I just want to respond to a few of your points without responding to everything individually.
First, you completely dodge the question of whether a demerit system would be a better system than fines only. Do you not see any merit in it? I've lived in three different countries (Canada, USA, Greece) and I can say that the demerit system is a great equalizer. You get, say, 10 demerits credited to start with. Every infraction has a different demerit rating depending on the severity. If you go over the 10 demerits within three years, you are suspended from driving for a month. No amount of money can restore that. Further suspensions result in higher amounts of time suspended. What is the real motivation here, revenue collection or public safety? If it's run by the cops, then presumably it MUST be for public safety. If the guy can pay it ANYWAY, is it really protecting anyone?
Second, you mention government mistrust and paranoia. Well, for what it's worth, the US has had its fingers in so much of the world's affairs (and I'm not saying that it's right either), that it is precisely that that causes mistrust. But don't think you're immune to this in Finland. In Greece, there are many moves that the government is making that are, from what I see, a direct result of cultural globalization. Language is being eroded, culture and traditions are being eroded, all in the name what ex-patriates like my parents see as direct and indirect attacks. If you think the same thing can't or won't happen in Finland, believe me - it can.
Third, you mention the way the police run the photo radar system in Finland. Well, let me give you the epilogue to the story and why photo radar doesn't work. When the Edmonton police, after seven years and at a peak of over 150,000 violations and $12M in fines, saw a drop, their revenue stream was immediately threatened. Their response? More photo radar (7 times more vans, for a total of 28) and ask the government for more money for officers to enforce the law! Almost NONE of it went to driver reeducation. But the taxes didn't drop in that time. In fact, Edmonton city taxes have increased every year since they implemented photo. So the argument that the fines lower taxes is not valid. What happens if people start obeying the law completely? The police lose $12M in revenue. So, should we be happy because the streets are safer, or should we be sad because our taxes went up?
Any government agency whose direct revenue stream is directly and materially dependent on the breaking of laws by its citizens is in a blatant conflict of interest and requires immediate correction. Ultimately, the best system is one where the infraction removes the person from the road and where money is not a factor for anyone - not as a revenue stream for the police or government, not as a supposed deterrent for the rich scofflaws, not as a penalty to those who don't have as much as the average person. The amount of any fines should cover the cost of administrating the fines, and no more.
<< So, I would propose that the most effective deterrent is to issue demerits, remove licenses for repeat offenders, and set fines at a fixed limit subject to the government's cost of prosecuting the traffic violation. Removing the financial gain for the government while making operational sanctions encourages equal and fair treatment under the law. No $100k fines needed. >>
The current system achieves the same results, but the government gets extra cash
. That money is away from my taxes.[/i] >>
Governments don't need extra cash - its citizens do. And your current system doesn't contribute as directly to public safety as a demerit system.
First, you completely dodge the question of whether a demerit system would be a better system than fines only. Do you not see any merit in it? I've lived in three different countries (Canada, USA, Greece) and I can say that the demerit system is a great equalizer. You get, say, 10 demerits credited to start with. Every infraction has a different demerit rating depending on the severity. If you go over the 10 demerits within three years, you are suspended from driving for a month. No amount of money can restore that. Further suspensions result in higher amounts of time suspended. What is the real motivation here, revenue collection or public safety? If it's run by the cops, then presumably it MUST be for public safety. If the guy can pay it ANYWAY, is it really protecting anyone?
Second, you mention government mistrust and paranoia. Well, for what it's worth, the US has had its fingers in so much of the world's affairs (and I'm not saying that it's right either), that it is precisely that that causes mistrust. But don't think you're immune to this in Finland. In Greece, there are many moves that the government is making that are, from what I see, a direct result of cultural globalization. Language is being eroded, culture and traditions are being eroded, all in the name what ex-patriates like my parents see as direct and indirect attacks. If you think the same thing can't or won't happen in Finland, believe me - it can.
Third, you mention the way the police run the photo radar system in Finland. Well, let me give you the epilogue to the story and why photo radar doesn't work. When the Edmonton police, after seven years and at a peak of over 150,000 violations and $12M in fines, saw a drop, their revenue stream was immediately threatened. Their response? More photo radar (7 times more vans, for a total of 28) and ask the government for more money for officers to enforce the law! Almost NONE of it went to driver reeducation. But the taxes didn't drop in that time. In fact, Edmonton city taxes have increased every year since they implemented photo. So the argument that the fines lower taxes is not valid. What happens if people start obeying the law completely? The police lose $12M in revenue. So, should we be happy because the streets are safer, or should we be sad because our taxes went up?
Any government agency whose direct revenue stream is directly and materially dependent on the breaking of laws by its citizens is in a blatant conflict of interest and requires immediate correction. Ultimately, the best system is one where the infraction removes the person from the road and where money is not a factor for anyone - not as a revenue stream for the police or government, not as a supposed deterrent for the rich scofflaws, not as a penalty to those who don't have as much as the average person. The amount of any fines should cover the cost of administrating the fines, and no more.
<< So, I would propose that the most effective deterrent is to issue demerits, remove licenses for repeat offenders, and set fines at a fixed limit subject to the government's cost of prosecuting the traffic violation. Removing the financial gain for the government while making operational sanctions encourages equal and fair treatment under the law. No $100k fines needed. >>
The current system achieves the same results, but the government gets extra cash
. That money is away from my taxes.[/i] >>Governments don't need extra cash - its citizens do. And your current system doesn't contribute as directly to public safety as a demerit system.
Facebook
Twitter