Wealthy people tend to speed more

[Cowperson]

Think only 18 year-olds drive fast? Think again. If you're a high income earner, you're in a group that is likely to speed.

According to the data, 60 percent of those surveyed with household incomes from $75,000 to $99,999 — and 66 percent with household incomes of $100,000 or more — said they "often" or "sometimes" drive 10 mph over the posted speed limit, compared with 42 percent to 49 percent of people at lower income levels.

Similarly, 77 percent of drivers with household incomes between $75,000 and $99,999, 73 percent earning more than $100,000, and 70 percent earning between $50,000 and $74,999 said within the past week they had exceeded the number of miles per hour over the speed limit that they thought might lead to a police stop.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/Business...g_040809-1.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/Business/speeding_040809-1.html)

Hmmmm. . . . . this might explain the $219 ticket I got last week.

Cowperson

[nfotiu]

If speeding tickets were really in place to make the roads safer and not just offer the government another source of revenue, they would do something to make the penalties as stiff for wealthy people as they do for poor people. The way it stands now with only a financial disincentive to speed, Wealthy people pretty much have a right to speed, while the poor do not. It is a silly system, and maybe it should be changed to the system some other countries use where the ticket is tied to your income level, so everyone is penalized evenly. Or they could figure out a way to make a non-financial penalty, like suspending licences. But that doesn't help the government make money.

[FlamesAddiction]

They should do like what they do in Finland where fines are not a set amount but a relative proportion of your income.

[snowdude]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Aug 9 2004, 08:27 AM
They should do like what they do in Finland where fines are not a set amount but a relative proportion of your income.
That they should....though since i'm a student does that mean i'm never going to pay another ticket?....then again that bus doesn't go very fast

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Aug 9 2004, 02:26 PM
If speeding tickets were really in place to make the roads safer and not just offer the government another source of revenue, they would do something to make the penalties as stiff for wealthy people as they do for poor people. The way it stands now with only a financial disincentive to speed, Wealthy people pretty much have a right to speed, while the poor do not. It is a silly system, and maybe it should be changed to the system some other countries use where the ticket is tied to your income level, so everyone is penalized evenly. Or they could figure out a way to make a non-financial penalty, like suspending licences. But that doesn't help the government make money.
Wouldnt basing the fine on income only make the government more money?

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Snakeeye+Aug 9 2004, 02:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snakeeye @ Aug 9 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nfotiu@Aug 9 2004, 02:26 PM
If speeding tickets were really in place to make the roads safer and not just offer the government another source of revenue, they would do something to make the penalties as stiff for wealthy people as they do for poor people. The way it stands now with only a financial disincentive to speed, Wealthy people pretty much have a right to speed, while the poor do not. It is a silly system, and maybe it should be changed to the system some other countries use where the ticket is tied to your income level, so everyone is penalized evenly. Or they could figure out a way to make a non-financial penalty, like suspending licences. But that doesn't help the government make money.
Wouldnt basing the fine on income only make the government more money? [/b][/quote]
I see the contradictions in my post, but at least the government can claim they are doing it as a real deterrant and not just a cash grab. Suspending licences would probably be a better deterrant though.

[CrzyCanuck]

More cash = faster better car. (unless your cheap, I mean cost conscience)

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

You can't punish people for being sucessful and then at the same time reward people for being poor or living under the poverty line. Both commited the same crime, and thus both should have the same punishment. Because in Finlands system at the current time you are punishing people for having money, something that our society promotes.
________
Hotbox vaporizers (http://www.vaporshop.com/hotbox-vaporizer.html)

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Makes sense. A lot of your top dollar earners are going to be in professions where time = money (literally) as opposed to salaried positions so every last second counts in a day...

That and your top dollar income earners aren't likely to be tooling around in a 105hp Toyota Tercel... Methinks it's easy to speed when you're in a BMW 545i with 325hp... Blink and you're 30 over.

[Cowperson]

While I agree the $219 ticket on Friday isn't a deterrent for myself, charging wealthy people more for a ticket is, frankly, unfair.

I already pay five times - or more - in taxes than the guy driving a Volkswagon Beetle who says I'm not paying my fair share. I've always found that argument ridiculous given the wealthy already pay most of the personal taxes already in both Canada and the USA.

Go straight for the demerits and suspensions. That's fair for everyone and a deterrent for everyone. Then again, that's the case right now isn't it?

According to this chart, I lost four demerit points by going 115 kmh in an 80 kmh zone (coming into the city, under the 22X bridge crossing Highway 2 which was a 110 kmh zone until recently, in case anyone is wondering).

http://www.pointts.com/albertadermit.html

In Alberta, collecting 15 or more demerits results in a one month licence suspension.

Obviously I could do the same thing another three times before I'd be in danger of losing my licence. Should that be tougher?

Cowperson

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 9 2004, 03:45 PM
While I agree the $219 ticket on Friday isn't a deterrent for myself, charging wealthy people more for a ticket is, frankly, unfair.

I already pay five times - or more - in taxes than the guy driving a Volkswagon Beetle who says I'm not paying my fair share. I've always found that argument ridiculous given the wealthy already pay most of the personal taxes already in both Canada and the USA.

Go straight for the demerits and suspensions. That's fair for everyone and a deterrent for everyone. Then again, that's the case right now isn't it?

According to this chart, I lost four demerit points by going 115 kmh in an 80 kmh zone (coming into the city, under the 22X bridge crossing Highway 2 which was a 110 kmh zone until recently, in case anyone is wondering).

http://www.pointts.com/albertadermit.html

In Alberta, collecting 15 or more demerits results in a one month licence suspension.

Obviously I could do the same thing another three times before I'd be in danger of losing my licence. Should that be tougher?

Cowperson
The demerit system falls apart when the rich people all hire lawyers to get their ticket reduced. I've had 5 tickets in the last 3 years, and got each of them wiped off my record. All it is doing is making the lawyers rich, so they are able to speed!

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by nfotiu+Aug 9 2004, 04:10 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nfotiu @ Aug 9 2004, 04:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Aug 9 2004, 03:45 PM
While I agree the $219 ticket on Friday isn't a deterrent for myself, charging wealthy people more for a ticket is, frankly, unfair.

I already pay five times - or more - in taxes than the guy driving a Volkswagon Beetle who says I'm not paying my fair share. I've always found that argument ridiculous given the wealthy already pay most of the personal taxes already in both Canada and the USA.

Go straight for the demerits and suspensions. That's fair for everyone and a deterrent for everyone. Then again, that's the case right now isn't it?

According to this chart, I lost four demerit points by going 115 kmh in an 80 kmh zone (coming into the city, under the 22X bridge crossing Highway 2 which was a 110 kmh zone until recently, in case anyone is wondering).

http://www.pointts.com/albertadermit.html

In Alberta, collecting 15 or more demerits results in a one month licence suspension.

Obviously I could do the same thing another three times before I'd be in danger of losing my licence. Should that be tougher?

Cowperson
The demerit system falls apart when the rich people all hire lawyers to get their ticket reduced. I've had 5 tickets in the last 3 years, and got each of them wiped off my record. All it is doing is making the lawyers rich, so they are able to speed! [/b][/quote]
Well, lets look at that. What did it cost you to wipe out each of those tickets? What were your savings in terms of the cost of each ticket and the potential increases in your insurance? Were you better off?

FIVE!!

Meanwhile, an amusing conversation with the officer in my case last week:

Officer to Cowperson last week: "Did you know this is an 80 kmh zone?"

Cowperson: "Sure."

Officer to Cowperson: "And that didn't deter you from going 35 kmh over the speed limit?"

Cowperson: "Nope. You caught me fair and square. I don't have a problem with that."

Officer to Cowperson: "You're unusual. Most people from Okotoks say they don't know about the speed limit change here."

Cowperson: "Well, they're lying to you."

Officer with a grin: "Probably."

Cowperson

[Resolute 14]

From previous threads, it seems that our legal system is willing to drop the demerit points if you challenge a ticket, but you still usually get fined. Simply need to change that: Conviction = demerits. No loopholes.

I also think driving without a licence should be a felony offense. Some time in jail would deter the rich buisnessman who lost his licence for 15 points, but kept on driving during that 30 day ban.

Speaking of demerit points, I love Manitoba's list from the site Cowperson linked to. Seems to me that if you are charged with impaired driving causing death, or vehicular manslaughter, the 15 demerit points that gets you will be the least of your worries.

[moon]

Linking fines to income level works for me and would actually probably increase my speeding. Since I have no income what would I have to pay?

Plus I still doubt that the fines levied would be so great as to deter the rich unless they were to be extremely outreageous which I would alos not agree with.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by moon@Aug 9 2004, 07:04 PM
Linking fines to income level works for me and would actually probably increase my speeding. Since I have no income what would I have to pay?

Plus I still doubt that the fines levied would be so great as to deter the rich unless they were to be extremely outreageous which I would alos not agree with.
One guy in Finland, if I remember right, paid a fine of over $300,000 for a single speeding ticket based on his income.

But I like your other take - if you have no income, do you pay nothing for speeding?

Cowperson

[Tron_fdc]

I don't think income is related to speed. I speed for one reason: I'm impatiant as all hell. I get mad if I'm not travelling at least 10 kmh over the posted limit, and my patients is not inextricably tied to my income.

Tying someones salary to the traffic offense is a little silly as well. Where do you draw the line? On fines? On criminal traffic offences? Stunting isn't illegal, but it's the same as a DUI on your abstract.

Cop: Did you know you just ran down a small animal, took out 3 hedges, and blew 0.20 on my breathalyzer?
Me: Sorry about that. BTW, I'm on welfare.
Cop: Oh. My mistake. Here's your 50 ticket.
Me: No apologies necessary, can I have my keys back?

:D

Stuff like that should be on an equal playing field. If you can't afford the ticket, don't speed.

[Cube Inmate]

The "fairness" in me says that everyone should pay the same fine for speeding, but I do wish there were a deterrent to speeding (or just generally driving like an ***hole) for those who can afford the tickets...

I support quicker suspension of licenses for getting tickets. 3 moving violations within a year should be a 1-week suspension or something like that. I've driven for 8 years now without a ticket...I'm not saying I never speed, but I never drive dangerously like some of the rich dicks in BMWs.

[firebug]

This fact does not surprise me, as I am convinced that speeding directly correlates with vanity. Frequently, wealthy individuals tend to be more vain than the average poor schmo.

[Claeren]

What makes me mad is a car today is as SAFER at ~100kph then a car 15 years ago was at ~80kph.

On average it is more agile, stops MUSH faster, accelerates faster, has better overall stability on the road, has better sight lines, and can better handle virutally ANY sort of incident or crash or accident.

That is before looking at improvements in road/ interchange/intersection design, advanced road materials and markings (surprising if you look into it), tire manufacture, glass manufacture, street light proliferation, etc.

You could make a VERY credible arguement that 1970-1985 at 80kph is equal to today at 120kph+.

Yet very few roads have seen increases in speed limits since that time, and in fact most have seen DECREASES, WHY!?!?!?!

30%+ of accident injuries in Alberta are a DIRECT result of alchohol, with up to another 30% (60% total) indirect. Cell phones, lack of seat belts, poor vehicle maintenance, and plain BAD drivers make up a HUGE portion (some overlapping some not) of the rest of road incidents.

After all of that how is Cowperson entering the city on a HIGHWAY at 115kph have ANYTHING to do with protecting the average jow schmo? NOTHING....

gah! p*sses me off SO SO SO much....


I say they increase MAJOR road speeds by 20-40kph across the board but beef up penalties for other driving infractons sizably, have mandatory periodic retesting (5 years? 10 years? Whatever), and things like red light enforcement, drunk driver check points, and seat belt stops beefed up considerably.


Claeren.

PS - 1 last arguement, that by using improved road design methods aimed at reducing driver load in the majority of situations you have actually made roads MORE dangerous. When people are forced to drive 60-80kph on roads designed to be driven 100-140kph they are prone to lossing focus and becoming bored. (Calgary area FACT: MOST stretches of major roads constructed in Calgary over the last 10 years are designed for sustained 130kph speeds(!!!!)) Why not answer that phone call? Eat that big mac? Not to mention staying awake! Fact is a higher driver load should keep drivers focused, and focus (you would think) should reduce accidents.

PPS - I am ONLY advocating incresed speed limits on highways and freeways. I support fully HEAVY enforcement in school zones, playground zones, and other pedestrian (or other high risk) areas.

My rant....

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 10 2004, 12:25 PM
After all of that how is Cowperson entering the city on a HIGHWAY at 115kph have ANYTHING to do with protecting the average jow schmo? NOTHING....



Well, I'm not whining about the ticket. No excuses. I didn't make any.

To your point though - that particular stretch of highway WAS 110 kmh with 30% MORE traffic and 60% MORE big rig traffic (source, Calgary Herald) before the Deerfoot extension was opened. As soon as the extension came on line, traffic volumes dropped like a stone.

Meanwhile, they lowered the speed limit to 80 kmh AFTER they got rid of 30% of the traffic. They apparently thought that was a more UNSAFE situation than it was before . . . . all because of one traffic light they stuck out in the middle of no where. You can rocket almost up to the traffic light at 110 kmh. Then the 80 kmh zone starts for about two miles to 162nd Ave on the edge of the city.

So people, not just myself, generally ignore the speed limit at that spot. . . . unless they see a cop!!

But I wasn't complaining about the ticket since I was caught fair and square.

Entering Okotoks, the RCMP imposed a ridiculous 50 kmh zone for at least a mile before you even came within sight of the town - even the Mayor was in the newspaper blowing a gasket over the sheer stupidity of it. Eventually it was changed to a higher number.

Sometimes you do wonder if they're not just looking to raise money versus keeping you safe.

Cowperson

[Cube Inmate]

Claeren

I agree with what both you and Cow have to say... speed limits on some roads in Calgary are ridiculous, but you can't protest that fact without running the risk of getting caught and paying the fine.

Just another response to your rant...

Originally posted by Claeren@Aug 10 2004, 06:25 AM
That is before looking at improvements in road/ interchange/intersection design, advanced road materials and markings (surprising if you look into it), tire manufacture, glass manufacture, street light proliferation, etc.

As for improved road design, vehicle capabilities, etc...the transportation engineers have not caught up with those facts. They're still working with manuals that are 30 years old, which INSIST that a road X metres wide, with an R metre radius of curvature must have a speed limit of exactly 80 km/h even though it's safe up to 120 km/h. They literally have a manual which defines the ideal speed limit on every type of road, in every possible setting...and not one of them would ever allow his common sense to override the manual and increase the limit (decrease it, sure!). That, and they have the attitude that people are going to break the laws, so the laws have to be ridiculously restrictive in the first place!

A situation in my old neighbourhood taught me how stupid their methods are: There are a bunch of 4-way stops with painted crosswalks, and I guess somebody complained that people were stopping IN the crosswalks (of those few people who actually do stop for a 4-way). Rather than enforce the rules as they're written (stop before the crosswalk), the city decided to paint additional stop lines 4 feet ahead of the crosswalks! What the hell is an extra dollop of slippery paint going to do!!?!? You've got to educate the drivers!! But that's their way of dealing with problems...if people don't follow the rules, make more restrictive rules!

Hmmm...I didn't intend for this to turn into a rant, but it did!

[Bill Bumface]

Claeren summed up my thoughts pretty much exactly. Once they put all of the interchanges and extra lanes on crowchild I was just waiting for the speed limit to be increased, but it wasn't. So the result? Everyone drives 90-110 on there in the morning.

The other funny thing I noticed, just coming back from BC on Sunday, is how fast Alberta drivers go compared to BC drivers. I think this is a product of many factors:

Not that many wealthy drivers or as many new cars in interior BC

Traffic enforcement is way stricter/more painful in BC.

If you go 90Km/h in a 50Km/h construction zone in the middle of the night when no one is working at it, you could face a $700 ticket. You will get pulled over for going 105 in a 90 in BC, where as in Alberta I've seen cops just flash the lights for people doing 90 in the 70 wildlife zone. As soon as you get out of the mountains, the flow of traffic is about 130-135.

Basically my thoughts are let people have at it on the highways (ie going 120 on deerfoot isn't that big of a deal in light traffic. Go over 130, and you should get pulled for it), but go for strict enforcement in residentials. I see way too many people going along at 70km/h and forgetting to stop for the little kid waiting to cross the street to his house.

[kdogg]

From experience:

49 km/h over = $329 ticket

FYI
________
Live sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[albertGQ]

Originally posted by kdogg@Aug 10 2004, 05:54 PM
From experience:

49 km/h over = $329 ticket

FYI
Cop did you a favour. You were prob going 50+ over the limit. Since he lowered it to 49, you don't have have a mandatory court appearance. lower fine, and subsequently lower demerits

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by Cube Inmate+Aug 10 2004, 10:35 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cube Inmate @ Aug 10 2004, 10:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Claeren

I agree with what both you and Cow have to say... speed limits on some roads in Calgary are ridiculous, but you can't protest that fact without running the risk of getting caught and paying the fine.

Just another response to your rant...

<!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Aug 10 2004, 06:25 AM
That is before looking at improvements in road/ interchange/intersection design, advanced road materials and markings (surprising if you look into it), tire manufacture, glass manufacture, street light proliferation, etc.

As for improved road design, vehicle capabilities, etc...the transportation engineers have not caught up with those facts. They're still working with manuals that are 30 years old, which INSIST that a road X metres wide, with an R metre radius of curvature must have a speed limit of exactly 80 km/h even though it's safe up to 120 km/h. They literally have a manual which defines the ideal speed limit on every type of road, in every possible setting...and not one of them would ever allow his common sense to override the manual and increase the limit (decrease it, sure!). That, and they have the attitude that people are going to break the laws, so the laws have to be ridiculously restrictive in the first place!

A situation in my old neighbourhood taught me how stupid their methods are: There are a bunch of 4-way stops with painted crosswalks, and I guess somebody complained that people were stopping IN the crosswalks (of those few people who actually do stop for a 4-way). Rather than enforce the rules as they're written (stop before the crosswalk), the city decided to paint additional stop lines 4 feet ahead of the crosswalks! What the hell is an extra dollop of slippery paint going to do!!?!? You've got to educate the drivers!! But that's their way of dealing with problems...if people don't follow the rules, make more restrictive rules!

Hmmm...I didn't intend for this to turn into a rant, but it did! [/b][/quote]
Wow, I think it's rather Ironic that someone with Dilbert as their avatar doesn't understand the concept of a safety factor. Sure road planners have books that tell them that such and such a radius is safe at X speed. Just like I have a book that tells me that a certain diameter of coil tubing is good to a certain load, and guess what, they have safety factors built in too. There are safety standards that everyone must follow. A road planner can't just decide to change the speed limit because it's safe at 120 instead of 80, he would loose his job if he did.

And as for the stop line. The problem is that people don't understand to not stop in a crosswalk. But guess what, people do understand to stop at a big white line that says stop. People are dumb, it's easier to paint a line than it is to try to reason with stupid people.

[kdogg]

Originally posted by albertGQ+Aug 10 2004, 01:21 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (albertGQ @ Aug 10 2004, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-kdogg@Aug 10 2004, 05:54 PM
From experience:

49 km/h over = $329 ticket

FYI
Cop did you a favour. You were prob going 50+ over the limit. Since he lowered it to 49, you don't have have a mandatory court appearance. lower fine, and subsequently lower demerits[/b][/quote]
No, he wasn't a nice fellow.

He initially told me i was going to loose my lisence, then came back with a ticket. I was just lucky :D
________
Erica_Lopez (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/Erica_Lopez/)

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz@Aug 10 2004, 01:22 PM
Wow, I think it's rather Ironic that someone with Dilbert as their avatar doesn't understand the concept of a safety factor. Sure road planners have books that tell them that such and such a radius is safe at X speed. Just like I have a book that tells me that a certain diameter of coil tubing is good to a certain load, and guess what, they have safety factors built in too. There are safety standards that everyone must follow. A road planner can't just decide to change the speed limit because it's safe at 120 instead of 80, he would loose his job if he did.

And as for the stop line. The problem is that people don't understand to not stop in a crosswalk. But guess what, people do understand to stop at a big white line that says stop. People are dumb, it's easier to paint a line than it is to try to reason with stupid people.
I said that badly... of course a section of highway with certain ROC, or with limited visibility, or whatever is going to be unsafe at certain speeds. Everybody knows that the speed limit does not reflect what that speed is though!

Speed limits around here are not related to that safety limit...they're based on road classifications, political direction, and statistics about driver behaviour. It's social engineering, not engineering. Alberta's road design manual states something like "15% of drivers tend to exceed the posted speed limit by 6 to 10 km/h." I have a problem with basing speed limits on this kind of statistic because it's not valid for any given road without verification. There's too much reliance on these generalizations and not enough attention paid to the characteristics of the individual road. The Hwy 2A speed limit change was probably done for either financial reasons (ticket$) or because the road classification suddenly changed and the manual said it should now be an 80 km/h zone....either way, it's ridiculous.

As for the stop lines, they don't say "stop" on them...they're just big, slippery white lines that people still ignore. The problem I have with them is that even though I always stopped legally before the crosswalk, that's now illegal...I have to stop 4 feet further back. The intersections weren't designed to have the stop line that much further back -- several of them have bushes obstructing the view of the intersection from there. As with speed limits though, it wasn't a case of designing with sound principles in mind...they simply made a decision based on the idea that more conservative rules might make the violations less problematic.

I think it's a fundamentally flawed principle to apply rules in a certain way because you know people are going to break them. Everybody knows they aren't based on safety, and that just makes people respect the law less and more likely to break it.