Media Release: The Australia Institute
Making traffic fines proportional to drivers’ incomes, as is done in Finland, is a fairer system according to a new report from The Australia Institute, supported by Uniting Vic Tas and Financial Counselling Victoria.
With cost of living already pushing many Australians into financial difficulties, traffic fines can force low-income people into choosing between essential spending and paying fines. By contrast, traffic fines are a minor annoyance for Australia’s high-income earners.
A new report from The Australia Institute outlines a more equitable model for speeding fines based on a Finnish proportional fine system.
Key points:
- Finland has a minimum fine amount but otherwise calculates a fine based on a driver’s income and whether they have dependents
- This is better for equality, and sometimes catches headlines when really big fines are issued to billionaires
- Australian states are already moving in this direction: in NSW there is already a Centrelink discount.
Lower-income drivers would see average speeding fines decrease in every state and territory, while people with the highest income bracket would see their speeding fines increase.
“For a person on a low income, speeding fines can be crippling,” said Alice Grundy, an Australia Institute research manager and report co-author.
“Having a billionaire pay the same $200 speeding fine as a low-income earner is unfair.
“Proportional speeding fines are more equitable because they ensure the size of the fine is set based on a driver’s income.
“Australia’s regressive speeding fine system effectively criminalises poverty.”
Financial Counselling Victoria executive officer Zyl Hovenga-Wauchope said:
“In the land of the ‘fair go’ it is manifestly unfair that speeding fines are levied at a flat rate.
“While they are basically a mosquito bite for the wealthy, they can be earth shattering for the poor.
“This important report demonstrates that there is another way; we can do better. A proportional fines system is an important step in making a fairer Australia for all.”
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
This won’t work in Australia where apparently “rich” people hide their gross incomes behind family trusts and other “legal” instruments.
While I agree with this wholeheartedly, having had to pay two $190 fines for doing 8km over the limit recently, I believe attention should be paid to the blunt instrument of speed limits themselves.
In Darwin and the rural areas we have recently seen the speed limits on several roads lowered arbitrarily by 10 km/h. In Perth there is the ridiculous case where the Great Eastern Highway, four lanes wide, has a permanent 60km/h limit.
In many places electronic speed signs show changing speed limits depending on the time of day, or relevant issues such as local markets or school times.
A speed limit of say, 60 km/h might be perfectly acceptable during peak traffic times but is incredibly frustrating at week-end or other times. An 80 km/h or even 70km/h limit on the Stuart Highway might be fine at peak hours but could quite easily and safely be increased by ten or 15 km/h at other times.
Some years ago, writing in the West Australian Newspaper. A respected former senior traffic policeman pointed to the issue of road accidents being caused not always by speeding but by a lapse of concentration.
At slower speeds the gap drivers leave between themselves and the car in front is much smaller than is naturally left at higher speeds meaning any sudden stop if a driver is not very aware can lead to the dreaded nose-to-tail accident and roadside evidence shows how often that happens. Sadly, there will always be idiots who drive too fast and erratically, as indeed there are people who seem unable to actually drive at the posted speed limit to the frustration of the tail of vehicles behind them, but responding to such people by reducing speed limits is not the way to go. Finally I believe the well-intentioned road fatality campaigns such as “Towards Zero” are ultimately futile because the concept of two vehicles using the same road separated only by a white line and with closing speeds of anywhere from 120 to ( in the NT) 260 km/h means accidents are almost inevitable and every collision will be fatal.
These Finn fines are 103 years old and ’10 Jan 2010 — European countries are increasingly pegging speeding fines to income as a way to punish wealthy scofflaws who would otherwise ignore tickets.'(NBC)
The ‘fair go’, of our history, is the type of fair that fits the Finns, in this and other areas like education, but they are as our current fair of our anthem.
Yes, RC, I have been caught by missing speed changes down south. It seems like they are only designed to collect fines.
The appeals system is also difficult to access and people tend to pay up rather than go through it. My daughter recently misread a parking sign that was upside down and incurred a fine of more than $400. The response stated that there were other signs with 75 metres of the defective one which she should have checked.
The only proper penalty for misuse of a vehicle is a temporary loss of the right to use the vehicle. In other words, Licence Suspension.
For repeated misuse of a vehicle the penalty should be Licence Cancellation for a number of years (3? 5?)
Monetary penalties have no effect on those who can easily pay. The various “points” systems in the various jurisdictions can be easily avoided by “sharing” the points among friends and family.
@Lyndal, parking zones and times are a maze of conflicting information, and need to be better designed and signed.