Income based fines for traffic camera tickets in DC?

[Anonymous]

There were 40 traffic deaths in DC in 2021. Here’s the breakdown of causes per the police:

10 — driver drunk or stoned
12 — driver speeding
3 — driver error
6 — pedestrian error
1 — bicycle error
1 — scooter/motorcycle/ATV error
5 — hit and run/unknown
2 — medical emergencies

Cameras have zero impact on most of these deaths so don’t expect putting even more up to have much effect

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please help me understand your logic. If I am ticketed for speeding, I should receive a fine. If you are ticketed for the same violation, you should receive a fine. All good on that logic? Now if I make $100K a year and get a fine of $1000 and you make $50K a year and pay $500 for the same exact traffic violation, is that fair?

BTW, the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was ridiculous at best. Even President Biden said he would veto DC's crime bill.

According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76% compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24%. And homicides are up 17%. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

The D.C. Council’s legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

BUT, the DC Counsel is considering a sliding scale of fines (based on Income/wealth) for simple speeding tickets caught on city cameras? At the same time DC is saying (basically) take it easy on the really bad guys? I just don't understand...

If you get a fine that's 1% of your income, and I get a fine that's 1% of my income for the exact same violation, then yes, that's fair.

If I get a fine that's 1% of my income, and you get a fine for the exact same violation that's only 0.5% of your income, is that fair?

No. It is not fair. If you break the law, you get a fine for minor violations or misdemeanors. Obviously, fines and jail time go up for felony convictions. The law should be blind on all accounts. Same fines for all and same jail sentences to those who commit equal crimes.

They are the same fines: 1% of the person's income.

Let's say I am unemployed and using my GF's car. I pay $0 then right?

Correct. 1% of zero is zero. You are free to speed if you are unemployed.

How about minors who are driving their parent's car or a car purchased for them? That's OK, too?

Yes, if you are broke you can break traffic laws with impunity. Actually if you are on assistance you should be able to make money by accruing tickets. Negative income should mean negative fines, to be fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please help me understand your logic. If I am ticketed for speeding, I should receive a fine. If you are ticketed for the same violation, you should receive a fine. All good on that logic? Now if I make $100K a year and get a fine of $1000 and you make $50K a year and pay $500 for the same exact traffic violation, is that fair?

BTW, the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was ridiculous at best. Even President Biden said he would veto DC's crime bill.

According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76% compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24%. And homicides are up 17%. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

The D.C. Council’s legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

BUT, the DC Counsel is considering a sliding scale of fines (based on Income/wealth) for simple speeding tickets caught on city cameras? At the same time DC is saying (basically) take it easy on the really bad guys? I just don't understand...

If you get a fine that's 1% of your income, and I get a fine that's 1% of my income for the exact same violation, then yes, that's fair.

If I get a fine that's 1% of my income, and you get a fine for the exact same violation that's only 0.5% of your income, is that fair?

No. It is not fair. If you break the law, you get a fine for minor violations or misdemeanors. Obviously, fines and jail time go up for felony convictions. The law should be blind on all accounts. Same fines for all and same jail sentences to those who commit equal crimes.

They are the same fines: 1% of the person's income.

Let's say I am unemployed and using my GF's car. I pay $0 then right?

Correct. 1% of zero is zero. You are free to speed if you are unemployed.

How about minors who are driving their parent's car or a car purchased for them? That's OK, too?

Yes, if you are broke you can break traffic laws with impunity. Actually if you are on assistance you should be able to make money by accruing tickets. Negative income should mean negative fines, to be fair.

Would those negative fines count as income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fines don't just happen, though. They can be avoided by... following the law. If the fine would be too expensive, don't commit the crime. No one HAS TO drive over the speed limit or run red lights. It's a choice, and not a legitimate one.

Do you realize how stupid this argument is? We judge punishment according to what we think is fair or just. You can make this sort of lazy unthinking excuse for any level of punishment. Just don't commit the crime... no problem. Obviously there is a fine level you would feel is unjust... just like everyone else. You just disagree.

No, actually. I don't see how fines that are entirely avoidable need to made easier to bear for people who would have trouble paying them. This is entirely bass ackwards. The fines are a deterrent. Don't make reckless driving more affordable!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were 40 traffic deaths in DC in 2021. Here’s the breakdown of causes per the police:

10 — driver drunk or stoned
12 — driver speeding
3 — driver error
6 — pedestrian error
1 — bicycle error
1 — scooter/motorcycle/ATV error
5 — hit and run/unknown
2 — medical emergencies

Cameras have zero impact on most of these deaths so don’t expect putting even more up to have much effect

As though the only crashes were fatal crashes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fines don't just happen, though. They can be avoided by... following the law. If the fine would be too expensive, don't commit the crime. No one HAS TO drive over the speed limit or run red lights. It's a choice, and not a legitimate one.

Do you realize how stupid this argument is? We judge punishment according to what we think is fair or just. You can make this sort of lazy unthinking excuse for any level of punishment. Just don't commit the crime... no problem. Obviously there is a fine level you would feel is unjust... just like everyone else. You just disagree.

No, actually. I don't see how fines that are entirely avoidable need to made easier to bear for people who would have trouble paying them. This is entirely bass ackwards. The fines are a deterrent. Don't make reckless driving more affordable!!

Set-dollar-amount fines are not a deterrent if you have a lot of money and don't mind spending it on fines. They're only a deterrent for people who don't have a lot of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fines don't just happen, though. They can be avoided by... following the law. If the fine would be too expensive, don't commit the crime. No one HAS TO drive over the speed limit or run red lights. It's a choice, and not a legitimate one.

Do you realize how stupid this argument is? We judge punishment according to what we think is fair or just. You can make this sort of lazy unthinking excuse for any level of punishment. Just don't commit the crime... no problem. Obviously there is a fine level you would feel is unjust... just like everyone else. You just disagree.

No, actually. I don't see how fines that are entirely avoidable need to made easier to bear for people who would have trouble paying them. This is entirely bass ackwards. The fines are a deterrent. Don't make reckless driving more affordable!!

Set-dollar-amount fines are not a deterrent if you have a lot of money and don't mind spending it on fines. They're only a deterrent for people who don't have a lot of money.

How are they a deterrent for anyone if there are no repercussions for not paying, and there is not enforcement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please help me understand your logic. If I am ticketed for speeding, I should receive a fine. If you are ticketed for the same violation, you should receive a fine. All good on that logic? Now if I make $100K a year and get a fine of $1000 and you make $50K a year and pay $500 for the same exact traffic violation, is that fair?

BTW, the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was ridiculous at best. Even President Biden said he would veto DC's crime bill.

According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76% compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24%. And homicides are up 17%. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

The D.C. Council’s legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

BUT, the DC Counsel is considering a sliding scale of fines (based on Income/wealth) for simple speeding tickets caught on city cameras? At the same time DC is saying (basically) take it easy on the really bad guys? I just don't understand...

If you get a fine that's 1% of your income, and I get a fine that's 1% of my income for the exact same violation, then yes, that's fair.

If I get a fine that's 1% of my income, and you get a fine for the exact same violation that's only 0.5% of your income, is that fair?

No. It is not fair. If you break the law, you get a fine for minor violations or misdemeanors. Obviously, fines and jail time go up for felony convictions. The law should be blind on all accounts. Same fines for all and same jail sentences to those who commit equal crimes.

They are the same fines: 1% of the person's income.

Let's say I am unemployed and using my GF's car. I pay $0 then right?

Correct. 1% of zero is zero. You are free to speed if you are unemployed.

How about minors who are driving their parent's car or a car purchased for them? That's OK, too?

Yes, if you are broke you can break traffic laws with impunity. Actually if you are on assistance you should be able to make money by accruing tickets. Negative income should mean negative fines, to be fair.

Would those negative fines count as income?

Excellent question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fines don't just happen, though. They can be avoided by... following the law. If the fine would be too expensive, don't commit the crime. No one HAS TO drive over the speed limit or run red lights. It's a choice, and not a legitimate one.

Do you realize how stupid this argument is? We judge punishment according to what we think is fair or just. You can make this sort of lazy unthinking excuse for any level of punishment. Just don't commit the crime... no problem. Obviously there is a fine level you would feel is unjust... just like everyone else. You just disagree.

No, actually. I don't see how fines that are entirely avoidable need to made easier to bear for people who would have trouble paying them. This is entirely bass ackwards. The fines are a deterrent. Don't make reckless driving more affordable!!

Set-dollar-amount fines are not a deterrent if you have a lot of money and don't mind spending it on fines. They're only a deterrent for people who don't have a lot of money.

How are they a deterrent for anyone if there are no repercussions for not paying, and there is not enforcement?

These are two separate issues.

Issue 1: what should the fines be?

Issue 2: how should the fines be enforced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were 40 traffic deaths in DC in 2021. Here’s the breakdown of causes per the police:

10 — driver drunk or stoned
12 — driver speeding
3 — driver error
6 — pedestrian error
1 — bicycle error
1 — scooter/motorcycle/ATV error
5 — hit and run/unknown
2 — medical emergencies

Cameras have zero impact on most of these deaths so don’t expect putting even more up to have much effect

Traffic cameras are not about safety. Theyre about plugging revenue shortfalls in the government’s budget caused by people abandoning downtown. You’re going to have to cover what used to be charged to people who owned office buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were 40 traffic deaths in DC in 2021. Here’s the breakdown of causes per the police:

10 — driver drunk or stoned
12 — driver speeding
3 — driver error
6 — pedestrian error
1 — bicycle error
1 — scooter/motorcycle/ATV error
5 — hit and run/unknown
2 — medical emergencies

Cameras have zero impact on most of these deaths so don’t expect putting even more up to have much effect

Traffic cameras are not about safety. Theyre about plugging revenue shortfalls in the government’s budget caused by people abandoning downtown. You’re going to have to cover what used to be charged to people who owned office buildings.

No, they're about safety. Don't want a ticket? Obey the speed limit, stop at stop signs, stop at red lights - or don't drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fines don't just happen, though. They can be avoided by... following the law. If the fine would be too expensive, don't commit the crime. No one HAS TO drive over the speed limit or run red lights. It's a choice, and not a legitimate one.

Do you realize how stupid this argument is? We judge punishment according to what we think is fair or just. You can make this sort of lazy unthinking excuse for any level of punishment. Just don't commit the crime... no problem. Obviously there is a fine level you would feel is unjust... just like everyone else. You just disagree.

No, actually. I don't see how fines that are entirely avoidable need to made easier to bear for people who would have trouble paying them. This is entirely bass ackwards. The fines are a deterrent. Don't make reckless driving more affordable!!

Set-dollar-amount fines are not a deterrent if you have a lot of money and don't mind spending it on fines. They're only a deterrent for people who don't have a lot of money.

How are they a deterrent for anyone if there are no repercussions for not paying, and there is not enforcement?

These are two separate issues.

Issue 1: what should the fines be?

Issue 2: how should the fines be enforced?

Good policy should actually include answers to both questions. Without enforcement, setting fines is just some political signaling game.

Let's just pass a law that says everyone will be fined $1000 for every traffic violation, but then also let everyone know that there will be no attempt to collect these fines, nor will you ever have to pay the fines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fines don't just happen, though. They can be avoided by... following the law. If the fine would be too expensive, don't commit the crime. No one HAS TO drive over the speed limit or run red lights. It's a choice, and not a legitimate one.

Do you realize how stupid this argument is? We judge punishment according to what we think is fair or just. You can make this sort of lazy unthinking excuse for any level of punishment. Just don't commit the crime... no problem. Obviously there is a fine level you would feel is unjust... just like everyone else. You just disagree.

No, actually. I don't see how fines that are entirely avoidable need to made easier to bear for people who would have trouble paying them. This is entirely bass ackwards. The fines are a deterrent. Don't make reckless driving more affordable!!

Set-dollar-amount fines are not a deterrent if you have a lot of money and don't mind spending it on fines. They're only a deterrent for people who don't have a lot of money.

How are they a deterrent for anyone if there are no repercussions for not paying, and there is not enforcement?

These are two separate issues.

Issue 1: what should the fines be?

Issue 2: how should the fines be enforced?

Good policy should actually include answers to both questions. Without enforcement, setting fines is just some political signaling game.

Let's just pass a law that says everyone will be fined $1000 for every traffic violation, but then also let everyone know that there will be no attempt to collect these fines, nor will you ever have to pay the fines.

Of course. However, they are separate issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There were 40 traffic deaths in DC in 2021. Here’s the breakdown of causes per the police:

10 — driver drunk or stoned
12 — driver speeding
3 — driver error
6 — pedestrian error
1 — bicycle error
1 — scooter/motorcycle/ATV error
5 — hit and run/unknown
2 — medical emergencies

Cameras have zero impact on most of these deaths so don’t expect putting even more up to have much effect

Traffic cameras are not about safety. Theyre about plugging revenue shortfalls in the government’s budget caused by people abandoning downtown. You’re going to have to cover what used to be charged to people who owned office buildings.

No, they're about safety. Don't want a ticket? Obey the speed limit, stop at stop signs, stop at red lights - or don't drive.

Love these people who say we have to reduce penalties on violent criminals because deterrence doesn’t work but, with drivers, we have to increase penalties because deterrence works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please help me understand your logic. If I am ticketed for speeding, I should receive a fine. If you are ticketed for the same violation, you should receive a fine. All good on that logic? Now if I make $100K a year and get a fine of $1000 and you make $50K a year and pay $500 for the same exact traffic violation, is that fair?

BTW, the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 was ridiculous at best. Even President Biden said he would veto DC's crime bill.

According to the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, carjackings in the District have increased by 76% compared to this time last year. Total property crime is up 24%. And homicides are up 17%. In fact, D.C. is currently on track to have the most homicides since 1995.

The D.C. Council’s legislation eliminates almost all of the mandatory minimum sentencing requirements for violent crimes while drastically reducing the maximum penalties allowable to the courts.

BUT, the DC Counsel is considering a sliding scale of fines (based on Income/wealth) for simple speeding tickets caught on city cameras? At the same time DC is saying (basically) take it easy on the really bad guys? I just don't understand...

If you get a fine that's 1% of your income, and I get a fine that's 1% of my income for the exact same violation, then yes, that's fair.

If I get a fine that's 1% of my income, and you get a fine for the exact same violation that's only 0.5% of your income, is that fair?

No. It is not fair. If you break the law, you get a fine for minor violations or misdemeanors. Obviously, fines and jail time go up for felony convictions. The law should be blind on all accounts. Same fines for all and same jail sentences to those who commit equal crimes.

They are the same fines: 1% of the person's income.

How would the DMV get information on the person's income?