Swedish man may pay largest speeding fine ever
08-13-10, 07:39 PM
#1
Swedish man may pay largest speeding fine ever
Swedish man may pay largest speeding fine ever
Just because major portions of the German Autobahn have no speed limit doesn't mean you can drive as fast as you want anywhere in Europe. Where there are posted restrictions, most European countries take speeding very seriously and levy hefty fines. The latest case in point is a 37-year-old Swedish man who was clocked at 180 miles per hour on a motorway between Bern and Lausanne in Switzerland.
Unfortunately for this driver of a new Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG, Switzerland doesn't have fixed fines for speeding. Instead they use a formula similar to that in Finland where the fine is calculated based on the vehicle's speed and the driver's income. Back in 2002, Nokia executive Anssi Vanjoki had to pay a fine of $103,600 for going 47 mph in a 31 mph zone.
In this latest incident, the driver faces a penalty of just over $1 million for traveling at the highest speed ever recorded on a public road in Switzerland. Apparently the SLS escaped being clocked by several older cameras that are limited to 125 mph before finally being recorded by a new camera with a higher radar speed range. His excuse: The speedometer was faulty.
As far as we know, this is the most expensive speeding ticket ever issued, though there are reports of a kid who last April was caught speeding in his dad's Bugatti Veyron, the punishment for which was permanent seizure of the vehicle.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/13/s...ing-fine-ever/
08-13-10, 08:45 PM
#2
Swedish man may pay largest speeding fine ever
Just because major portions of the German Autobahn have no speed limit doesn't mean you can drive as fast as you want anywhere in Europe. Where there are posted restrictions, most European countries take speeding very seriously and levy hefty fines. The latest case in point is a 37-year-old Swedish man who was clocked at 180 miles per hour on a motorway between Bern and Lausanne in Switzerland.
Unfortunately for this driver of a new Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG, Switzerland doesn't have fixed fines for speeding. Instead they use a formula similar to that in Finland where the fine is calculated based on the vehicle's speed and the driver's income. Back in 2002, Nokia executive Anssi Vanjoki had to pay a fine of $103,600 for going 47 mph in a 31 mph zone.
In this latest incident, the driver faces a penalty of just over $1 million for traveling at the highest speed ever recorded on a public road in Switzerland. Apparently the SLS escaped being clocked by several older cameras that are limited to 125 mph before finally being recorded by a new camera with a higher radar speed range. His excuse: The speedometer was faulty.
As far as we know, this is the most expensive speeding ticket ever issued, though there are reports of a kid who last April was caught speeding in his dad's Bugatti Veyron, the punishment for which was permanent seizure of the vehicle.
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/08/13/s...ing-fine-ever/
This, to me, makes a lot of sense. The negative effects of having to pay a $300 fine are clearly going to differ for a person making $20,000 / year compared to a person making $2,000,000 / year
08-13-10, 09:28 PM
#5
Though I agree, I disagree at the same time. Just because it might not be as much for them, it's still inconvenient for them having to deal with the ticket. They still sped. This is one of those times where I feel a base value per grouping of speed is fair, not any of this 'your car is worth this much, and you make this much, so you pay this much'. I do understand though that it can make them think twice when a greater $ amount is taken from them, but that's the same BS mentality we have here to 'tax the rich more'.
08-14-10, 06:29 AM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
His excuse: The speedometer was faulty.
Maybe it WAS faulty. Today's speedometers are not driven by a mechanical cables/gears off the transmission like decades ago. They use electronic sensors....and M-B products, like many Eurpopean brands, are known for electrical problems. Of course, that is not necessarily an excuse.....a speedometer that far off would likely have also been noticeably off at lower speeds as well, and he should have gotten it checked out and calibrated.
08-14-10, 07:06 AM
#7
. You bring up an interesting point, though - I've always wondered if cops are more or less willing to let people off with a warning based on their own perception of how wealthy the speeder is (usually a function of the car they are driving during the traffic stop).
Case in point - I seem to be let off with warnings much more often when driving my brother's old honda civic compared to some of the other, nicer cars in our family.
If we're merely questioning whether or not cops show bias during traffic stops - period - then that's easy, the answer is resoundingly yes.
Cops won't give off duty cops tickets, they won't give firefighters tickets, they won't give EMTs (paramedics) tickets. Why? Because they're working closely with these people on a daily basis. There's certainly a strong sense of camaraderie here.
One of my good friends is an EMT (paramedic). He goes 57 in a 40 and gets caught by a cop.
Cop pulls him over, starts to walk up to his window.
Officer: "License and proof of insur..."
Before the cop even has a chance to finish, my friend discretely "flashes" his EMT certification card towards the cop while beginning to take out his driver's license.
The officer realizes that my friend is a paramedic for the same county
Officer: "God ****ing damnit, do you have any idea how ****ing long it took me to snag that spot for my speed trap? Slow down next time *******"
He's saying this in a playful and facetious manner as he's walking away from my friend's car. Didn't even have to explicitly tell my friend that he was let off with a warning, it's effectively unwritten law (at least around these parts) that officers do not give other officers, firefighters, paramedics (and close family, I suppose) speeding tickets.
Trending Topics
08-14-10, 11:15 AM
#9
Though I agree, I disagree at the same time. Just because it might not be as much for them, it's still inconvenient for them having to deal with the ticket. They still sped. This is one of those times where I feel a base value per grouping of speed is fair, not any of this 'your car is worth this much, and you make this much, so you pay this much'. I do understand though that it can make them think twice when a greater $ amount is taken from them, but that's the same BS mentality we have here to 'tax the rich more'.
as you have.
08-14-10, 11:29 AM
#10
Lexus Test Driver
I don't have a huge problem with severely punishing a guy going 180 when the law has deemed that reckless behavior. But $103,600 for going 47 in a 31? Give me a freaking break.
The biggest problem with income-based fines is that in this day and age, speeding fines are primarily a government revenue source - and many police chiefs, governmental departments, and legislators admit this outright. This is why speeding citations have skyrocketed over the last couple years during the bad economic times, especially in cash-strapped states.
Revenue generation is now a key part of running a police force, so the time when speeding fines were about deterring unsafe behavior is long in the past. It doesn't make money to stop murders, rapes, and robberies in any direct sense, so let's dedicate huge portions of our police force to go after speeders instead, right? There is no basis in arguing that proportional fines have a deterrent effect if the primary reason for fines is not for deterrence.
Stemming from this, making fines proportional to income means that law enforcement will have a reason to target higher-income citizens, including for lesser violations because even lesser violations will result in higher fines than greater violations by lower-income citizens. See that guy driving a Ferrari? Or even a Lexus? He's doing 31 in a 30! (Or better yet, let's just say he is even if he's under the speed limit.) More money for the coffers!
I'd also point out that the deterrent effect of the point system and potentially having a license revoked for too many infractions has a far greater effect than monetary fines.
There are a lot of other problems with linking fines to income, but that's the biggest one and that alone should make anyone hesitant to support such a policy. Of course, fans of extremist theories like liberal progressiveness and social justice love anything resembling wealth redistribution, and this certainly is.
The biggest problem with income-based fines is that in this day and age, speeding fines are primarily a government revenue source - and many police chiefs, governmental departments, and legislators admit this outright. This is why speeding citations have skyrocketed over the last couple years during the bad economic times, especially in cash-strapped states.
Revenue generation is now a key part of running a police force, so the time when speeding fines were about deterring unsafe behavior is long in the past. It doesn't make money to stop murders, rapes, and robberies in any direct sense, so let's dedicate huge portions of our police force to go after speeders instead, right? There is no basis in arguing that proportional fines have a deterrent effect if the primary reason for fines is not for deterrence.
Stemming from this, making fines proportional to income means that law enforcement will have a reason to target higher-income citizens, including for lesser violations because even lesser violations will result in higher fines than greater violations by lower-income citizens. See that guy driving a Ferrari? Or even a Lexus? He's doing 31 in a 30! (Or better yet, let's just say he is even if he's under the speed limit.) More money for the coffers!
I'd also point out that the deterrent effect of the point system and potentially having a license revoked for too many infractions has a far greater effect than monetary fines.
There are a lot of other problems with linking fines to income, but that's the biggest one and that alone should make anyone hesitant to support such a policy. Of course, fans of extremist theories like liberal progressiveness and social justice love anything resembling wealth redistribution, and this certainly is.
Last edited by gengar; 08-14-10 at 11:33 AM.
08-14-10, 01:41 PM
#11
I don't have a huge problem with severely punishing a guy going 180 when the law has deemed that reckless behavior. But $103,600 for going 47 in a 31? Give me a freaking break.
The biggest problem with income-based fines is that in this day and age, speeding fines are primarily a government revenue source - and many police chiefs, governmental departments, and legislators admit this outright. This is why speeding citations have skyrocketed over the last couple years during the bad economic times, especially in cash-strapped states.
Revenue generation is now a key part of running a police force, so the time when speeding fines were about deterring unsafe behavior is long in the past. It doesn't make money to stop murders, rapes, and robberies in any direct sense, so let's dedicate huge portions of our police force to go after speeders instead, right? There is no basis in arguing that proportional fines have a deterrent effect if the primary reason for fines is not for deterrence.
Stemming from this, making fines proportional to income means that law enforcement will have a reason to target higher-income citizens, including for lesser violations because even lesser violations will result in higher fines than greater violations by lower-income citizens. See that guy driving a Ferrari? Or even a Lexus? He's doing 31 in a 30! (Or better yet, let's just say he is even if he's under the speed limit.) More money for the coffers!
I'd also point out that the deterrent effect of the point system and potentially having a license revoked for too many infractions has a far greater effect than monetary fines.
There are a lot of other problems with linking fines to income, but that's the biggest one and that alone should make anyone hesitant to support such a policy. Of course, fans of extremist theories like liberal progressiveness and social justice love anything resembling wealth redistribution, and this certainly is.
The biggest problem with income-based fines is that in this day and age, speeding fines are primarily a government revenue source - and many police chiefs, governmental departments, and legislators admit this outright. This is why speeding citations have skyrocketed over the last couple years during the bad economic times, especially in cash-strapped states.
Revenue generation is now a key part of running a police force, so the time when speeding fines were about deterring unsafe behavior is long in the past. It doesn't make money to stop murders, rapes, and robberies in any direct sense, so let's dedicate huge portions of our police force to go after speeders instead, right? There is no basis in arguing that proportional fines have a deterrent effect if the primary reason for fines is not for deterrence.
Stemming from this, making fines proportional to income means that law enforcement will have a reason to target higher-income citizens, including for lesser violations because even lesser violations will result in higher fines than greater violations by lower-income citizens. See that guy driving a Ferrari? Or even a Lexus? He's doing 31 in a 30! (Or better yet, let's just say he is even if he's under the speed limit.) More money for the coffers!
I'd also point out that the deterrent effect of the point system and potentially having a license revoked for too many infractions has a far greater effect than monetary fines.
There are a lot of other problems with linking fines to income, but that's the biggest one and that alone should make anyone hesitant to support such a policy. Of course, fans of extremist theories like liberal progressiveness and social justice love anything resembling wealth redistribution, and this certainly is.
There's already too much bias with officers giving warnings versus citations as it is; income-based fines would likely exacerbate this problem, as you said.
08-14-10, 01:58 PM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
Might make an officer envious if you bring it up too blatantly .
You bring up an interesting point, though - I've always wondered if cops are more or less willing to let people off with a warning based on their own perception of how wealthy the speeder is (usually a function of the car they are driving during the traffic stop).
Case in point - I seem to be let off with warnings much more often when driving my brother's old honda civic compared to some of the other, nicer cars in our family.
If we're merely questioning whether or not cops show bias during traffic stops - period - then that's easy, the answer is resoundingly yes.
Cops won't give off duty cops tickets, they won't give firefighters tickets, they won't give EMTs (paramedics) tickets. Why? Because they're working closely with these people on a daily basis. There's certainly a strong sense of camaraderie here.
One of my good friends is an EMT (paramedic). He goes 57 in a 40 and gets caught by a cop.
Cop pulls him over, starts to walk up to his window.
Officer: "License and proof of insur..."
Before the cop even has a chance to finish, my friend discretely "flashes" his EMT certification card towards the cop while beginning to take out his driver's license.
The officer realizes that my friend is a paramedic for the same county
Officer: "God ****ing damnit, do you have any idea how ****ing long it took me to snag that spot for my speed trap? Slow down next time *******"
He's saying this in a playful and facetious manner as he's walking away from my friend's car. Didn't even have to explicitly tell my friend that he was let off with a warning, it's effectively unwritten law (at least around these parts) that officers do not give other officers, firefighters, paramedics (and close family, I suppose) speeding tickets.
. You bring up an interesting point, though - I've always wondered if cops are more or less willing to let people off with a warning based on their own perception of how wealthy the speeder is (usually a function of the car they are driving during the traffic stop).
Case in point - I seem to be let off with warnings much more often when driving my brother's old honda civic compared to some of the other, nicer cars in our family.
If we're merely questioning whether or not cops show bias during traffic stops - period - then that's easy, the answer is resoundingly yes.
Cops won't give off duty cops tickets, they won't give firefighters tickets, they won't give EMTs (paramedics) tickets. Why? Because they're working closely with these people on a daily basis. There's certainly a strong sense of camaraderie here.
One of my good friends is an EMT (paramedic). He goes 57 in a 40 and gets caught by a cop.
Cop pulls him over, starts to walk up to his window.
Officer: "License and proof of insur..."
Before the cop even has a chance to finish, my friend discretely "flashes" his EMT certification card towards the cop while beginning to take out his driver's license.
The officer realizes that my friend is a paramedic for the same county
Officer: "God ****ing damnit, do you have any idea how ****ing long it took me to snag that spot for my speed trap? Slow down next time *******"
He's saying this in a playful and facetious manner as he's walking away from my friend's car. Didn't even have to explicitly tell my friend that he was let off with a warning, it's effectively unwritten law (at least around these parts) that officers do not give other officers, firefighters, paramedics (and close family, I suppose) speeding tickets.
I have been lucky enough to be let go recently at 85mph in a 50 mph zone ( I was passing another car )because I am a doctor. He walked to my car and started yelling at me while he was behind me. When he walked in front of the sidemirror and saw that I had Dr and my name stitched into my scrubs he said " Oh you're a doctor? I guess you didnt mean to be malicious.......slow down and have a good day"
. I got soooooo lucky on that one. I have chilled it out a bit since then. You dont get many of those passes in lifeAs far as cops giving tickets based on percieved wealth I would have to say yes. They have to realize that a $300 fine is a joke to some and is the entire world to others. I will admit its kind of cool and liberating to not be afraid of fines and increased insurance.
Last edited by I8ABMR; 08-14-10 at 02:03 PM.
08-15-10, 04:28 AM
#13
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stuttgart
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who knows? Maybe it WAS faulty. Today's speedometers are not driven by a mechanical cables/gears off the transmission like decades ago. They use electronic sensors....and M-B products, like many Eurpopean brands, are known for electrical problems. Of course, that is not necessarily an excuse.....a speedometer that far off would likely have also been noticeably off at lower speeds as well, and he should have gotten it checked out and calibrated.
Maybe it WAS faulty. Today's speedometers are not driven by a mechanical cables/gears off the transmission like decades ago. They use electronic sensors....and M-B products, like many Eurpopean brands, are known for electrical problems. Of course, that is not necessarily an excuse.....a speedometer that far off would likely have also been noticeably off at lower speeds as well, and he should have gotten it checked out and calibrated.The speed limit on highways in Switzerland is 130 kph. That's 81 mph. 180 mph are 288 kph. That's a big difference over 130 kph.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Hoovey689
Car Chat
3
07-06-13 11:22 AM
Hoovey689
Car Chat
4
04-14-13 06:43 PM
Hoovey689
Car Chat
14
01-23-11 03:24 PM
