How about you prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get. Otherwise you're solving for a problem that doesn’t exist.

I read the grandparent comment's point as being about suggesting %-based fines.

> prove your claim by providing some evidence that the richer you are the more speeding tickets you get.

How/where did the grandparent comment claim that the rich get more speeding tickets? Even if the rich speed at a lower rate, would that make %-based fines a negative improvement?

> a problem that doesn’t exist

My assumption was the speeding is a problem no matter whether rich or poor, and that both exist. Is there disagreement there?

Instead, I think their point was that even a $100 fine for a poor person may impact their ability to pay for groceries, childcare, etc, whereas for someone who has $10 million, etc., even a $1,000 fine will not impact their ability to pay for groceries, childcare, etc as they still have $9,999,000.

Expensive cars tend to accelerate faster, and it can be vastly harder to feel the speed. It would be unsurprising if up until some limit there was a correlation between wealth and the frequency of getting speeding tickets.

I made no such claim that such occurs. But I want to align societal incentives appropriately so that it shouldn't.

You may note that a first offence makes no difference.

It's only 2nd offences have a token minimal % - which should put a rich person on notice that such can occur.

It's only 3rd and further offences that could seriously differentiate rich vs poor in penalty.

I prefer an exponential grow, it simplifies the calculations a lot and even Elon is only a few exponents order away from us.