Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

#81

Post by brazzy »

cousin_it wrote: post #71

Tiny brain: We should punish Zuckerberg for speeding! That'll show him! Normal brain: Wait a minute. Increasing fines for the 1% can solve at most 1% of the speeding problem. Okay, the 1% number is polemical, but any solution to the problem of speeding must fall mostly on poorer people, because they are the majority. Glowing brain: Why do we talk about speeding as a crime? Any economist would tell you that the optima…

> Increasing fines for the 1% can solve at most 1% of the speeding problem.

Already incorrect if that 1% of the population commits more than 1% of the speeding offenses because the fines are irrelevant to them.

Re: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

#82

Post by cousin_it »

brazzy wrote: post #81
cousin_it wrote: post #71

Tiny brain: We should punish Zuckerberg for speeding! That'll show him! Normal brain: Wait a minute. Increasing fines for the 1% can solve at most 1% of the speeding problem. Okay, the 1% number is polemical, but any solution to the problem of speeding must fall mostly on poorer people, because they are the majority. Glowing brain: Why do we talk about speeding as a crime? Any economist would tell you that the optima…

> Increasing fines for the 1% can solve at most 1% of the speeding problem. Already incorrect if that 1% of the population commits more than 1% of the speeding offenses because the fines are irrelevant to them.

Point taken, but it's not enough to offset the fact that there are more poor people, and anyway the next point deals with it.

Re: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

#83

Post by cousin_it »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #74
cousin_it wrote: post #71

Tiny brain: We should punish Zuckerberg for speeding! That'll show him! Normal brain: Wait a minute. Increasing fines for the 1% can solve at most 1% of the speeding problem. Okay, the 1% number is polemical, but any solution to the problem of speeding must fall mostly on poorer people, because they are the majority. Glowing brain: Why do we talk about speeding as a crime? Any economist would tell you that the optima…

"Make enforcement of fines much more fast and certain, and you can solve speeding while lowering fines." If "solve" means legitimize it, yes, you've solved it. Google for "daycare fine study" and notice that adding a small but significant fine to a behaviour you wish to discourage increased that behaviour rather than decreasing it.

The fine shouldn't be that low. Here's the best formula I could figure out.

Let's say R1 = actual risk of harm to yourself and others, M1 = magnitude of harm to yourself and others, R2 = your perceived risk of harm to yourself, M2 = magnitude of harm to yourself. Both M1 and M2 should be based on market price of QALY (about 50K dollars?) without overvaluing you specifically. Then the fine should be set at R1⋅M1-R2⋅M2.

That's a generalization of Pigovian tax to a spectrum of behaviors: pollution (R1=R2, M1>M2), skipping medical checkups (R1>R2, M1=M2), speeding (R1>R2, M1>M2). Does that make sense?

Re: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

#84

Post by maxerickson »

kingofhdds wrote: post #77
gnud wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws should obviously apply equally. Exactly for that reason, fines should not be the same for someone who earns $15/hr and $1500/hr. A fine of $150 is 10 hours of work for one person, and 6 minutes for the other. How is that equal application of the law?

The same logic (if applied consistently) would make judges give longer prison sentences to younger, healthier individuals.

What if the judge (in their quest for consistency) considers both their wealth of health and dearth of wisdom?

Re: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

#85

Post by bryanlarsen »

cousin_it wrote: post #83
bryanlarsen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Make enforcement of fines much more fast and certain, and you can solve speeding while lowering fines." If "solve" means legitimize it, yes, you've solved it. Google for "daycare fine study" and notice that adding a small but significant fine to a behaviour you wish to discourage increased that behaviour rather than decreasing it.

The fine shouldn't be that low. Here's the best formula I could figure out. Let's say R1 = actual risk of harm to yourself and others, M1 = magnitude of harm to yourself and others, R2 = your perceived risk of harm to yourself, M2 = magnitude of harm to yourself. Both M1 and M2 should be based on market price of QALY (about 50K dollars?) without overvaluing you specifically. Then the fine should be set at R1⋅M1-R2⋅M2…

Given that speeders more often harm themselves than others, your equation gives a negative answer.

Re: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

#86

Post by commandlinefan »

Ro93 wrote: post #15
braptor wrote: post #13

The fine should be the same. No free lunch for someone who chooses to be a nurse instead of a portfolio manager.

the point of a fine is to act as a deterrent... billionaire isn't going to care about $100. They aren't going to care about $1000 either, but at least it's doing more social good.

> care about $100

He will care if he loses his driver's license after a certain number of tickets, though, which is the law for everybody, equally applied.

Re: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

#87

Post by cousin_it »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #85
cousin_it wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fine shouldn't be that low. Here's the best formula I could figure out. Let's say R1 = actual risk of harm to yourself and others, M1 = magnitude of harm to yourself and others, R2 = your perceived risk of harm to yourself, M2 = magnitude of harm to yourself. Both M1 and M2 should be based on market price of QALY (about 50K dollars?) without overvaluing you specifically. Then the fine should be set at R1⋅M1-R2⋅M2…

Given that speeders more often harm themselves than others, your equation gives a negative answer.

M1 includes harm to yourself.

Re: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

#88

Post by restalis »

cousin_it wrote: post #71

Tiny brain: We should punish Zuckerberg for speeding! That'll show him! Normal brain: Wait a minute. Increasing fines for the 1% can solve at most 1% of the speeding problem. Okay, the 1% number is polemical, but any solution to the problem of speeding must fall mostly on poorer people, because they are the majority. Glowing brain: Why do we talk about speeding as a crime? Any economist would tell you that the optima…

"Increasing fines for the 1% can solve at most 1% of the speeding problem."

Incorrect. 1% on the income distribution is not necessarily 1% on the speed offenders pool. But I guess that is, nevertheless, an accurate thought model for "normal brain" :)

Re: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

#89

Post by perpetualpatzer »

RhysU wrote: post #73

By what right should the officer be able to learn my net worth the moment he or she thinks I made a moving violation? Do you want possibly unscrupulous officers learning your net worth anywhere you travel?

Moreover, do we as a society want to spend money on discovery procedures to accurately identify speeders' net worth? What do you do if a corporate executive tells the officer he has no assets or income? Personally, if we think speeding is a problem worth spending on, I'd rather hire two more traffic officers than one lawyer and one accountant to adjudicate fine amounts.

This may be one of those good ideas that falls apart on implementation.

Re: A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn't Pay the Same Fine for Speeding

#90

Post by [deleted] »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #85
cousin_it wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fine shouldn't be that low. Here's the best formula I could figure out. Let's say R1 = actual risk of harm to yourself and others, M1 = magnitude of harm to yourself and others, R2 = your perceived risk of harm to yourself, M2 = magnitude of harm to yourself. Both M1 and M2 should be based on market price of QALY (about 50K dollars?) without overvaluing you specifically. Then the fine should be set at R1⋅M1-R2⋅M2…

Given that speeders more often harm themselves than others, your equation gives a negative answer.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN