Finland: drivers' licences

The GRM message boards were recently visited by someone advocating the way driver's licenses are administered in Finland[*]. Today I decided to look at the rules for licenses - and speeding - in Finland. I was surprised to find the following:

A) speeding tickets in that nation are based on your speed and your income. They can be VERY expensive:

Steve Stecklow said: The officer pulled over Mr. Rytsola's car and issued him a speeding ticket for driving 43 miles an hour in a 25-mile-an-hour zone. The fine: $71,400. The staggering sum was no mistake. In Finland, traffic fines generally are based on two factors: the severity of the offense and the driver's income. The concept has been embedded in Finnish law for decades: When it comes to crime, the wealthy should suffer as much as the poor. Indeed, sliding-scale financial penalties are also imposed for offenses ranging from shoplifting to securities-law violations. "This is a Nordic tradition," says Erkki Wuoma, special planning adviser at the Ministry of Interior. "We have progressive taxation and progressive punishments. So the more you earn, the more you pay."

Full text: http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/wsj_finland.html The original story is here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB978398058976592586.html#

B) Finland is not at all tolerant of speeders: http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/home.nsf/pages/F666038500AD6A4CC2256C370036DAE0?OpenDocument

The Road Traffic Act states that holders of a driving licence must be banned from driving if they have at least four times within two years, or three times within one year, been guilty of a punishable offence under the Road Traffic Act, with the exception of fixed fine offences other than speeding, or of a radar detector offence. Holders of a short-term driving licence are banned from driving if they are found guilty of the offences described in the previous paragraph three times within two years or twice within one year.

Tim, I'm not meaning to troll or reignite the previous thread. If this is at all inflammatory, please delete the topic and pretend I never posted it.

• • and, as was rightly pointed out, their information probably came from a short Top Gear segment.

So if you are rich in Finland, hire a chauffeur and pay him a very small salary, they pay all his tickets.

Saw this on the latest top gear:

Ticket

Driver was born in 1986. Can you imagine having 1000 WARRANTIED horsepower at 23?!?

I'm 23 and I can imagine his annual insurance premium is more than my house. Before the ticket.

some would call that socialism.. but I like it. A fine SHOULD make you think twice before you do it again.. so why should 15 over the limit hurt me MORE than say Donald Trump?

Here in Georgia, there was a recent new "tax law" passed.

http://gov.georgia.gov/00/press/detail/0,2668,78006749_139486062_139818242,00.html

Ignore the lies about the money going for "trauma care"..once the money is in the treasury, there will be plenty of opportunities for the state to "borrow" from one fund or another to pay outstanding bills elsewhere. It's probably the only reason Georgia has a lottery (that money was supposed to be for our schools).

An extra $200 for twenty over. Problem is...the limit on Interstates inside the ATL metro is still at 55. Elsewhere in the state, this is not a big problem, but here in the capital, it has reallly screwed up traffic flow.

Anyone who's ever driven through here will tell you...driving slower than 70mph through here can get you killed. And the rich folks don't care about a paltry two hundred bucks, so they're still blasting through town at 80-85mph.

I try to cruise at an even 75 (well, 74 now. Ugh). But there are a few moderate hills here, and it's tough to maintain a steady speed when the folks with sludgeboxes are all going 70 uphill and 80 downhill. Now that I can no longer do the 83 or so it takes to overtake these snoozers on the downhill (the extra 200's a little rich for my blood), I now run the risk of blocking the passing lane when I'm just trying to maintain my momentum.

Base the fine upon income? I'm all for it. Most of the really fast people here are not enthusiasts in machines built for traveling at such speeds. They're clueless rich surburbanites in 4000lb SUVs, with coffee in one hand and the cell phone in the other. But of course, the state doesn't care, as long as the money's green. Normal sources of taxation are traditionally low in the South, and traffic safety isn't really the reason laws like this are passed & enforced in the first place, especially in difficult economic times. The poor slow down and get rear-ended, and the rich simply pay the money-and continue to drive the way they've always done (after the truck comes back from the body shop, of course). Traffic here is becoming miserable. Most folks drive in lock-step, like the folks I'd seen in states where radar detectors were illegal back in the old 55mph days. The people who can afford the new fines are now projectiles through those formations, simply because we can't afford to bend our toe a lil' bit to get out of their way.

I guess I'm just a little tired of hearing every thing other countries (especially European ones) do to be a little more egalitarian about things like this dismissed as "Socialism". Shouldn't the people who've benefited the most from our society contribute a little more towards supporting the government that's made it possible for them to do so?

friedgreencorrado wrote: An extra $200 for twenty over. Problem is...the limit on Interstates inside the ATL metro is still at 55. Elsewhere in the state, this is not a big problem, but here in the capital, it has reallly screwed up traffic flow.

I don't live in Georgia, but read the news release you posted. From the article, it doesn't seem like it would impact metro Atlanta quite as heavily.

The article says:

The legislation adds an additional $200 fine for driving over 85 mph anywhere in the state and for driving 75 mph or more on a two lane road.

The roads in the metro area (I lived there for 14 years) are certainly more than 2 lanes. So wouldn't it require going 85 on the connector for instance to trigger the new fine? I ask out of curiosity.

As for the original question, not sure how I feel about speeding tickets based on income. Do the folks have to bring a current W-2 to court? I think it would make more sense to dramatically increase the severity of the penalty based on the offense committed, not based on one's income.

offenses being income based?

yes please

Will it ever happen?

no

Rich people make the laws

Income based fines, it seems so simple but it will never happen here in the States.

How about for every three points, one has to take an exemption off of their taxes.

JoeyM wrote: Finland is not at all tolerant of speeders:

The Road Traffic Act states that holders of a driving licence must be banned from driving if they have at least four times within two years, or three times within one year, been guilty of a punishable offence under the Road Traffic Act, with the exception of fixed fine offences other than speeding, or of a radar detector offence. Holders of a short-term driving licence are banned from driving if they are found guilty of the offences described in the previous paragraph three times within two years or twice within one year.

Not that much different than speeding in the US. Of course, we simply allow the horrible driver to go to a 4 hour lecture instead of actually revoking the license.

So a rich person speeding is somehow worse than a poor person speeding? How about having a graduated license with allowable speed based on how well you do at the local track?

daytonaer wrote: Saw this on the latest top gear: Ticket Driver was born in 1986. Can you imagine having 1000 WARRANTIED horsepower at 23?!?

Turns out that was fake...

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/07/21/i-top-gear-i-draws-fire-for-glorifying-210-mph-ticket-only/

I think speeding ticket fines should be logarithmic. So by the fifth one you would be paying the value of your house haha. Actually, no that's a terrible idea. Fines aren't really a deterrent.

MrJoshua wrote: So a rich person speeding is somehow worse than a poor person speeding? How about having a graduated license with allowable speed based on how well you do at the local track?

No, I think the idea is that a $200 penalty hurts/deters a rich person less than a poor person. Should a person be able to speed just because they're wealthy enough to laugh at the cost of the normal fine?

wow.. so much resistance to the idea that a fine should hurt the same wether you are dirt poor or richer than warren buffet

Hey, $200 bucks is $200 bucks! It's not like Warren Buffet lights his stogies with $100 bills.

Datsun1500 wrote: I work for my money, you work for yours. if I want to spend it on speeding tickets and higher insurance, so be it. If we are both speeding, we have both made the choice that the risk of the fine is worth it, regardless of income.

I was being hypothetical.

But this isn't like, "Hey, if I want to drive a big fancy car I should be able to spend my money on that." We're talking about an illegal activity that has the distinct possibility of injuring or killing other people.

It's more along the lines of, "I should be able to break the law if I have the resources to do so." And I don't agree with that sentiment. Money does not give you the right to endanger other people.

dyintorace wrote:

friedgreencorrado wrote: An extra $200 for twenty over. Problem is...the limit on Interstates inside the ATL metro is still at 55. Elsewhere in the state, this is not a big problem, but here in the capital, it has reallly screwed up traffic flow.

I don't live in Georgia, but read the news release you posted. From the article, it doesn't seem like it would impact metro Atlanta quite as heavily. The article says:

The legislation adds an additional $200 fine for driving over 85 mph anywhere in the state and for driving 75 mph or more on a two lane road.

The roads in the metro area (I lived there for 14 years) are certainly more than 2 lanes. So wouldn't it require going 85 on the connector for instance to trigger the new fine? I ask out of curiosity.

I re-read the article I posted, and you're correct. The thing seems to have been "watered down" after we all wrote angry letters to our state legislators. The original wording of the bill just said the extra fine would be applied to anyone driving twenty over the posted limit, and made no mention of a "speed cap" (for lack of a better term).

Of course, I'm still not going to test it myself before doing a little more research-and even then, there may be officers who misunderstand the law as badly as I might have...

dyintorace wrote: As for the original question, not sure how I feel about speeding tickets based on income. Do the folks have to bring a current W-2 to court? I think it would make more sense to dramatically increase the severity of the penalty based on the offense committed, not based on one's income.

Well, you make a good point, but from where I sit, there's something else to consider. And of course, Atlanta metro might be a unique circumstance-but from my observations here, if the fine is the only thing discouraging them from the behavior, then those who can afford the fines will continue the behavior. It's certainly what I've been seeing here..

Salanis wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: I work for my money, you work for yours. if I want to spend it on speeding tickets and higher insurance, so be it. If we are both speeding, we have both made the choice that the risk of the fine is worth it, regardless of income.

I was being hypothetical. But this isn't like, "Hey, if I want to drive a big fancy car I should be able to spend my money on that." We're talking about an illegal activity that has the distinct possibility of injuring or killing other people. It's more along the lines of, "I should be able to break the law if I have the resources to do so." And I don't agree with that sentiment. Money does not give you the right to endanger other people.

Salanis gets it. We're not talking about what kind of neighborhood you want to live in or wearing "name brand" clothing here. I'm not saying it's an automatic thing that "SPEED KILLS!" like so many people want to do, but I am saying that it can, when it's somebody untrained (and in improper equipment)

And whatever passes for god this week knows we got plenty of folks like that in this country...

Absolutely: It doesn't have anything to do with how you want to spend your money. It has to do with public safety. If we have decided that speed is a factor in public traffic safety, then by god, yes, you should pay. And also, yes, it actually makes sense to me to tailor it to your income. This might be one way that fines could actually deter speeding.

friedgreencorrado wrote:

Salanis wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: I work for my money, you work for yours. if I want to spend it on speeding tickets and higher insurance, so be it. If we are both speeding, we have both made the choice that the risk of the fine is worth it, regardless of income.

I was being hypothetical. But this isn't like, "Hey, if I want to drive a big fancy car I should be able to spend my money on that." We're talking about an illegal activity that has the distinct possibility of injuring or killing other people. It's more along the lines of, "I should be able to break the law if I have the resources to do so." And I don't agree with that sentiment. Money does not give you the right to endanger other people.

Salanis gets it. We're not talking about what kind of neighborhood you want to live in or wearing "name brand" clothing here. I'm not saying it's an automatic thing that "SPEED KILLS!" like so many people want to do, but I *am* saying that it can, when it's somebody untrained (and in improper equipment) And whatever passes for god this week knows we got *plenty* of folks like that in this country...

Socialists everywhere!

I know I can't afford to.. so I don't

MrJoshua wrote: Socialists everywhere!

Well, "democratic socialist". YMMV, but it seems to work in (western) Europe & Japan.

I'll admit that the average citizen in those places don't have as many toys as we do, though.

I'm often tempted to say that we shouldn't spend so much money on military technology as we do in the US, but when I consider how many of our kids are in combat, I'd trade gold for blood any day. If Iraq was being fought with Vietnam-era technology, there'd probably be 14,000 dead over there instead of 4,000.

Datsun1500 wrote: So all of the people speeding are the ones that can afford it? Using your logic the only people breaking the law right now are the ones that can afford it and all of the "poor" are law abiding citizens because they can't afford to get caught.

Remember how I said I was being hypothetical? Yeah... things that work in theory don't always work in reality. Theoretically, the fact that punitive actions exist deter people from breaking the law. $200 does not have the same value to everyone.

Datsun1500 wrote: I work for my money, you work for yours. if I want to spend it on speeding tickets and higher insurance, so be it. If we are both speeding, we have both made the choice that the risk of the fine is worth it, regardless of income.

And this is where I do think you're off track. To blow this out of proportion: "If I want to spend my money on fixing someone's broken leg, covering physical therapy, and paying legal settlements, I should be allowed to break a strangers leg with a baseball bat."

If someone has greater income, they will probably be inclined to view the risk as less, and thus be less deterred.

Stupidity knows no income levels though.

Salanis wrote:

Datsun1500 wrote: So all of the people speeding are the ones that can afford it? Using your logic the only people breaking the law right now are the ones that can afford it and all of the "poor" are law abiding citizens because they can't afford to get caught.

Remember how I said I was being hypothetical? Yeah... things that work in theory don't always work in reality. Theoretically, the fact that punitive actions exist deter people from breaking the law. $200 does not have the same value to everyone.

Datsun1500 wrote: I work for my money, you work for yours. if I want to spend it on speeding tickets and higher insurance, so be it. If we are both speeding, we have both made the choice that the risk of the fine is worth it, regardless of income.

And this is where I *do* think you're off track. To blow this out of proportion: "If I want to spend my money on fixing someone's broken leg, covering physical therapy, and paying legal settlements, I should be allowed to break a strangers leg with a baseball bat."

Agreed. I've often used the same argument against people who disagree with seat belt laws. Driving is often not a solitary activity, but a social one. My insurance costs go up because the insurance company I'm attached to pays for the emergency care of people injured while unbelted. "If you wish to drive with the belts off, that's OK...but if you get hurt, lie in the ditch until you get better..", I usually phrase it.

Salanis wrote: If someone has greater income, they will probably be inclined to view the risk as less, and thus be less deterred. Stupidity knows no income levels though.

You're right about that one.