I really doubt it's because those in poverty give fewer fucks about following traffic law.
I doubt it's a matter of education since you're supposed to demonstrate that minimum competence before you get a license anyways, and if you're not, we've found the problem.
What's left?
If you have comfortable amounts of wealth and/or income and get hit with a $500 fine you might be annoyed but you can pay it and go on your way.
But for the poor it's not so simple. First, that $500 represents a much larger burden. Even if they do scrape together the money to actually pay the fine, it might mean other bills would have to go unpaid, for example. And if they don't or can't get the money to pay the fine, those outstanding fines can get additional fees tacked on like Vigilant's 25%.
So it's not about seeking out the poor disproportionately more than the rich; it's about how the same punishment is actually more punishing.
Income based fines would be (rightly) struck down based on the equal protection clause to the constitution. They might even survive introduction to state legislation, but the moment someone with the resources contests it, it'll fall.
Not having the fines is not tenable, seeing as how it's the only way the law has any teeth.
Between a rock and a hard place. And seeing as how these laws are generally to society's benefit, just dropping them isn't valid either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_a...