Installment Payment for Sub-Court Traffic Fines

[Patronic]

U guys are damned shitty!!! the guy must be desperate enough to ask for advise here, if u have nothing constructive then there isn't a need to act noble, the way u guys replied really make me feel sick....I really wanted to believed all those that replied are actually kids on school holidays!!

 

One day you yourself may fall into such desperate situation and don't judge another using one own narrow perspective!

 

Well said... all (not all lah) saints in the forum...

 

[Junjie]

still no pity from me. each of us choose our path and if it's a wrong path, fix it urself and be prepared to face the music and grow up. what's wrong with that?.. if one made stupid mistake and u expect everyone to come in and sayang sayang ,say only good nice words?. expect those nice only words to mend the hurt ego or pride??...... gosh.... have u started working in the first place?....or have u reach adulthood in the first place?...

 

 

Boy Boy trying to sound macho ah...try harder I shall open my eyes big big and see where such character of yours will end at one day.....

Edited January 15, 2011 by Junjie

[Camrysfa]

What if we have means testing for traffic fines …..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/world/europe/speeding-in-finland-can-cost-a-fortune-if-you-already-have-one.html?_r=0

 

HELSINKI, Finland — Getting a speeding ticket is not a feel-good moment for anyone. But consider Reima Kuisla, a Finnish businessman.

 

He was recently fined 54,024 euros (about $58,000) for traveling a modest, if illegal, 64 miles per hour in a 50 m.p.h. zone. And no, the 54,024 euros did not turn out to be a typo, or a mistake of any kind.

 

Mr. Kuisla is a millionaire, and in Finland the fines for more serious speeding infractions are calculated according to income. The thinking here is that if it stings for the little guy, it should sting for the big guy, too.

 

The ticket had its desired effect. Mr. Kuisla, 61, took to Facebook last month with 12 furious posts in which he included a picture of his speeding ticket and a picture of what 54,024 euros could buy if it were not going to the state coffers — a new Mercedes. He said he was seriously considering leaving Finland altogether, a position to which he held firm when reached by phone at a bar where he was watching horse races.

[Spring]

What if we have means testing for traffic fines ..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/world/europe/speeding-in-finland-can-cost-a-fortune-if-you-already-have-one.html?_r=0

 

HELSINKI, Finland Getting a speeding ticket is not a feel-good moment for anyone. But consider Reima Kuisla, a Finnish businessman.

 

He was recently fined 54,024 euros (about $58,000) for traveling a modest, if illegal, 64 miles per hour in a 50 m.p.h. zone. And no, the 54,024 euros did not turn out to be a typo, or a mistake of any kind.

 

Mr. Kuisla is a millionaire, and in Finland the fines for more serious speeding infractions are calculated according to income. The thinking here is that if it stings for the little guy, it should sting for the big guy, too.

 

The ticket had its desired effect. Mr. Kuisla, 61, took to Facebook last month with 12 furious posts in which he included a picture of his speeding ticket and a picture of what 54,024 euros could buy if it were not going to the state coffers a new Mercedes. He said he was seriously considering leaving Finland altogether, a position to which he held firm when reached by phone at a bar where he was watching horse races.

There is a call from the general public not only in Singapore but some other countries as well to "penalise" the rich so as to raise govt coffers for various programmes n also to narrow the income gap. Seems like Finland actually puts this in practice.

Personally, I'm not for this idea cos a traffic offence should be equal and not 10, 100 times more fine for the same offence committed. The rich contributes to society through various ways including taxes, employment opportunities, donations etc n we don't want to drive them away with this kind of punitive fine which can be seen with this Finnish guy.

Having said that, I must say that there are some rich guys who have the attitude of "fine me, I can afford" when being confronted with traffic offences but I suppose that's where the demerit points system come in handy!!

[1fast1]

Just pay lah. Full cash.

[1fast1]

What if we have means testing for traffic fines ..

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/world/europe/speeding-in-finland-can-cost-a-fortune-if-you-already-have-one.html?_r=0

 

HELSINKI, Finland Getting a speeding ticket is not a feel-good moment for anyone. But consider Reima Kuisla, a Finnish businessman.

 

He was recently fined 54,024 euros (about $58,000) for traveling a modest, if illegal, 64 miles per hour in a 50 m.p.h. zone. And no, the 54,024 euros did not turn out to be a typo, or a mistake of any kind.

 

Mr. Kuisla is a millionaire, and in Finland the fines for more serious speeding infractions are calculated according to income. The thinking here is that if it stings for the little guy, it should sting for the big guy, too.

 

The ticket had its desired effect. Mr. Kuisla, 61, took to Facebook last month with 12 furious posts in which he included a picture of his speeding ticket and a picture of what 54,024 euros could buy if it were not going to the state coffers a new Mercedes. He said he was seriously considering leaving Finland altogether, a position to which he held firm when reached by phone at a bar where he was watching horse races.

I am very much in favour of "means testing" for traffic fines.

 

Provided they also "means test" the limit according to the particular car. So while the posted speed limit for that road may be 60km/h (applicable to the "average" car), the limit for a supercar may be 200km/h, maybe with a dedicated lane. I'll be quite happy to abide by that limit.

 

If they don't do this, that's just blatant class-envy and socialism run rampant. But that's what's happening in many European and Scandinavian countries, and it's started to creep in even here in SG (e.g. the new tax structure).

Edited April 28, 2015 by Turboflat4

[Sozo]

U guys are damned shitty!!! the guy must be desperate enough to ask for advise here, if u have nothing constructive then there isn't a need to act noble, the way u guys replied really make me feel sick....I really wanted to believed all those that replied are actually kids on school holidays!!

 

One day you yourself may fall into such desperate situation and don't judge another using one own narrow perspective!

 

Agree, heard this from someone, there this guy stay in Big house drive "Crazy horse" sport car boosting about he & his friends raised some $7-8k, in order to help a needy family which in need of 12k to purchase medical equipment.

[Nzy]

I am very much in favour of "means testing" for traffic fines.

 

Provided they also "means test" the limit according to the particular car. So while the posted speed limit for that road may be 60km/h (applicable to the "average" car), the limit for a supercar may be 200km/h, maybe with a dedicated lane. I'll be quite happy to abide by that limit.

 

If they don't do this, that's just blatant class-envy and socialism run rampant. But that's what's happening in many European and Scandinavian countries, and it's started to creep in even here in SG (e.g. the new tax structure).

 

If they do that then it doesn't really make sense already right. Cuz they want the people to drive within the speed limits and the rich ones can afford to speed all they want cuz the fine is just pocket change to them. If the speed limit also depends on what car they drive then it defeats the purpose already ma. Since the rich ones will be driving the more powerful cars with higher speed limits while the average car owner cannot afford to own a fast car to drive fast.

[1fast1]

If they do that then it doesn't really make sense already right. Cuz they want the people to drive within the speed limits and the rich ones can afford to speed all they want cuz the fine is just pocket change to them. If the speed limit also depends on what car they drive then it defeats the purpose already ma. Since the rich ones will be driving the more powerful cars with higher speed limits while the average car owner cannot afford to own a fast car to drive fast.

Too bad. If the "rich" can afford a car that goes faster (and also stops better) then they deserve to have highher speed limits for their cars. By the same token, if they exceed that higher speed limit, they also deserve to pay more of a fine, which will also be means-tested.

 

I'm not a big fan of the whole "enforced egalitarianism" thing, because the way it's most commonly done reeks of class-envy. Like in this case.

[Jq1988]

check with the court officer...they can help...you might need a guarantor...pls do not repeat the offence again, your family must be worry!!!

Edited April 28, 2015 by Jq1988

[Nzy]

Too bad. If the "rich" can afford a car that goes faster (and also stops better) then they deserve to have highher speed limits for their cars. By the same token, if they exceed that higher speed limit, they also deserve to pay more of a fine, which will also be means-tested.

 

I'm not a big fan of the whole "enforced egalitarianism" thing, because the way it's most commonly done reeks of class-envy. Like in this case.

 

Aren't speed limits there to improve safety on the roads? Just because a person in a supercar is able to stop faster, it doesn't mean there aren't any jaywalkers or other lousier drivers who will suddenly cut out and block the way. No matter how fast a car can stop, in these kind of situations, the faster the car is going to more damage its going to cause. When setting the speed limit, it isn't just about one car only, its about all the cars and pedestrians using the road right?

[Knoobie]

There is a call from the general public not only in Singapore but some other countries as well to "penalise" the rich so as to raise govt coffers for various programmes n also to narrow the income gap. Seems like Finland actually puts this in practice.

Personally, I'm not for this idea cos a traffic offence should be equal and not 10, 100 times more fine for the same offence committed. The rich contributes to society through various ways including taxes, employment opportunities, donations etc n we don't want to drive them away with this kind of punitive fine which can be seen with this Finnish guy.

Having said that, I must say that there are some rich guys who have the attitude of "fine me, I can afford" when being confronted with traffic offences but I suppose that's where the demerit points system come in handy!!

I don't see it as a mean to close the income gap but rather the fundamental purpose of imposing fines..

The purpose of traffic fines such as speeding is to deter unsafe driving that could endanger the general public..

If the fine is not painful pinch enough, it would not be effective isn't it?

 

Currently, it is like the traffic laws are state laws for Juvenile. While adults (higher income) break the laws, they are also just given mere detention..

 

Also, doesn't mean they contribute more taxes etc, they should be given special advantage when breaking laws..

 

btw, why worry if you ain't breaking laws? me is don't mind they increase the penalty for my case!

[Darryn]

I am very much in favour of "means testing" for traffic fines.

 

Provided they also "means test" the limit according to the particular car. So while the posted speed limit for that road may be 60km/h (applicable to the "average" car), the limit for a supercar may be 200km/h, maybe with a dedicated lane. I'll be quite happy to abide by that limit.

 

If they don't do this, that's just blatant class-envy and socialism run rampant. But that's what's happening in many European and Scandinavian countries, and it's started to creep in even here in SG (e.g. the new tax structure).

Shall we sing the troll song together?

 

But the reasoning is relatively sound - a fine is supposed to be a deterrent...

 

Just the same way as I might make my 3 year old spend 5 minutes on the "naughty stool", the 8 year old gets to spend 15 minutes...

 

As a special concession to you though, I'll deduct two minutes for wearing the "D" cap....

 

Also as another point - if you're going to give different CARS different limit, what about different DRIVERS different limits? If you can prove you have faster reaction time, can you get a higher speed limit?

[Spring]

I don't see it as a mean to close the income gap but rather the fundamental purpose of imposing fines..

The purpose of traffic fines such as speeding is to deter unsafe driving that could endanger the general public..

If the fine is not painful pinch enough, it would not be effective isn't it?

 

Currently, it is like the traffic laws are state laws for Juvenile. While adults (higher income) break the laws, they are also just given mere detention..

 

Also, doesn't mean they contribute more taxes etc, they should be given special advantage when breaking laws..

 

btw, why worry if you ain't breaking laws? me is don't mind they increase the penalty for my case!

 

I'm against the principle of rich paying bigger fines compared to a similar offence committed by the average Joe.

 

I'm not against fines per se and as you have rightly pointed out, commit a traffic offence and you pay the relevant penalty but the penalty can't differentiate just cos I'm better off.

Like T4 has mentioned, reeks of class envy and whilst I accept that the rich has to contribute more to society, this is entirely different. Maybe it's nothing to do with closing the income gap but this method certainly makes it feel that way.

 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents and guess different perspectives, cheers!!

[1fast1]

Shall we sing the troll song together?

 

But the reasoning is relatively sound - a fine is supposed to be a deterrent...

 

Just the same way as I might make my 3 year old spend 5 minutes on the "naughty stool", the 8 year old gets to spend 15 minutes...

 

As a special concession to you though, I'll deduct two minutes for wearing the "D" cap....

 

Also as another point - if you're going to give different CARS different limit, what about different DRIVERS different limits? If you can prove you have faster reaction time, can you get a higher speed limit?

 

To the last point, sure. Without any irony at all, that's one of my top ideas - allow people the option of taking an advanced licence, which will rigorously test their car control skills and high speed handling skills on a closed course, and give them a special licence.

 

As you've obviously picked up on, I was trolling when I proposed different speed limits, but that idea is no more stupid than the absolutely stupid idea of having differential punishments for the "rich" vs the "poor". Finland should pull its head out of its arse and introduce a demerit point system like Singapore instead of being money-grubbing twats persecuting the "rich".

 

So the special licence wouldn't entitle one to a different limit. What it would do is entitle one to own and drive a car making over a certain defined limit of HP. It'll be like the opposite of having an "Auto" 3A licence - that's basically for poorer drivers who lack the coordination to get a full licence. This licence (let's call it the "3R" licence) will ensure that cars with anything over, say, 300hp are in the hands of drivers with proven capability to handle them.

[1fast1]

 

Aren't speed limits there to improve safety on the roads? Just because a person in a supercar is able to stop faster, it doesn't mean there aren't any jaywalkers or other lousier drivers who will suddenly cut out and block the way. No matter how fast a car can stop, in these kind of situations, the faster the car is going to more damage its going to cause. When setting the speed limit, it isn't just about one car only, its about all the cars and pedestrians using the road right?

 

I was trolling, as I said to Darryn.

 

As I said, it's a stupid idea to have different speed limits for different vehicles (or even drivers of different skills). A nightmare to enforce.

 

But it's also just as stupid to fine "rich" drivers more.

 

There's a very easy way to take persistent or egregious traffic violators off the road temporarily or permanently. And Singapore has already got the answer: the demerit point DIPS system. I think Finland should take a leaf out of our books and implement a proper DIPS system and stop being DIPShits that persecute the rich with unjustly large fines. Everyone is subject to the same laws and the same penalties and it's just as easy for a "rich" guy to lose the privilege of driving as a "poor" guy.

 

Is my stance clearer now?

[Darryn]

 

 

So the special licence wouldn't entitle one to a different limit. What it would do is entitle one to own and drive a car making over a certain defined limit of HP. It'll be like the opposite of having an "Auto" 3A licence - that's basically for poorer drivers who lack the coordination to get a full licence. This licence (let's call it the "3R" licence) will ensure that cars with anything over, say, 300hp are in the hands of drivers with proven capability to handle them.

I wanted to do something along the lines of this for my "special friends" as an April Fools prank - had some stuff mocked up and all at the time...

 

then national mourning kinda spoiled the mood...

 

One thing I would love to see would be some form of link between fines and money spent on education for driving...

 

As to difference in fines for lich - demerit points are probably enough of a deterrent that fines are not really needed, but I am more ambivalent than you - perfectly willing to make an argument either way. Although I do think that Finnish case is an example of ridiculosity

[Eyke]

you can pay by credit card, so if your card company offers to pay them back by installment then problem solved without asking court for installment repayment.

I'm not against fines per se and as you have rightly pointed out, commit a traffic offence and you pay the relevant penalty but the penalty can't differentiate just cos I'm better off.

 

why not?

 

like here: TS is asking for installment to repay just 2K fine, for the rich 2K is pocket change,

ie. 2K fine is painful deterrent for TS but little deterrent for the rich.

 

so differentiated fine system does make sense coz point of fine is to deter,

but different financial status makes a fixed fine have different deterrence effect.

 

unless propose something like , poor or rich oso almost same kinda pain