> Treat fines like payments. e.g. park illegally and let yourself think of the (expected value of the) fine as a parking fee
This is why all fine-based penalties should scale progressively with income.
This is why all fine-based penalties should scale progressively with income.
Contest unjust fines.
I’ve received 4 parking fines in my life, all were for parking somewhere that had no signage or had signage that permitted my behaviour.
All 4 were successfully contested with photo evidence and a minimum of fuss.
Not something I’d abuse, but second chances can be had.
Likewise, if the car is impeding traffic, tow it out of there. The fine does nothing to fix the problem.
Parking illegally in a specific spot could result in the death of 8 people? then the fine should be 8 * value of life. the value of life is ~ $9M in the US, so the fine should be 72 million dollars.
Specifically, parking. If I park in an illegal place, get a fine, and mentally consider it a fee, that feels alright by me. But if I park in an illegal place with the same intention as above, and don't get a fine, I'm a jerk. It's tough to decouple those two.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_...
The real alternative is jacking up the cost of parking to the point where there’s always an empty spot.
And somehow making that number scale with income makes that better?
The point of raising the price accessing any shared asset is to optimize usage of that asset. Otherwise you end up with private enterprises like non-street parking lots eating the profits with nothing going to the rest of the people.
If you don't want non-street parking lots to funnel in all the profit, then you provide efficient and wide-spread public transport.
- Often don't have cars at all, and have to walk that much longer to get across all the parking between places they want to be
- Spend a large portion of their incomes on cars, maintenance, fuel, insurance etc. when they even can
- Are required to live further away from productive places by the high cost of e.g. minimum parking requirements and low density ceilings "because traffic"
- Suffer the brunt of air pollution
Parking in a central business district should probably be as much of a luxury as living in one is today, and vice versa.
It’s a solved problem, look at European cities like Amsterdam, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, and many more... But in America robust public transport never gets done for many reasons including that special interests don’t want it to.
If I keep my car parked in a space and the street sweep needs to miss that spot, the trash that remains has the same negative societal impact whether I'm rich or poor.
If that trash "cost" society $100, why would society subsidize a poor person to park illegally who could only afford to pay $20?
"a sum imposed as punishment for an offense"
Do you now agree that fines are punitive?
If so, do you agree that fines need to be set high enough to provide a disincentive, even if that is higher than the average negative externality created by an infraction?
The purpose of a fine can be seen in at least two ways:
1. Provide recompense to society for the production of a negative externality.
2. Create a disincentive against the production of a negative externality.
If fines could be levied perfectly, automatically and without administration cost, then perhaps you can see the fine as #1, and set the fine at the societal cost.
But, because it costs money to enforce regulations, there's usually some sampling done: if you park illegally, you might not be caught. Because the chance of getting caught is not 100%, and because those who are not caught do not contribute their share of enforcement costs, the fines for a single infraction must be a multiple of the actual harm caused. (Assuming that can even be measured.)
Let's say the harm caused is $20 per infraction, and this is normally enough to disincentive a poor person from parking illegally. If they make a mistake and are subsequently caught, is it better for them to pay $100 (for the harm caused, plus paying for those who weren't caught), even though this may be equivalent to their family's monthly food budget?
As long as $20 fine is enough to:
- provide a strong disincentive, and
- provide recompense
... then that should be enough, no?
The rich person, for whom a $20 fine is not enough of a disincentive, should pay more ($200?). And the money raised can be used to cover negative externalities for those who weren't caught, and overall enforcement costs.
It only sounds good in low resolution.
Depending on a bunch of hard questions, devils in the details, you’ll end up with dilemmae where neither option is good:
Is parking income net worth, or taxable income? Previous year or trailing? Can you deduct your charity donations before deciding what you’ll pay for parking? What about a company car; is it the company’s income or the driver’s?
A more simple system off the top of my head: you have fine modifier based on your previous year taxes. Your accountant now tells you you have a fine multiplier of 6. When the ticket comes in, it is always addressable to a given entity. Can it be gamed? Of course, just use a car registered to your broke ass cousin. Progressive fines could work just like progressive tax.
If interested in actually keeping access open, parking kiosks and aggressive towing make up the effective solution.
in more serious cases (eg, blocking a fire hydrant or alley) simply towing the vehicle seems like penalty enough.
An acceptable middle ground is for fines to scale with the value of a car at registration. And if you can't afford the fines, then don't lend your expensive car to people who don't know how to park.
I'll be fine, because I already own all my shitboxes, but this is just bad policy.
>acceptable middle ground is for fines to scale with the value of a car at registration
The type of car one drives is not at all an indication of their actual finances. Many people, unfortunately, feel the need to impress others by spending money they don't have.