Sounds like it could cost more to administer than the income derived from the fines etc.

And of course, it still doesn’t deal with bigger issue that you have to actually have Police on patrol in order for people to get caught in the first place.

Pandering, pandering, pandering…..

At ten dollars a fortnight you could well be paying twenty times that every fortnight in parking fees to avoid getting further fines…

I love your headlines; there hasn’t been as much snark around here lately!

Mickey is clearly disabled.

So, where is the disinsentive to drive and park like a tool?

I couldn’t tell you the amount of people I knew in my younger/wilder days who got out of doing community service.

How many people get fines anyway? Certainly not me or many that I know.

Here’s an idea, how about doing the right thing in the first place so you don’t get fined. It’s driving, i.e. not that difficult.

According to Simon’s usual idiotic thinking, shouldn’t the shop you illegally park out the front of have to pay the fine?

“… may be going through a particularly difficult period in their lives,” .. it seems there’s a lot you can get away with in Canberra if you mention some difficulties around living and stuff.

Alderney said :

So, where is the disinsentive to drive and park like a tool?

I couldn’t tell you the amount of people I knew in my younger/wilder days who got out of doing community service.

How many people get fines anyway? Certainly not me or many that I know.

Here’s an idea, how about doing the right thing in the first place so you don’t get fined. It’s driving, i.e. not that difficult.

Well aren’t you a good boy/girl.

I have contributed plenty to the ACT revenue through parking fines. For staying too long in a limited time spot. Or for not having a valid parking voucher thingy: forgot, no change, came back later than expected, or in one case when I had one too many and did the right thing and left the car in Civic to take a cab home only to find a fine on my windscreen the next morning (the only way I could’ve avoided that one was by driving home drunk, so that really peed me off big time). Near my office there is only a staff carpark that is completely full after 8.30am and 1 and 2 hour parking so if I get stuck in a meeting I make the parking inspectors happy. Again. That’s ok, no thanks needed.

I wouldn’t use it as I am not that poor and rather get it over and done with but I don’t see why you shouldn’t allow people a payment plan for their fines. Provided that the cost of implementing this is less than the revenue raised indeed.

“More options for idiots” is a fair headline, but “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties less punitive” is not an accurate byeline (is johnboy trolling?). More accurate would be “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties more equitable”.

A $100 fine is meaningless to a rich person, but a lot to a poor person. That’s inequitable. Giving them the option to work it off or to pay in instalments is partly and minimally addressing that inequity.

Roll on Unit Fines, where the unit is a proportion of the person’s income. Tried in the UK in the 1990s but undermined by the rabid right wing press. In place in other civilised countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

IP

They’re expensive fines with a certain time frame for payment for a reason… to stop you breaking the law! How about these welfare bumpkins start obeying the road/parking rules and then they won’t get fined.
Problem solved, move on.

IrishPete said :

A $100 fine is meaningless to a rich person, but a lot to a poor person. That’s inequitable. Giving them the option to work it off or to pay in instalments is partly and minimally addressing that inequity.

Is a disabled person less inconvenienced if a poor person parks illegally in a disabled place?

It’s the act which is punishable, income should have nothing to do with it.

Corbell is pandering to his fan base.

IrishPete said :

Roll on Unit Fines, where the unit is a proportion of the person’s income. Tried in the UK in the 1990s but undermined by the rabid right wing press. In place in other civilised countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
IP

the idea of unit fines may also have been undermined by the fact that they are fundamentally inequitable and probably counterproductive. A person engaging in some dangerous or illegal act imposes the same social cost whether they are rich or whether they are poor.

Firstly, how do you define income? Should a PAYG person pay more than a self-employed contractor, who may accumulate a lot more wealth in a given period but have little “income”?

Also, truly dangerous social conduct is subject to non-monetary sanctions (such as eventually accruing enough demerit points as to lose the legal entitlement to drive). Sure, parking infringements don’t have the same effect, but as much as it may irk you, overstaying your allocated 15 minutes or inconveniencing a disabled person isn’t actually a life-or-death decision. It’s not worth re-engineering an penalty system and introducing worse side effects to account for people that earn enough money that a $70 parking fine won’t deter them from saving 5 minutes.

In a lot of cases, wealth may reduce the social harm caused by given conduct. A brand new volvo, for example, is likely to be better at avoiding an accident (brakes, avoidance tech) so speeding becomes less dangerous for a relatively wealthy person compared with a person driving a cheaper car. Also in the event of an accident I’d rather be hit by a volvo, with it’s auto-eject bonnet to protect me from the engine block, than (say) a commodore.

To the extent that social harm is not subject to private or social insurance, wealthy individuals are more likley to be able to fully compensate the social harm their illegal acts cause.

Finally, if someone has no income, or negative income, does this mean they should get to wander around breaking the law with impunity and no financial consequences whatsoever? In fact if they have negative income (their home business or hobby farm happened to run a loss this financial year) then presumably we should be paying them to commit crimes? I don’t think so.

For these reasons, unit penalties or wealth-dependent penalties are unworkable and simply a bad idea.

IrishPete said :

“More options for idiots” is a fair headline, but “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties less punitive” is not an accurate byeline (is johnboy trolling?). More accurate would be “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties more equitable”.

A $100 fine is meaningless to a rich person, but a lot to a poor person. That’s inequitable. Giving them the option to work it off or to pay in instalments is partly and minimally addressing that inequity.

Roll on Unit Fines, where the unit is a proportion of the person’s income. Tried in the UK in the 1990s but undermined by the rabid right wing press. In place in other civilised countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

IP

How are they going to be more equitable given the low income earners still have to pay the full amount??

Ben_Dover said :

IrishPete said :

It’s the act which is punishable, income should have nothing to do with it.

Do you think a $100 fine will deter a rich person from parking in a disacled parking space, as much as it will deter a poor person?

If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

bundah said :

IrishPete said :

“More options for idiots” is a fair headline, but “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties less punitive” is not an accurate byeline (is johnboy trolling?). More accurate would be “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties more equitable”.

A $100 fine is meaningless to a rich person, but a lot to a poor person. That’s inequitable. Giving them the option to work it off or to pay in instalments is partly and minimally addressing that inequity.

Roll on Unit Fines, where the unit is a proportion of the person’s income. Tried in the UK in the 1990s but undermined by the rabid right wing press. In place in other civilised countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

IP

How are they going to be more equitable given the low income earners still have to pay the full amount??

Simple – set the fines as a proportion of income.

Watson said :

the only way I could’ve avoided that one was by driving home drunk, so that really peed me off big time).

What a pathetic whinge. You chose to drive into civic. You chose to drink to an extent which meant you could not legally drive home. There was no one holding a gun to your head forcing you to do these things. Take some responsibility for your actions.

All they will have to do is get a medical certificate (through bulk-billing) to organise no-shows for their “community service”.

And that “community service” is notoriously slack. A woman I know did hers in an art gallery, sitting on the internet for three hour stints over a few weeks.

Just to show how proud they are of their bus network. Making it easier to be bad and own a car for poor folk

It also begs the question: a car costs more than $100 a week to run. So with all the complaints about people on welfare not having enough money for food, how come so many of these people who can’t stump up a parking fine can afford to drive a car?

screaming banshee said :

Watson said :

the only way I could’ve avoided that one was by driving home drunk, so that really peed me off big time).

What a pathetic whinge. You chose to drive into civic. You chose to drink to an extent which meant you could not legally drive home. There was no one holding a gun to your head forcing you to do these things. Take some responsibility for your actions.

Because you have never gone out for a couple of beers and enjoyed yourself so much that you ended up having more? It is logical that if you want to encourage people to make the right decision when they realise they’re over the limit, give them an opportunity to leave the car without getting fined.

I never know whether the high ratio of dreadful bores on RA is indicative of the nature of the Canberra population or just an internet phenomenon.

Watson said :

Because you have never gone out for a couple of beers and enjoyed yourself so much that you ended up having more?

Actually no, never. I’ve gone out for a couple of beers regularly, and when I’ve had the decision to make as to whether or not I have a few more, my choice depends on whether or not I’m driving. I don’t make a decision and then whine about the obvious consequences of making that decision.

Watson said :

I never know whether the high ratio of dreadful bores on RA is indicative of the nature of the Canberra population or just an internet phenomenon.

If making the suggestion that you take responsibility for your own actions and your own decisions makes someone a dreadful bore, then I guess like screaming banshee, that I’m guilty as charged.

But I’m more than happy that you’re so willing to put money into the ACT government coffers by ignoring the road rules – it means that those of us who choose to obey the road rules have less to contribute. Your generosity is greatly appreciated.

Jono said :

Watson said :

Because you have never gone out for a couple of beers and enjoyed yourself so much that you ended up having more?

Actually no, never. I’ve gone out for a couple of beers regularly, and when I’ve had the decision to make as to whether or not I have a few more, my choice depends on whether or not I’m driving. I don’t make a decision and then whine about the obvious consequences of making that decision.

Watson said :

I never know whether the high ratio of dreadful bores on RA is indicative of the nature of the Canberra population or just an internet phenomenon.

If making the suggestion that you take responsibility for your own actions and your own decisions makes someone a dreadful bore, then I guess like screaming banshee, that I’m guilty as charged.

But I’m more than happy that you’re so willing to put money into the ACT government coffers by ignoring the road rules – it means that those of us who choose to obey the road rules have less to contribute. Your generosity is greatly appreciated.

Making a decision on whether to leave a good party or stay and let your hair down based on where you happened to have parked your car sounds terribly exciting though.

But you’re welcome. I don’t have an issue with admitting mistakes but that was one I didn’t regret. I still insist not allowing people to pay for Saturday morning parking on the Friday night increases the risk of drunk people on the roads. But thinking about strategies to prevent stupid people from making stupid decisions is clearly stupid.

If only the tax people would cotton on to this idea…imagine how easy it would make life. Still, parking on credit sounds good to me.

IrishPete said :

“More options for idiots” is a fair headline, but “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties less punitive” is not an accurate byeline (is johnboy trolling?). More accurate would be “Simon Corbell has announced he’s going to make traffic penalties more equitable”.

A $100 fine is meaningless to a rich person, but a lot to a poor person. That’s inequitable. Giving them the option to work it off or to pay in instalments is partly and minimally addressing that inequity.

Roll on Unit Fines, where the unit is a proportion of the person’s income. Tried in the UK in the 1990s but undermined by the rabid right wing press. In place in other civilised countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine

IP

Hey they should try this in the tax system too so I dont have to pay a higher percentage of my wage in tax simply because I choose to work harder. I’m sure you’d agree that its inequitable for me to pay a higher percentage of my income in tax right?

Seems like Simon has got another fine – parking in the taxi zone outside Coolaman Court again perhaps? See http://www.policespeedcameras.info/index.php/en/speed-camera-information-statistics-assaults/assaults-on-operators-a-cameras/politicians-caught-speeding-name-and-shame/409-aussie-mlas-clock-up-$4247-in-fines.html

Response to various previous comments:

Taxation (or at least income tax) is already based on income.

Someone on low income is not paying $100 a week to run their car. More like $20 as a starting point.

It is inequitable for rich people to be able to park with impunity and just pay the fine out of the change they find down the back of their sofa. You clearly want to punish poor people and that’s fine (pun intended). But you also clearly don’t want to punish rich people, and that’s not okay.

IP

IrishPete said :

Someone on low income is not paying $100 a week to run their car. More like $20 as a starting point.

IP

Man – where’d they buy their petrol??

Watson said :

Jono said :

Watson said :

Because you have never gone out for a couple of beers and enjoyed yourself so much that you ended up having more?

Actually no, never. I’ve gone out for a couple of beers regularly, and when I’ve had the decision to make as to whether or not I have a few more, my choice depends on whether or not I’m driving. I don’t make a decision and then whine about the obvious consequences of making that decision.

Watson said :

I never know whether the high ratio of dreadful bores on RA is indicative of the nature of the Canberra population or just an internet phenomenon.

If making the suggestion that you take responsibility for your own actions and your own decisions makes someone a dreadful bore, then I guess like screaming banshee, that I’m guilty as charged.

But I’m more than happy that you’re so willing to put money into the ACT government coffers by ignoring the road rules – it means that those of us who choose to obey the road rules have less to contribute. Your generosity is greatly appreciated.

Making a decision on whether to leave a good party or stay and let your hair down based on where you happened to have parked your car sounds terribly exciting though.

But you’re welcome. I don’t have an issue with admitting mistakes but that was one I didn’t regret. I still insist not allowing people to pay for Saturday morning parking on the Friday night increases the risk of drunk people on the roads. But thinking about strategies to prevent stupid people from making stupid decisions is clearly stupid.

Can’t have a good time without alcohol? It’s time to admit that you have a problem