>>>>>>>But fines would mean nothing to her.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The only way around that would necessitate scaled penalties based on net worth, and I'm not sure that's a viable alternative.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is already established here. You can be fined day earnings times days with days as functional result of the specific offense.
>>>>>
>>>>>thomas
>>>>
>>>>Is that an average of a days earnings? How would that work with somebody with a fluctuating income?
>>>
>>>Average for about half a year or use last years earnings if still appropriate.
>>
>>Yeah, I would go for that. What I would really like to happen is for fine across the board to increase substantially. I will speed to work knowing there is a tiny risk that I will get a 50 dollar fine, but if there were a tiny risk I would get a 200 dollar fine then you better believe I would rethink it.
>>
>>Hit 'em in the pocketbook, and put the extra proceeds to good use.
>
>I am partially with you - if other sentences were raised as well. Here there really was a discussion of releasing RAF members early. Makes you really wonder about the meaning of being sentenced for life several times over.
>
>OTOH there is a real tendency to "earn" via tickets. If that means a speed trap is set at a safe road where most of the people speed but nearly no accidents happen instead of points were SOME drivers manage to heighten the death toll drastically I am definatly against it. Whereas I think more effort should be made to keep unsafe vehicles off the autobahn. But speed traps are faster money and it is getting to be a real industry here.
>
>thomas

same thing in England thomas. Speed cameras have increased revenue but accidents and drink driving are going up as they do nothing to stop bad or drink driving. Those require police patrols which are reduced because of speed cameras.