a week of work.  Someone making 20 dollars an hour, is still making decent money but 500 dollars represents several days of work, and probably some cut to their lifestyle or savings.  A highly paid tech worker or other professional that will represent less than a day of work, and will be upset, but otherwise unaffected, its a huge difference in impact, but they're all still well within the 99.9% you've defined, and I doubt any qualify for financial hardship relief.

Based on my (admittedly anecdotal) knowledge, if you are making minimum wage you would probably get a 90% cut from the $500 fine.  At $40K annual income, depending on circumstances, you would likely still have a good chance of getting it reduced (though by a smaller amount).

(03-20-2017, 10:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]The point is, the punishment is the impact a fine has on your life, not the monetary value of the fine, therefore, those fines should be scaled relative to their impact on your life.

I think that's the key difference in our viewpoints.  I see the primary purpose of fines as a deterrent, not as punishment.
(03-21-2017, 10:00 AM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-20-2017, 10:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]That wasn't my point, even if 99.9% of people "feel" that $500 dollars is "serious" money, it still affects them very differently.  Someone working full time but earning minimum wage will see a $500 dollar fine as backbreaking, working out to over a week of work.  Someone making 20 dollars an hour, is still making decent money but 500 dollars represents several days of work, and probably some cut to their lifestyle or savings.  A highly paid tech worker or other professional that will represent less than a day of work, and will be upset, but otherwise unaffected, its a huge difference in impact, but they're all still well within the 99.9% you've defined, and I doubt any qualify for financial hardship relief.

Based on my (admittedly anecdotal) knowledge, if you are making minimum wage you would probably get a 90% cut from the $500 fine.  At $40K annual income, depending on circumstances, you would likely still have a good chance of getting it reduced (though by a smaller amount).

(03-20-2017, 10:54 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]The point is, the punishment is the impact a fine has on your life, not the monetary value of the fine, therefore, those fines should be scaled relative to their impact on your life.

I think that's the key difference in our viewpoints.  I see the primary purpose of fines as a deterrent, not as punishment.

Wow, really?  At 40k you'd get a discount?  At minimum wage you'd get a 90% cut.  That's extremely generous.  I would already consider that to be income geared fines, but in a poorly implemented fashion, where only those who bother to ask get a decrease, and also, with a cap which makes them irrelevant to wealthy individuals.  

In any case, what makes a fine a deterrent?  Is it not the threat of a punishment?  I also see it as a deterrent, but I don't see it as a deterrent without a credible threat of punishment.  Moreover, I see an unfairness in a situation where your punishment (when deterrence fails) depends on your wealth.
I am making up numbers. But really you can get a significant discount if you demonstrate some level of "hardship".
You have to make a submission to ask for a reduced fine or extra time to pay...do you need to go to court? Either could be a big barrier for someone who is (say) working shift work. Or a 9 to 5. Or kids to watch. (Or whatever.)
(03-21-2017, 07:27 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]You have to make a submission to ask for a reduced fine or extra time to pay...do you need to go to court? Either could be a big barrier for someone who is (say) working shift work. Or a 9 to 5. Or kids to watch. (Or whatever.)

You need to go to the courthouse (used to be talking to a JP but now I think it's some other kind of court officer).  Yes, it's a hassle.  But if money is tight, you will probably find a way to go.
(03-21-2017, 08:24 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-21-2017, 07:27 PM)MidTowner Wrote: [ -> ]You have to make a submission to ask for a reduced fine or extra time to pay...do you need to go to court? Either could be a big barrier for someone who is (say) working shift work. Or a 9 to 5. Or kids to watch. (Or whatever.)

You need to go to the courthouse (used to be talking to a JP but now I think it's some other kind of court officer).  Yes, it's a hassle.  But if money is tight, you will probably find a way to go.

If money is tight, going may be even more difficult.
(03-21-2017, 08:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-21-2017, 08:24 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]You need to go to the courthouse (used to be talking to a JP but now I think it's some other kind of court officer).  Yes, it's a hassle.  But if money is tight, you will probably find a way to go.

If money is tight, going may be even more difficult.

If you got a traffic ticket, most likely you have a car ...
/\ But they may have to take time off work to do so and many can ill afford the loss in pay.
Impounding for a week seems like a pretty equally-harsh move no matter what your situation. I like that one... it's what they do for stunt driving.