Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 5 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Road and Highway Discussion
I just have to say, reading "I don't care what the wealthy do as long as they pay fair share of tax." right after "When we start placing fines based o income we have become a socialist country", made my day.

Edit: I guess I also 'have' to say, that it comes down to what you think the purpose of speeding tickets are.  If its a revenue generation tool and we think its ok for people to speed as long as they pay this extra charge every so often - then I'm completely with you.  Wealthy people shouldn't have to pay more.

But if the purpose of the speeding fine is to punish and deter - its just absolutely common sense that adjusting the fine to the circumstances of the individual would be more effective (although, far from simple or even necessarily worth doing).
Reply


(03-22-2017, 01:02 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(03-22-2017, 12:36 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: We can add demerit points if we can confirm the identity of the driver... so forward facing cameras to take a picture of the driver, and confirmed against Registered Owner's D/L picture.  Now I will sit back and enjoy the popcorn while those who don't want the City of Waterloo to take pictures of your plate will allow the provincial government (who loves outsourcing to private companies) to access pictures of the occupants and inside of your car...

Coke

I will exit this conversation. I can't ever support the above claims.  When we start placing fines based o income we have become a socialist country. I will have no part of that.  Why do people have such disdain for people with wealth. I am an average middle income earner. I don't care what the wealthy do as long as they pay fair share of tax. That's it peiod. I am out.

Since when does socialism mean punishing wealthy people less than poor people (assuming fines are a punishment).  This has nothing to do with distain for wealth, this has to do with treating people equally under the law.  You can exit the conversation if you want, but it's clear you're not even trying to understand the point being made.

Also, what is "their fair share"....we have progressive taxation in this country where wealthy people pay more.  That to me is fair.  Why do you object so strongly to income progressive fines?
Reply
(03-22-2017, 12:57 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: "We can add demerit points if we can confirm the identity of the driver... so forward facing cameras to take a picture of the driver, and confirmed against Registered Owner's D/L picture."

I still don't really understand why we can't add demerit points w/o identifying the driver.  It could even be a separate system where the points are tied to the car and not the owner/driver.  Too many points on the car, and it needs to be removed from the road for some period of time.  There might need to be some practical rules (like you can only add so many points before verifying that the owner has been notified of the previously applied points) but ultimately I don't have a problem with the owner of a vehicle being responsible for the people that drive it.

"Now I will sit back and enjoy the popcorn while those who don't want the City of Waterloo to take pictures of your plate will allow the provincial government (who loves outsourcing to private companies) to access pictures of the occupants and inside of your car..."

You clearly don't understand what the the objections to the parking camera were.  So not much point replying to that part aside from saying that my same 'requirements' for the parking system would need to apply to the photo radar system.

Lets take a small business owner with some vehicles on the road.  3 vehicles run a red in a day, and they lose their CVOR rating, and shut the company down for a month?

If my wife is a bad driver, should I have my licence suspended?  And if we add "limited liability" offences (ie. Red Light Camera), then we might as well demerit others (ie. parking)

My second quoted comment was made purely tongue-in-cheek, and I apologize if you were offended in any way.

Coke
Reply
(03-22-2017, 03:37 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(03-22-2017, 12:57 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: "We can add demerit points if we can confirm the identity of the driver... so forward facing cameras to take a picture of the driver, and confirmed against Registered Owner's D/L picture."

I still don't really understand why we can't add demerit points w/o identifying the driver.  It could even be a separate system where the points are tied to the car and not the owner/driver.  Too many points on the car, and it needs to be removed from the road for some period of time.  There might need to be some practical rules (like you can only add so many points before verifying that the owner has been notified of the previously applied points) but ultimately I don't have a problem with the owner of a vehicle being responsible for the people that drive it.

"Now I will sit back and enjoy the popcorn while those who don't want the City of Waterloo to take pictures of your plate will allow the provincial government (who loves outsourcing to private companies) to access pictures of the occupants and inside of your car..."

You clearly don't understand what the the objections to the parking camera were.  So not much point replying to that part aside from saying that my same 'requirements' for the parking system would need to apply to the photo radar system.

Lets take a small business owner with some vehicles on the road.  3 vehicles run a red in a day, and they lose their CVOR rating, and shut the company down for a month?

If my wife is a bad driver, should I have my licence suspended?  And if we add "limited liability" offences (ie. Red Light Camera), then we might as well demerit others (ie. parking)

My second quoted comment was made purely tongue-in-cheek, and I apologize if you were offended in any way.

Coke

I don't pretend to understand CVOR or commercial vehicle registration.  But that clearly can be treated differently.

As for your wife being a bad driver, sure, why not.  If your wife can't drive safely, and cannot get her own car as a result, don't enable her to continue endangering people's lives by giving her your car.

I am playing devils advocate a bit here, but I don't see a problem with holding a party responsible for allowing a person access to a car.  We would do the same for other dangerous items.  

And we already do this with fines.  Just not demerit points.  I don't think it's entirely cut and dry.
Reply
"Lets take a small business owner with some vehicles on the road.  3 vehicles run a red in a day, and they lose their CVOR rating, and shut the company down for a month?"

This is why I tried to add the caveat about waiting for notification.  The idea being that while I think the small business owner is ultimately responsible for his employees and his vehicles - he needs to be given opportunities to address the problem.  So, I agree, 3 vehicles running a red in one day shouldn't shut his company down.  His vehicles running red lights consistently month-after-month certainly is (imo).



"If my wife is a bad driver, should I have my licence suspended?"

Sort of the same answer.  As a married couple you take certain responsibilities for each other.  Ideally, your wife would admit to the infractions or you'd address the issue before it gets to license suspension.  But if you both stayed quiet and all we know is that the vehicle was repeatedly breaking the law - I don't really see why we should shrug our shoulders and let it keep happening.

I knew when growing up that if I did something wrong in my parents car, I wasn't getting to drive the car again anytime soon.



"And if we add "limited liability" offences (ie. Red Light Camera), then we might as well demerit others (ie. parking)"

I, personally, lean towards just doing this for safety related offense - which parking rarely is.  But, in the times when it is safety related, then yes I'd have no problem with that.  Again, look at what we do with the big shipping companies.  They pay parking fines just as a cost of business.  And ultimately they're either doing something that's not that bad and we're fine with just having them pay for "special parking" places, or we should step up our punishment so that it's actually effective.


"My second quoted comment was made purely tongue-in-cheek, and I apologize if you were offended in any way."

I'm never offended. Big Grin But I didn't realize it was purely tongue-in-cheek.  So no worries.
Reply
(03-22-2017, 04:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for your wife being a bad driver, sure, why not.  If your wife can't drive safely, and cannot get her own car as a result, don't enable her to continue endangering people's lives by giving her your car.

And don't forget to register the vehicle in your spouse's name if he/she has a much lower income as it will result in much smaller fines!
Reply
It seems the Hwy 8 ramp to the EB 401 has had the merge point move even further back. It was too dark to see what compelled the change, unfortunately.
Reply
Was just about to post that! Smile Over the last few days, it's transitioned upstream a hundred metres or so, just as the curve ends. Today, there was a concrete barrier up.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
Any idea why?
Reply
@tomh009 Or just use household income. Look. I'm not saying there aren't questions. Just that flat fines are discriminatory.
Reply
@ Jamincan I think they're just working their way up along the sides for the widening. Eventually both lanes on the ramp will just carry straight through (they'll become lane 4 and 5 of the expansion). This will be bliss!!!
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
Danbrotherston: Actually, what you're proposing is discriminatory. But don't think that I'm implying that's bad: we discriminate based on income all of the time. Our income taxes are in almost all Canadian jurisdictions are discriminatory, and (even though there are often proposals) it's pretty unlikely we remove that form of income discrimination.

That merge onto the eastbound 401 will be much better when that change is made.
Reply
That's the whole point of the project, I think. That, and doing the same thing for the Westbound lanes (that they'll "stay" and lanes 4 and 5 will just continue on to 8).

I have a love/hate thing watching this "ballet" play out every day. In another life I would have gotten a kick out of being a traffic engineer, because I have a really good eye for predicting how people move when driving.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(03-23-2017, 09:25 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Danbrotherston: Actually, what you're proposing is discriminatory. But don't think that I'm implying that's bad: we discriminate based on income all of the time. Our income taxes are in almost all Canadian jurisdictions are discriminatory, and (even though there are often proposals) it's pretty unlikely we remove that form of income discrimination.

That merge onto the eastbound 401 will be much better when that change is made.

I don't disagree.  What I'm suggesting is "discriminatory" in that it seeks to charge a different amount of money for people who make different amounts of money.

But that does not make what I said wrong.

Flat fees are discriminatory in that the effective punishment a person feels for a specific offence depends on their level of income.

Frankly, I feel the second is a more serious problem than the first, but I realize this is a difficult thing for people to understand.

Although it occurs to me there is an extremely simple and obvious way to solve this whole problem.

Lets phrase fines in terms of docking pay, for running a red light you get a fine which docs you "20 hours of hourly pay".  Where hourly pay = total income / (40 * 52).  Now everyone gets the same "fine", 20 hours of pay.
Reply
No, like I said, I wasn't disagreeing with your idea, I don't have a strong opinion about it (though I'm enjoying the conversation about it). I was just pointing out that the current system is not discriminatory (but might have bad outcomes) as you stated; your idea would be discriminatory (but might have better outcomes).

How would your last idea work for people who, say, don't earn any employment income? If you just live off of dividends, your hourly pay is zero?
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  Highway 401 Widening - Highway 8 to Townline Road Shawn 228 97,394 12-10-2018, 09:10 PM
Last Post: timio
  Highway 401 Widening - Hespeler Road to Townline Road The85 12 8,168 11-25-2014, 08:47 PM
Last Post: Canard

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links