FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: wrightway on June 27, 2013, 04:54:51 pm
-
http://toledoblade.com/State/2013/06/26/Ohio-House-passes-measure-to-ban-red-light-cameras.html
I don't know how I feel about this yet. It is being used as a huge revenue stream for some municipalities, at the obvious discomfort of tax payers. On the other hand, I could almost favor it if it shows a significant drop in vehicle related accidents.
-
When all factors are accounted for it actually increases accidents. Fewer side and front impacts, but a significant increase in rear end collisions. You know, because of people slamming their breaks at red lights.
At least according to the data of the last study I saw used to promote them as being safe an effective, which ignored rear end collisions in it's conclusions.
-
...Uhhh.
Have the people being ticketed by those cameras broken traffic laws? If so then doesn't it mean that they SHOULD be ticketed? I don't see how that counts as "money grab."
When all factors are accounted for it actually increases accidents. Fewer side and front impacts, but a significant increase in rear end collisions. You know, because of people slamming their breaks at red lights.
At least according to the data of the last study I saw used to promote them as being safe an effective, which ignored rear end collisions in it's conclusions.
WHY are those rear end collisions happening? Don't the drivers in USA normally stop for red lights? Again, the from what I've heard here and read from the article it sounds like the cameras are a good thing and it's just that people are driving dangerously.
-
...Uhhh.
Have the people being ticketed by those cameras broken traffic laws? If so then doesn't it mean that they SHOULD be ticketed? I don't see how that counts as "money grab."
I was recently in an Ohio municipality with these camera's and they came up as a subject of conversation. Turns out the mayor of such municipality was going around after the law passed to impliment these camera's telling everyone "it will raise a lot of revenue for the city" before changing their tune when lawyers told them "ixnay on the oneymay because lawsuits, eh?" But fact is the cameras catch all people who run red lights and then the city tickets them (figure a $30 fine + $50 court cost is $80 bucks per incidence) they do raise revenue for the city.
Which brings me to why they came up in conversation, turns out they also give false positives. Especially so if your car is moving too fast when it comes to the red light or if you cross a certain point (while not necessarily running the light). When we talked about the light cameras, at least 3 people admitted to having been photographed by them while not running the light.
-
Ok, if the cameras give false positives then they need improvement. Did those peple get ticketed after the photo got taken? Do they have people checking the images before deciding wether or not to send the ticket?
Because we have people checking the photos in Finland, in fact our police does not have the resources to go through every image so there are people who never have that ticket sent to them even if they were speeding.
Which is of course a better solution than sending a ticket automatically since that might have innocent people getting ticketed. (Not saying that there still aren't a few mistakes but at least this method does reduce them.)
And no, I don't mind that the city or whatever is getting revenue from this. People who endanger themselves and others on the road get a mild punishment and the money can be spent to help the city, thereby reducing the need for taxes. Basically people who would harm the community are being forced to help the community while reducing burden from law abiding citizens.
-
Well, the thing is the mayor couldn't say "this is for revenue" but could say "this is for the safety of our streets." Allegedly, one would raise challenges to the law in court and the other wouldn't. Quite frankly I don't have a problem with either reason either, since a lot of traffic tickets are used for municipal revenue, it's just not stated openly.
But those who got the false positives, I haven't seen them since earlier this month. I'm sure some will get tickets mailed to them, but I can't follow up on how the system works for that individual municipality. A legal expert in the city said that the people should request the camera footage (I guess they run all the time) and use that in court to prove they stopped, just past the "safe" line. He made it sound like it was an easy mistake to get out of. But still some people are innocent, they will show up in court, and still would have to pay. Law of averages dictates such mistakes on the part of the court.
-
WHY are those rear end collisions happening? Don't the drivers in USA normally stop for red lights? Again, the from what I've heard here and read from the article it sounds like the cameras are a good thing and it's just that people are driving dangerously.
Well, it doesn't particularly help that the places that deploy them tend to shorten yellow lights, leaving people unsure of just how long they have to stop before they get a ticket. So it goes from a caution, I'm going to be red soon, to FUCK STOP! STOP NOW OR YOU'LL GET A TICKET! Which goes poorly for the elderly or remarkably slow among us who happen to be behind the person stoping.
-
Which goes poorly for the elderly or remarkably slow among us who happen to be behind the person stoping.
Well no, that is not an excuse. At least locally, traffic laws are such that one must always maintain a safe following distance. This is a distance that is specifically long enough for you to be able to stop in the event that something happens to the vehicle in front, such as them slamming breaks to prevent themselves from getting a ticket. If you rear end someone you are entirely at fault for not following the road rules, which is why your insurance has to pay for such accidents regardless of what the person in front was getting up to.
I know realistically this wont happen, and people will still drive just as recklessly. The issue though, is that people drive too dangerously, not that traffic enforcement technologies exist and are in place.
-
Or I could point out that people tend to focus on the light when they notice a change, and someone slamming on their brakes the second the light goes yellow may catch anyone by significant surprise.
The reality is the things do cause accidents, even if in some perfect world where drivers don't suck they wouldn't.
-
While I generally support the use of red light cameras, there are two arguments that I have heard against the cameras that hold some validity;
1) The 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face his/her accuser. Since there is no human witness to the crime, the accused is unable to face an accuser.
2) While not as strong as the first point, there is an issue of "right to privacy" when it comes to passengers in the vehicle. A camera does not distinguish between the driver and passenger, it takes a picture of everyone in the front of the vehicle. Some passengers have objected to their likeness being used in a court case that does not involve them. Two arguments against this are; a)the face of passengers can be blurred out, but this requires human intervention and thus expense through paying someone to do this, and b)there is often no expectation of privacy when in a public location of when visible to the general public.
Personally, I feel if one is breaking the law, then one is breaking the law regardless if a human witnesses it or an unmanned camera snaps a picture of it.
-
A big issue Ohioans are having with these cameras is the one Queen pointed out. We get an absurd amount of false positives. The tickets are issued automatically and come in the mail. And, considering the company leasing the municipality the equipment gets a 40% cut, they aren't always keen to hand over evidence.
-
1) The 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face his/her accuser. Since there is no human witness to the crime, the accused is unable to face an accuser.
The accuser is the state. When you receive a traffic fine, you have the option of accepting guilt and paying the fine, or contesting the fine in court as is your right as a citizen of the nation. Most people just pay because its far easier, cheaper and they know they were in the wrong. Claiming that the constitution requires you to have an accuser to face would imply that if you kill someone and there is no witness the state cannot charge your with murder after analyzing the evidence.
2) While not as strong as the first point, there is an issue of "right to privacy" when it comes to passengers in the vehicle. A camera does not distinguish between the driver and passenger, it takes a picture of everyone in the front of the vehicle. Some passengers have objected to their likeness being used in a court case that does not involve them. Two arguments against this are; a)the face of passengers can be blurred out, but this requires human intervention and thus expense through paying someone to do this, and b)there is often no expectation of privacy when in a public location of when visible to the general public.
The privacy issue is trickier. Given that you are on a public road it could be seen as being in the public domain, and hence extreme right to privacy is void. Also as your vehicle has windows that allow others to see in, such a privacy stance seems weak, but might hold as one is technically within their own property while in a vehicle. regarding the court cases with their likeness, again it is tricky. Does that mean police have to ignore and discard all evidence of a crime because it might be a slight violation of someones privacy? I think this argument is something lawyers would have quite a heated debate over.
The reality is the things do cause accidents, even if in some perfect world where drivers don't suck they wouldn't.
In a perfect world we wouldn't have any need for them in the first place. Running red lights as well as speeding and other forms of reckless driving also causes accidents. Personally, I feel that there should be red light cameras at all intersections. As well as average speed cameras on roads. Then people would drive more carefully because they would be well aware that breaking the law would be prosecuted. Of course such a system is impossible to implement, but hypothetical worlds are fun.
A big issue Ohioans are having with these cameras is the one Queen pointed out. We get an absurd amount of false positives. The tickets are issued automatically and come in the mail. And, considering the company leasing the municipality the equipment gets a 40% cut, they aren't always keen to hand over evidence.
To be honest, this is the only real valid reason to remove the cameras. With them leased to a company that gets a cut on each capture, they is really no incentive to make the system accurate and reliable as false positives equates to more money. It is better to have false negatives in situation like these, but of course that makes less money.
-
When it came to my drivers' ed course, what I was taught is 'slow for a yellow in preparation for a red, unless you CANNOT stop safely, in which case, you run the light. Better to blow the light than cause an accident if it can be helped'
-
When it came to my drivers' ed course, what I was taught is 'slow for a yellow in preparation for a red, unless you CANNOT stop safely, in which case, you run the light. Better to blow the light than cause an accident if it can be helped'
That's how I was taught back in the early '80s. It was permissible to go through a yellow if you could not stop safely. By the time it turns red, though, you should have already had enough tie to stop safely.
-
While I generally support the use of red light cameras, there are two arguments that I have heard against the cameras that hold some validity;
1) The 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face his/her accuser. Since there is no human witness to the crime, the accused is unable to face an accuser.
That is seriously an argument people use? I thought that was just something the made up on The Big Bang Theory.
-
I thought yellow means "Hurry Up."
-
While I generally support the use of red light cameras, there are two arguments that I have heard against the cameras that hold some validity;
1) The 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face his/her accuser. Since there is no human witness to the crime, the accused is unable to face an accuser.
That is seriously an argument people use? I thought that was just something the made up on The Big Bang Theory.
It is a quite valid line of attack if the state tries to hold the position that the camera is always right and fails to prove it. You should at least be able to face the technician who maintained that piece of equipment and force them to prove it was properly looked after. You are innocent until proven guilty and picture of your car means Jack shit unless they can reasonably demonstrate that it is a picture of your car going through a red light.
Kind of like challenging a speeding ticket on the basis that it wasn't properly tested and calibrated.
-
While I generally support the use of red light cameras, there are two arguments that I have heard against the cameras that hold some validity;
1) The 6th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the accused the right to face his/her accuser. Since there is no human witness to the crime, the accused is unable to face an accuser.
That is seriously an argument people use? I thought that was just something the made up on The Big Bang Theory.
It is a quite valid line of attack if the state tries to hold the position that the camera is always right and fails to prove it. You should at least be able to face the technician who maintained that piece of equipment and force them to prove it was properly looked after. You are innocent until proven guilty and picture of your car means Jack shit unless they can reasonably demonstrate that it is a picture of your car going through a red light.
Kind of like challenging a speeding ticket on the basis that it wasn't properly tested and calibrated.
Sure, but that's not an argument against the use of red-light cameras, simply against the notion that cameras should be treated as definite evidence. The argument quoted above claims that a camera is inadmissible evidence because it's not a human witness, which is a different thing.
-
I'm not sure those people have really thought out their argument then because that would throw out anything recorded unless someone is actually siting there listening or watching as the machine is running.
I had always thought that this argument was more a case of you can't create an automated ticketing machine that has essentially no human oversight ensuring that it is working properly and is maintaining a proper chain of evidence.
-
One legal issue is that when the ticket is mailed to you, it hasn't actually been served. It isn't legally served until you acknowledge you've received it, either by calling the police or visiting their website (linked on the ticket). At least in Arizona, you can, legally, ignore the ticket.
Of course, then they can send a police officer to your door to serve it in person, and make you pay for wasting their time. It really depends on how much you think they want to give you the ticket...
-
For all those discussing the danger of running red lights, it should be pointed out that (at least American) traffic lights don't turn green until some time after the opposite light has turned red, to give enough time for traffic to come to a halt on that road before letting the rest go through. Red light cameras don't discriminate between someone driving through when the light has just turned red and traffic is stopped, or someone speeding through oncoming traffic and risking a collision.
As has been pointed out, it's often safer to drive through a red if you don't have enough distance to stop for whatever reason (people don't have their attention locked on the lights 24/7, nor do they instantly decide on a course of action and stick to it perfectly; plenty of people will try to speed up to get through a yellow, especially those on a deadline, and then have to either screech to a halt or speed through a red because they're simply not fast enough) purely BECAUSE of this leeway time. If someone is aware that they're going to be punished for making a relatively safe decision, however, they're much more likely to panic and slam on the brakes. You can talk all you want about how taking a ticket is safer than risking a crash, but people DON'T consider every single risk before making a decision. Especially not when they have literally less than a second to decide. The statistics match up with that.
Pairing up red light cameras with shorter yellow lights seems like an intentional attempt to create more lawbreakers for enhanced revenue, which is utter bollocks and just creates more of those collisions and near-collisions when people trying to make it through a yellow suddenly find themselves staring at a ticket.
-
I had someone shoot a red light on me last week and hit my car on the side of the bonnet, writing it off. Though it wasn't as if he just missed an amber, his light had been red for a while, he just wasn't paying any attention. Though I think that junction does have red light camera which is gonna help him get prosecuted. So right now I am very, very in favour of red light cameras.
-
I don't think anyone is arguing that they don't have benefits, I think the only question is do the benefits outweigh the detriments?
I mean, even though it's people's bad habit of tailgating that's to blame for the increase in accidents at traffic lights with red light cameras, if you can prove that statistically, the presence of the cameras is in correlation with an increase in rear-ends (compared to the drop in other accidents) then it's something to be considered.
There's two options in that case. Remove the red light cameras, or teach pepole not to tailgate. Unfortunately, since the latter is being taught anyways, and people are NOT listening, then the former option is the unfortunate choice.
You can blame rampant pregnancy on lack of sex education (and the data does support this) but you can't blame terrible driving on lack of education because no matter what you teach, people have their own ideas on how to drive and roll their eyes at the "safety nonsense" in Driver's Ed.
Believe me, I went to a decent school and there were three students in class who would derisively remark on anything related to safety or driving manners. One of them said that the only reason he was going to class was because he needed a license, but that he didn't need the education itself.
Same person who also tried to shut several students out in the cold, too, after the break was finished. Bully Jerk Jock type of person.
-
I am more inclined to go for the option of taking away drivers license and confiscating the cars from people who do not care for any laws or safety on the road for others.
I'm not sure how many red light cameras we have since it seems that stupid behaviour in traffic lights is not so common here but traffic cameras monitoring speeding are getting more and more common. At least in Finland traffic cameras are one of the few things that make the reckless drivers slow down or at least try to drive according to laws. (The other thing is seeing a police car.) Since setting up cameras here and there is cheaper than having police everywhere (especially since the Finnish way is to have one functional camera and 10 or so empty camera boxes and moving the camera around.)
-
I am more inclined to go for the option of taking away drivers license and confiscating the cars from people who do not care for any laws or safety on the road for others.
Problem is, these people are rarely caught being idiots on the road.
Not to mention that if we managed to do this, I have a feeling that a large chunk of America's going to lose their driver's licenses. And unfortunately, where I live, we don't have public transport.
-
I am more inclined to go for the option of taking away drivers license and confiscating the cars from people who do not care for any laws or safety on the road for others.
Problem is, these people are rarely caught being idiots on the road.
Not to mention that if we managed to do this, I have a feeling that a large chunk of America's going to lose their driver's licenses. And unfortunately, where I live, we don't have public transport.
So the choices are:
a) Allow assholes who disobey laws endanger other people on the roads.
b) Punish said assholes and possibly cause severe difficulties to their daily lives. (Hard to get to work let alone shop for food.)
I am inclined to go with option b. Although I do admit that first time they are caught running red lights or speeding is no reason to take away drivers license, unless it was some REALLY reckless driving.
I actually think that if there are consequences for behaving like an asshole it might serve as a warning and make people change their behaviour. I also think that if you repeatedly run red lights for no good reason or refuse to leave a safe distance between your car and the one ahead of you or otherwise break the simplest laws and rules of safe driving then you deserve fines or even losing your drivers license.
I have seen enough results of car crashes for one lifetime and I have little sympathy for people who think they are immortal or otherwise don't believe that traffic laws concern them.
-
It will only work if you take the vehicle. My ex hasn't had a valid license for four years. He still drives if he can get his hands on a car.
-
It will only work if you take the vehicle. My ex hasn't had a valid license for four years. He still drives if he can get his hands on a car.
Which brings up a whole new issue. The worst offenders are the ones who just don't give a fuck. There was a news story about a Finnish woman who had been fined for driving without a license (often drunk as well) 50 times in a year. Unfortunately she had no income and therefore she couldn't pay her fines and ever since we decided that unpaid fines won't be turned into jailtime there has been no way to do actually punish her...
Because for some reason the courts haven't confiscated her car.
Although in some cases people who've had their car taken away simply steal or borrow a car whenever they need one. When someone truly stops giving a fuck about anything at all (the one's who don't even care about their own health or LIFE are the most dangerous ones) the only things that can stop them are jail or death.
-
Yeah, something about consigning someone to eventual homelessness just because they're a reckless driver leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
And as we've seen in states with the death penalty, severe consequences for infractions are not a deterrent.
-
I'm willing to guess that as many a 20% of the drivers around here might not have a valid license. I can't even begin to guess what the number of drunk drivers are. Thought it's not like these cameras would do jack shit since the nearest traffic light is a 20 miles away.
-
I have seen enough results of car crashes for one lifetime and I have little sympathy for people who think they are immortal or otherwise don't believe that traffic laws concern them.
I routinely drive 165 miles from side of Michigan to the other. Speed limit the whole way is 70. In the vast expanses of straight highway with rural or no exits, where traffic is pretty well always light and you can rarely count more than ten cars in your general vicinity, I tend to do 80-85. I slow down for curves, signal lane changes properly, modulate my speed with traffic condition, etc. People who drive like assholes cause car accidents because they drive like assholes, not because they drive too fast or are less than judicious with the timing on a yellow light.
It's not that the laws don't apply to me, it's that a set of rules decided upon by legislators before I was born do not universally reflect the best way of handling every traffic condition.
-
For all those discussing the danger of running red lights, it should be pointed out that (at least American) traffic lights don't turn green until some time after the opposite light has turned red, to give enough time for traffic to come to a halt on that road before letting the rest go through. Red light cameras don't discriminate between someone driving through when the light has just turned red and traffic is stopped, or someone speeding through oncoming traffic and risking a collision.
As has been pointed out, it's often safer to drive through a red if you don't have enough distance to stop for whatever reason (people don't have their attention locked on the lights 24/7, nor do they instantly decide on a course of action and stick to it perfectly; plenty of people will try to speed up to get through a yellow, especially those on a deadline, and then have to either screech to a halt or speed through a red because they're simply not fast enough) purely BECAUSE of this leeway time. If someone is aware that they're going to be punished for making a relatively safe decision, however, they're much more likely to panic and slam on the brakes. You can talk all you want about how taking a ticket is safer than risking a crash, but people DON'T consider every single risk before making a decision. Especially not when they have literally less than a second to decide. The statistics match up with that.
Pairing up red light cameras with shorter yellow lights seems like an intentional attempt to create more lawbreakers for enhanced revenue, which is utter bollocks and just creates more of those collisions and near-collisions when people trying to make it through a yellow suddenly find themselves staring at a ticket.
In Arizona, our red light cameras won't go off unless you enter the intersection while it's red, and the yellow should last long enough for you to either stop or already be heading through when it turns.
-
For all those discussing the danger of running red lights, it should be pointed out that (at least American) traffic lights don't turn green until some time after the opposite light has turned red, to give enough time for traffic to come to a halt on that road before letting the rest go through. Red light cameras don't discriminate between someone driving through when the light has just turned red and traffic is stopped, or someone speeding through oncoming traffic and risking a collision.
As has been pointed out, it's often safer to drive through a red if you don't have enough distance to stop for whatever reason (people don't have their attention locked on the lights 24/7, nor do they instantly decide on a course of action and stick to it perfectly; plenty of people will try to speed up to get through a yellow, especially those on a deadline, and then have to either screech to a halt or speed through a red because they're simply not fast enough) purely BECAUSE of this leeway time. If someone is aware that they're going to be punished for making a relatively safe decision, however, they're much more likely to panic and slam on the brakes. You can talk all you want about how taking a ticket is safer than risking a crash, but people DON'T consider every single risk before making a decision. Especially not when they have literally less than a second to decide. The statistics match up with that.
Pairing up red light cameras with shorter yellow lights seems like an intentional attempt to create more lawbreakers for enhanced revenue, which is utter bollocks and just creates more of those collisions and near-collisions when people trying to make it through a yellow suddenly find themselves staring at a ticket.
In Arizona, our red light cameras won't go off unless you enter the intersection while it's red, and the yellow should last long enough for you to either stop or already be heading through when it turns.
It's still quite common to end up going through a red light as it turns red or during the several second window. If that camera switches on as soon as you're red, you're getting a lot of people ticketed for something that's actually not harmful at all specifically due to the existing safeguards.
-
Yeah, something about consigning someone to eventual homelessness just because they're a reckless driver leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
And as we've seen in states with the death penalty, severe consequences for infractions are not a deterrent.
You know how we get the argument with the death penalty that we are eliminating a threat and making sure that it can't ever be a danger again... I would say that this is a very measured and reasoned application of that mindset since we are allowing them to remain free in society despite know that they have repeatedly proven themselves to be a danger. A serial reckless driver who looses their car is merely inconvenienced which is far less damaging to them then they are likely to have been to those around them. They can get a bike, hitch a ride, or move into a urban area with good public transport and go on with their lives. If they end up homeless, it's really not our problem they chose not to adapt.
-
I would accept the argument about the bike, except...
1. We have had more fatal accidents involving cars crashing into bikes (in broad daylight) than we have had with cars crashing into each other.
2. We maybe one bike lane for a short road in the entire county. There are generally no bike lanes around.
3. There are drivers who intentionally try to run bikers off of the road because "the road is for VEHICLES only". This applies to any state and county, not just our own.
There's also the fact that reckless drivers are rarely caught by the police in the first place.
By the way, I'm more griping about the lack of public transportation and bike lanes than I am griping about the poor reckless drivers forced to stay home. That being said, I'm opposed to the death penalty anyways, so similar principles still apply here.
-
I suppose I could be a callous bastard and reply with a "meh" about the increased risks that someone loosing their vehicle and license might face. The shoe being on the other foot might teach them something. We still put people in prison despite the fact that they might get shanked or raped so it really doesn't sway me much unless you have atrociously bad bicycle accident stats. Additionally, the fact that the police don't catch many people really shouldn't be used to determine if a law is a good one or not.
Admittedly, I'm pretty old school in the attitude that if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
-
If there was public transport or bikes I'd be inclined to actually support such a decision, but this place is the pits when it comes to things like that.
You drive, or you hitch a ride. Or you spend terrible amounts of money on a taxi. Or you try to bike and die due to old grannies being too old to drive and yet driving anyways for the previous reasons.
-
I would accept the argument about the bike, except...
1. We have had more fatal accidents involving cars crashing into bikes (in broad daylight) than we have had with cars crashing into each other.
2. We maybe one bike lane for a short road in the entire county. There are generally no bike lanes around.
3. There are drivers who intentionally try to run bikers off of the road because "the road is for VEHICLES only". This applies to any state and county, not just our own.
There's also the fact that reckless drivers are rarely caught by the police in the first place.
By the way, I'm more griping about the lack of public transportation and bike lanes than I am griping about the poor reckless drivers forced to stay home. That being said, I'm opposed to the death penalty anyways, so similar principles still apply here.
I once almost got into a headon collision because a bike was in the oncoming lane, going around a curve. A car came up behind him, and since bikes don't go road speed, he decided to go around him. ON A CURVE. The asshole almost hit me and my father, and he moved over just in time (thankfully not killing the guy on the bike, either), and we couldn't swerve off the road because there's a guardrail there because it's a drop.
-
I think that someones drivers license is revoked temporarely or permanently the consquenses of them not being able to drive must be concidered a part of the punishment.
Depending on the location, public transport, wealth (if Bill gates lost his license I doubt going everywhere with a taxi or hiring a driver would inconvenience him much) and other things do matter.
Let's concider this. A truck driver loses his license for a month due to repeat offences. He earns his living by driving so this is a blow to his income. In fact in Finland people who drive for a living have been struggling to change the laws so that they would be exempt for losing their license due to minor offenses, even if those are numerous.
On one hand, people who do need the car for their job or even daily life the punishment is bigger. On the other hand if they have broken the law then they too should be punished for it. Especially the people who drive for living should be safe and law abiding drivers, I myself would be worried if the courts would declare that trucks do not have to obey traffic laws.
Optimally these sentences should be adjusted based on the person who is guilty and how much the sentence will affect them. (We already scale paid fines to the monthly salary of the criminal. After all me losing 100€ and Bill Gates losing 100€ are not equally troubled by such sums.)
-
I think that someones drivers license is revoked temporarely or permanently the consquenses of them not being able to drive must be concidered a part of the punishment.
Depending on the location, public transport, wealth (if Bill gates lost his license I doubt going everywhere with a taxi or hiring a driver would inconvenience him much) and other things do matter.
Let's concider this. A truck driver loses his license for a month due to repeat offences. He earns his living by driving so this is a blow to his income. In fact in Finland people who drive for a living have been struggling to change the laws so that they would be exempt for losing their license due to minor offenses, even if those are numerous.
On one hand, people who do need the car for their job or even daily life the punishment is bigger. On the other hand if they have broken the law then they too should be punished for it. Especially the people who drive for living should be safe and law abiding drivers, I myself would be worried if the courts would declare that trucks do not have to obey traffic laws.
Optimally these sentences should be adjusted based on the person who is guilty and how much the sentence will affect them. (We already scale paid fines to the monthly salary of the criminal. After all me losing 100€ and Bill Gates losing 100€ are not equally troubled by such sums.)
I honestly believe that taking away someone's licence should not be possible, at all, unless you live in the city. Out in more rural areas, you're fucked beyond fucked if you have no licence. If you live anywhere but a big city, you have no way to get to work (or for that matter, if you work outside the city). So yeah, taking someone's licence can render them homeless.
-
Let's concider this. A truck driver loses his license for a month due to repeat offences. He earns his living by driving so this is a blow to his income. In fact in Finland people who drive for a living have been struggling to change the laws so that they would be exempt for losing their license due to minor offenses, even if those are numerous.
I think that should be looked at like a doctor losing their license to practice medicine. If your job requires you to drive, then the expectations on you to obey traffic laws should be greater, not lesser.
Or, at least, that should've been the case to start with. At this point, though, if the culture of "you must obey these laws or the consequences are terrible" doesn't already exist, it will not appear overnight. Lots of people losing their livelihood is not just something to shrug off and say, "oh well, these things happen". And if the enforcement of traffic laws is not uniform but circumstantial (Get the cop who's in a bad mood and they'll enforce laws that they usually don't, etc.) it compounds the problem. I don't know if that's a problem in Finland, it certainly is here.
Damn you, complex issues.
-
I think that should be looked at like a doctor losing their license to practice medicine. If your job requires you to drive, then the expectations on you to obey traffic laws should be greater, not lesser.
This, a thousand times this.
Or, at least, that should've been the case to start with. At this point, though, if the culture of "you must obey these laws or the consequences are terrible" doesn't already exist, it will not appear overnight. Lots of people losing their livelihood is not just something to shrug off and say, "oh well, these things happen". And if the enforcement of traffic laws is not uniform but circumstantial (Get the cop who's in a bad mood and they'll enforce laws that they usually don't, etc.) it compounds the problem. I don't know if that's a problem in Finland, it certainly is here.
Damn you, complex issues.
There are... Minor differences. Some police officers and even judges may interpret the laws differently, but this is why you can appeal to a higher court and that way you can usually get the worst mistreatments fixed.
But generally, our legal system is pretty good and fair.
-
That must be nice.