Avoiding fines is pretty much trivial. It’s insignificant compared to the cost of maintaining and fueling the car unless you’re incredibly irresponsible.

"fines associated with cars that fall more heavily on poorer people"

Examples?

If its a case of Ferraris don't need to pay to park, where other cars get ticketed, fair enough. If its just a case of poor people being more likely to speed, in which case that doesn't seem so reasonable to call out.

I'm not even sure if fines in general should be counted as a cost of ownership. You can just pay to park, you don't have to speed, in general it seems like a cost of rule breaking to me.

I'm not from the US, so the request for examples was genuine.

I imagine the person you're asking was talking about fines being regressive in the sense that if a wealthy person receives a $100 fine for speeding or parking violations, it's basically nothing, but the same $100 represents a day or 2 of labor for the working poor and could be ruinous if they are already barely able to pay their bills.

We can start with the fact that fines are not means tested so a speeding ticket for someone driving x miles over the speed limit is the same for a Ferrari driver (likely a rich person) and someone who would having trouble covering a $400 expense (a poor person)...in fact it is known that this type of situation often has a cascading effect on poorer people...lose your license/registration because you can't pay the fine, lose your job because you can't get to work, become even poorer....

The real problem is that car ownership is more or less mandatory in America because of the lack of viable alternative in most cases.

Those fines I speak of? I have a lot experience with...in fact for most of my late teens and early 20s I spent thousands in fines for various infractions. Not everyone manages to climbed out of those holes.

Any fine is an example. $40 to someone on the breadline is a problem. While to someone wealthy it’s nothing. There are people who don’t worry about fines due to their wealth, and just avoid situations that would risk their licence.

In Germany, Switzerland, and several other European jurisdictions, Bußgeld/Ordnungsbusse (fines) are distinguished from Geldstrafe (penalty? amercement?).

Depending on the gravity of the offence, the law (or court) determines the amount to pay, and it is in units of money for the Bußgeld, but in units of Tagessätze (daily fine) for the Geldstrafe. Now, how much money a Tagessatz corresponds to is determined in a second step based on the income and wealth of the offender.

So, for example, a banker in Switzerland that went 114 km/h instead of the allowed 80 and overtook on the right several times was fined 450,000 CHF (around 450,000 USD - yes, half a million).

I find that quite sensible.

https://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/zuerich/halsbrecherisches-...

> I find that quite sensible.

I guess it depends what you think the purpose of a fine is. personally, I think a fine ought to be a rough estimate for the excess risk you exposed other people to. I don't think a speeding banker exposes society to any more risk than a speeding janitor.

> personally, I think a fine ought to be a rough estimate for the excess risk you exposed other people to.

Ok, but that's not actually what a fine is for. It's meant to be a deterrent against future offenses, both by the party it's levied against and for others.[1]

1. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/fines.html

> The purposes of imposing a criminal fine are to punish the offender, help compensate the state for the offense, and deter any future criminal acts.

looks like the source you cited supports both perspectives.

So then you agree that the goals of "punish the offender" and "deter any future criminal acts" would not be served by having the same fine amount for everyone, regardless of means?

yes, but I personally don't think that's a good goal for a fine. generally speaking, there are two kinds of offenses: those that hurt people, and those that don't necessarily harm, but expose to excess risk. if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra. if you hurt someone seriously, some jail time might be in order. but I think excess risk is better handled through liability. there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone.

tbh, I don't actually support speeding tickets in the first place, at least not on the highway. people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat. I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc.

> there's something sort of absurd about being punished for a behavior that didn't actually hurt anyone.

So there should only be penalties for DUI if you get into an accident?

It's impossible to predict in advance which specific incidences of risky behavior will cause harm. That's why the behavior itself is penalized. If there is actual harm, the penalties ramp up.

> if you actually hurt someone, you should pay the approximate cost plus a little extra

How does someone "pay the approximate cost" for risky driving that kills or seriously injures someone? If you use the various "value of life" calculations floating around, there are at least some people for whom it's not a lot of money on a probability adjusted basis (e.g. $2m * 0.1% chance of them causing a fatal accident). But accident victims, their family and friends, and society as a whole would prefer that an accident never happened at all than have someone write a check after the fact. This means no one can be allowed to buy a "risky driving pass" by virtue of their wealth.

> people speeding in a well-maintained vehicle (and obeying the other traffic laws) are not a huge threat

The numbers appear to disagree with you. [1] Speeding is a factor in a quarter of all traffic fatalities.

> I'm much more worried about the people weaving between traffic, obstructing the fast lane, reading instagram, etc.

I agree but I've also noticed that weaving between lanes goes hand-in-hand with speeding. It's hard to keep going faster than other traffic without constantly switching lanes to find space.

1. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding

there are two major problems with the document you linked.

> NHTSA considers a crash to be speeding-related if any driver in the crash was charged with a speeding-related offense or if a police officer indicated that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash.

the entire definition of "speeding was a factor" boils down to either 1) an officer was there and gave you a speeding ticket, or 2) after showing up to the scene of an accident, it was the officer's opinion that speeding contributed to the crash in some way. the whole document rests on this tenuous connection. for the purposes of this document, speeding can "be a factor" even if the officer didn't think it was a contributing factor, but happened to write a speeding ticket!

the other major problem is that the document makes little effort to tease apart other risky behaviors that may correlate with speeding. it only breaks out age, gender, surface, and BAC for separate consideration. put another way, this document describes the entire population of people who speed (which is about half of drivers in the US [0]), but cannot answer the question: "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?"

given your responses so far, I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws. just as an example, in my city the government was caught deliberately reducing the length of yellow lights immediately after introducing red light cameras. the state sees traffic violations as a revenue stream. they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding), and make laws that most people will break. they're not interested in investigating whether the limits make sense, or whether they are even enforcing something meaningful. no one is willing to make speed limits their hill to die on, so they get away with it.

[0] https://one.nhtsa.gov/portal/site/NHTSA/menuitem.554fad9f184...

> "how dangerous is it to exceed the speed limit in a well-maintained car if you do nothing else wrong?"

What I'm saying is that speeding doesn't happen in isolation. The only times it's "safe" to speed is:

1. To keep up with other traffic. You're unlikely to get a ticket in this scenario, and by following the speed limit you would be making the situation more dangerous.

2. On an open country road, with little other traffic. You're also unlikely to get a ticket here, because of how few patrols would be around - but be aware of deer.

Otherwise speeding will necessary involve weaving in and out of lanes, sudden braking, and following other cars too closely.

> I expect you will consider this paranoid/cynical, but I don't trust the state to set reasonable traffic laws

I don't consider it paranoid or cynical. I'm aware of the yellow light issue and it's a terribly shortsighted thing for cities to have done. But none of this has to do with where we originally started talking: should fines be based on ability to pay?

> they see something easy to measure (eg, speeding),

If it's easy to measure, it's also easy to follow. Do we want more ambiguous laws that can be even more selectively enforced?

> and make laws that most people will break

That's something to lobby against then. Having a law that no one follows reduces respect for other laws.

I'm not from the US, but starting from some income threshold you can use dedicated lanes daily and pay in the end of the month. While for most of the populace occasional ticket for the same thing might be a big financial trouble.

More "fair" scheme would be fines proportional to your income or vehicle cost, but I have heard of such things only in some European countries.

You write: "There are all sorts of costs associated with car ownership beyond mere purchase cost and repairs". Service and maintenance is another one. I have colleagues who, overall, like the Uber and Lyft lifestyle, even when facing the occasional cancellations.

I'm curious if there are empirical studies done on the overall benefits and costs of owning vs leasing vs ridesharing?

One can find Total Cost of Ownership calculators online, eg edmunds.com. A Toyota Camry that costs $25k has a total cost of ownership over 5 years of $40k, or some $670 per month.

One could get a pilot's license for that amount and fly an hour per week.

That sounds like a lot to me. Our Nissan sunny from 1991 costs around 500 euro/year for us.

Including gas, oil changes, insurance, new tires, etc? How many kilometers per year?

I used to keep very close track of my finances and commented one day at work on how much of our money we spent on our cars. Everyone in the office thought that I was being preposterous and that they spent nothing near that on their cars. Nevermind the fact that I drove the oldest car and lived the closest to work.

Gas / insurance / registration are costs people just generally don't count into car ownership. Probably part of the reason people are so happy to buy SUVs that get terrible mileage.

1200km/year Yes, including all of these.

1200km year is not much (3km/day). The calculation above probably includes ten times as much usage.

Edit: apparently the edmunds.com calculator assumes 15000 miles per year which are 24000 km, 20 times your 1200km.

I don't... understand what you're talking about. Sure there are additional costs to owning a car, but you're not really explaining how they're so commonly ruinous to a person's financial well being.

So far all you've given me is a few worst case scenarios, but what about the average scenario? What's the normal car ownership process like in your mind, and how does that average situation teeter so close to the edge of ruin, as you say?

The IRS allows you to deduct $0.51/mile if you use your car for business. This takes into account all the costs of driving: gas, insurance, registration, depreciation, maintenance and repairs.[1] I don't know if it also takes into account the opportunity cost of having $15-50k sitting in your driveway instead of in an investment.

The average American commutes 32 miles/day round-trip[2] (we're not counting other driving). So they're incurring ~$16/day in direct and indirect costs related to car ownership and driving. Over 1 year of workdays, that's approximately $4k in car-related costs.

The median household income in the United States is approximately $60k.[3]

This implies that the median household spends almost 7% of income just on one car. Most households have 2 vehicles so I'll wager it's more like 10-12% of income. This is also more than the amount households save annually (6%).[4]

1. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-c...

2. https://itstillruns.com/far-americans-drive-work-average-744...

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...

4. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/personal-savings

So? Their entire income is probably tied to that car getting them to/from work, so it is an investment, with returns being their ability to hold their job.

Right. But no one needs a $15k car, let alone a $50k one, to get to/from work. If you're counting job income as RoI from a car, why not buy a $7k car? That's far better RoI.

And after one has held a steady job for a few years, no one should need to finance a $15k car either.

That's where most of the costs of car ownership come from (apart from long commutes) - depreciation, interest payments, and insurance.

No one needs to wear any clothes at all, or at most a paper bag would do.

And yet, here we are...

> No one needs to wear any clothes at all, or at most a paper bag would do.

Clothes aren't optional because of public indecency laws and also because most places don't have perfect weather year-round. A paper bag won't do because it'll rip in a couple of minutes, or not offer enough protection against the elements. Same deal with a plastic bag or anything else that's not real clothing. Being shirtless or barefoot restricts your entry to many establishments, but if you don't care about those places then yeah shirts and shoes are optional.

All the same, no one needs to wear expensive clothes. If they cover you up, keep you warm, and keep you employable, they're good enough. For a programmer that may mean free swag t-shirt and jeans, and for a rich banker, a $2k suit. But wearing suits every day would be a pointless indulgence for the programmer and wearing $20k suits every day would also be a waste of money for the banker. (I have no idea how much "high-powered finance" suits cost, numbers are estimates)

Unfortunately for your argument, we don't live in the reality that you're trying to pretend exists, where direct utility is the only valuable feature of an object.

Also the fact that you spent so much time talking about the utility of a paper bag more or less outs you as a pedant, so I think I'm done here.