Hacker News Reader

Comment by riggins | Hacker News Reader

I didn't like the intersection example.

They say drivers of high end cars are more likely to 'break the law'.

That's true but in this case I think it's just a civil issue. I phrase it differently. Since this is a civil issue (i.e. just a fine) I'd phrase it as drivers of luxury car are more likely to risk a fine of X$. At that point you have a totally banal observation.

What would be interesting is to separate out the price sensitivity from the behavior.

For example, maybe fines should be based on a percentage of income instead of an absolute amount. Say 1% of income (with an absolute minimum).

So if you run an intersection and you have the median income (40K) the fine is $400. If you run an intersection and you make 500K ... the fine is $5000. I bet you'd see the discrepancy narrow or disappear.

View on HN

But is stopping at the light really about avoiding fines? For most people I know, that kind of trafic rule is more about respecting fellow drivers and pedestrians than its about avoiding a monetary penalty.

The only real exception is speed limits because in that case, respecting other people has more to do with keeping the same speed as everyone else than driving under an arbitrary limit.

I don't know. that's why I said it'd be interesting to separate the behavior from the price sensitivity.

An example that doesn't have a cost penalty is to watch how people merge lanes on a multi-lane highway, some people merge as soon as they see a roadsign, some at the last possible point.

It always seems to me that there are a lot more luxury car drivers in the group who merge late.

I thought about this situation and concluded that merging late is the right thing to do; however, many drivers also do this 'get ahead' behavior in areas where it is not advantageous to all.

What I see, is that the best way to ensure even distribution of the merging cars is by merging late in a one for one fashion. Otherwise, you get more merging cars than those originally in the lane. This really only applies when traffic is heavy enough that space is limited.

There have been plenty of studies that suggest the most optimal behavior in terms of getting people to their destination quickly and safely. Specifically, when in traffic congestion, use your lane until the last second and then merge taking turns with the other lane(s).

One source of many: http://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/car-merging-psychology-d...

This is provided you can merge at the velocity of the merging lane. It's obvious that merging late is a good strategy if you can do that because essentially you're using what is otherwise unused space.

However, the problem is that many people who merge late go so far that they have to practically stop to enter the lane they're merging into. Note that late merging is usually around 50 meters before the lane ends. If you go too far, then you're forced to slow down drastically and your merging will cause a problem for other drivers.

It is not merely a civil issue it is about safety. If you do not stop in front of those zebra walks when a pedestrian is present you can easily run someone over.

Then put a minimum fine, that covers the safe issue, and if your earnings go above a certain amount then you pay a percentage.

I'm not even sure how they've ruled out that the drivers of the luxury brand cars are simply more likely to be in a rush, living more stressful lives, etc.

And just go straight to - it must be because of wealth inequality that they do these things!

Then they conveniently leave out the difference between minor traffic violations and more serious crimes like rape, murder, etc; and instead talk about how the rich take 2x more candy from children.

Massachusetts drivers are notorious for their bad behavior, enough so that when you cross the border to NH, NH has signs "Drive courteously, it is the New Hampshire Way."

It's better now, but back in the 1980's, "massholes" were famous for driving in the breakdown lane when traffic got tight, often jamming up the breakdown lane as well as all the other lanes.

The signature "masshole", however, is the driver of a rear-wheel drive European car. I remember one time I was driving 495 at 2AM in the morning in heavy rain and heavy traffic with an average speed of about 85 mph. I didn't have enough traction to feel safe driving at that speed, but it didn't seem safe to drive 30 mph less than prevailing traffic either. Then all of a sudden a sports car comes up from behind me and passes me in the breakdown lane at what must have been at least 110 mph.

(At least he didn't get in trouble like the drunk who I saw driving the wrong way in Boston and then hit a police car head on)

or you could get caught speeding and face a fine of $1,000,000 http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/13/swedish-man-may-pay-large...

cool. so some countries already have % of income based fines.

Germany does this, for example. Criminal fines are set by the judge in "daily rates", and 30 of them make up the defendant's monthly income.

Over there the judge has some leeway for creative sentencing. I remember this case where one fellow ran the numbers and figured it would be cheaper for him to pay the occasional fine for parking in a no-parking zone than pay the parking meter. This didn't go down well with the judge, he argued that road signs are not made to look pretty, they serve to regulate traffic on the public roadways. That fellow had to hand in his license, he was banned from the road for five years, and a re-application after a ban involves a chat with a traffic psychologist.

5 year ban for parking violations? That seems extreme.

For inadvertent or pragmatic violations, but to say "Go ahead and fine me, I don't care" is pretty flagrant.

In college (1991 +/- 2), garage parking in Harvard Square was $15 for an evening. Resident parking violations were $10.

I regularly parked in resident parking areas, getting tickets perhaps half the time, rather than the certainty of a higher price in a garage.

As an engineer, that seemed perfectly reasonable to me. (Resident parking violations are now much more expensive, so this loophole is largely fixed.)

>As an engineer, that seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

But it was a bad thing to do, because you were taking parking spaces from the people they were for. Their fine structure was broken, but your moral calculus was the problem.

Yeah that provides great incentive for governments to have their police follow around wealthy people waiting for them to accidentally go over a yellow line by 2 inches.

If you get a $10 fine from one person and a $1MM fine from another person, you have every incentive to make sure the latter person is the one you catch.

law enforcement incentives are a different discussion.

The compromise they have in Ontario is that infractions get you demerit points as well as fines. Get enough demerit points and you lose your license.

They have this in certain countries, and may even be based on your overall networth - as it's not hard to make your salary be $0 per year..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com