• Thekingoflorda@lemmy.worldEnglish
    59·
    11 days ago

    Just looked what it would cost if you get caught doing that here in the Netherlands, answer: 159 euros. Good, but should be higher.

      • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
        34·
        11 days ago

        Yeah. It’s kind of ignorant to expect the same fine for say a disabled person unable to work who scrapes by on 900 euros a month vs a super wealthy person on 500k euros a year.

        Fines shouldn’t really exist anyways. When for one person they’re a random expense that doesn’t even bat an eye vs for another person it means no food for a week.

        Even progressive fines are unfair. In that for someone who barely affords food every week losing 2% of your monthly income is devastating. While for a rich person they won’t even notice losing 2% of their income.

        • optional@feddit.orgEnglish
          18·
          11 days ago

          What would be the alternative though? Jail would be a bit harsh for a parking violation, and all other punishments I can think of would also be unfair to some people.

          • Community work discriminates against the single parent, favoring the childless unemployed.
          • Losing the drivers license for a month discriminates against the rural population while city folks can use the bus to get to work. Or even a cab if they’re rich enough.
          • Even in jail you would be better off if you are rich, as you can bribe the guards or buy some level of comfort.

          Until we get rid of the rich, any punishment will be somewhat biased. But not punishing misdemeanors at all would not really be an option either.

          • IllNess@infosec.pubEnglish
            18·
            11 days ago

            Multiple time offenders should see harsher penalties regardless of what their income is.

            Take away their license. If they drive without a license, then they should go to jail.

            Being a parent or being disabled is no excuse for multiple parking violations. If you don’t know the law or aren’t patient enough to follow them, then don’t drive. Driving is a privileged, not a right.

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzEnglish
            1·
            11 days ago

            Losing the drivers license for a month discriminates against the rural population while city folks can use the bus to get to work. Or even a cab if they’re rich enough.

            Rural people got around fine before the automobile. They walked or rode a horse. Nobody needs a car.

            • AntY@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              10 days ago

              I’ve got a horse but there’s no stables outside my workplace. Walking 50 km to work would take the whole day.

              • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzEnglish
                3·
                10 days ago

                You don’t need to live 50km away from where you work. People from before cars would never dream of such an outrageous lifestyle.

                That kind of decadence, traveling 50km twice every day, was enabled by unsustainable technology which is killing the biosphere. We need to stop this kind of wasteful excess, or climate collapse will stop it for us. We can have people living 50km away from work, but that 50km needs to be 50km of railway line. It can’t be an asphalt road, that’s too expensive to the world. The debt is coming due.

                • AntY@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  10 days ago

                  My municipality made a study where they looked at the carbon footprint of residents in three different areas. Those with the highest carbon emissions lived right in the city center, next to where they work. The ones in suburbs were right in the middle with respect to carbon dioxide generated by their lifestyle. Lowest were those living 30 km or more away from the city center.

                  I drive to get to work, nothing else. I don’t drive to the store, I don’t buy clothes, I don’t fly to holiday destinations. I don’t need or want to, since I have everything I love right outside my door. Those who live in cities are statistically those who need to make the largest changes to their lifestyle if we are to save the planet.

                  • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nzEnglish
                    2·
                    10 days ago

                    https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

                    Even though city-dwellers may not see a starry night for a long time, rural residents still emit more carbon emissions than their slick city counterparts.

                    The BBC article agrees. When carbon emissions are compared between residents of rural and urban areas, the former appear to have a higher carbon footprint.

                    Homes in large towns or apartments in cities tend to be smaller and denser, thus easier to heat. People in cities drive short distances to work or may even commute to work, but residents in rural areas tend to drive long distances for work or leisure.

          • Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            10 days ago

            Not even progressively larger fines, up to jail time and having your driving licence and car forefeited are proportionate - this still disproportionately affects those less well-off.

            Perhaps civil asset and “rights” forefeiture for the rich could be a better solution. With rights I don’t mean human rights, but stuff like being allowed to ride in a car at all (since being rich enough you can hire a chauffeur, even losing your licence isn’t a big deal and you can always rent a car or buy a new one multiplr times over). How this would be implemented (enforced) I don’t know, but it should work. If course it should only be applied to people blatantly disregarding basic civility in traffic and those who don’'t need the car

        • copd@lemmy.worldEnglish
          10·
          11 days ago

          The rich stay rich by not spending money. They’ll be devastated losing 2% of their income on a fine.

      • Oxysis/Oxy@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        11·
        11 days ago

        It should be income adjusted up to a certain income amount where it becomes net worth adjusted. This way stocks, land, properties and possessions can be calculated in to make the fines more impactful for the ultra wealthy.

        Along with adjustments for not changing behaviors after previous fines.

      • SpaceScotsman@startrek.websiteEnglish
        7·
        10 days ago

        Adjusted to the initial sale value of the car - Less easy to cheat by not declaring income, and bigger cars (likely more expensive) that take up more space, pay more.

        • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          3·
          10 days ago

          This fails to scale into the millionaire level of wealth. Someone worth 10 or 100 million should be fined 10-100 times the amount of someone that has “just” 1 Million.

          • Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            10 days ago

            Also, realistically there is a cap to the value of a car that someone is gonna just leave parked in a bus lane.

            Nobody is going to leave a $40 million Ferrari 250 just sitting somewhere after all

        • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          7·
          11 days ago

          Nono, you see i am rewarding these leeches with the ability to gain glory and prestige by giving away their excess wealth.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_ancient_Greece#Taxation

          Liturgies could consist of, for instance, the maintenance of a trireme, a chorus during a theatre festival, or a gymnasium. In some cases, the prestige of the undertaking attracted volunteers (analogous in modern terminology to endowment, sponsorship, or donation). Such was the case for the choragus, who organized and financed choruses for a drama festival. In other instances, like the burden of outfitting and commanding a trireme, the liturgy functioned more like a mandatory donation (what we would today call a one-time tax), with the prestige of such a position and other elites’ social pressure reducing noncompliance.

      • kamen@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        10 days ago

        I agree with that, but can immediately see a loophole in it - that some rich folks are not reporting actual income.