- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Same rules, different consequences — depending on income (Speed Camera).
Posted on 3/26/26 at 6:56 am
Posted on 3/26/26 at 6:56 am
quote:
Equity Provisions: The program includes reduced fines (50%-80% off) for low-income individuals and allows for community service in lieu of payment.
Got it.
Two people commit the same offense, but the consequences depend on their income. That’s the version of “equity” being applied in Los Angeles.
quote:
Los Angeles is launching a 5-year pilot program to install 125 automated speed cameras at high-risk, high-injury, and school zones to reduce traffic fatalities, starting in 2026. Enabled by California law AB 645, the program includes a 60-day warning period before issuing automated tickets (ranging from $50–$500) to owners of vehicles speeding 11+ mph over the limit.
LADOT
Note, I am aware that these types of citations by mail (speed camera and red light camera) aren't worth the paper they are printed on, and many are not turned over to the state's DMV or a person's insurance company.
7
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:10 am to Will Cover
Switzerland does this. Fun fact, the highest speeding ticket ever was using that system in Switzerland, the fine was $1,000,000 for driving 105mph over the speed limit.
I kind of agree with the concept, but America will frick up the implementation. there should be a cap. implementing lower fines for lower income is not the correct implementation...
I kind of agree with the concept, but America will frick up the implementation. there should be a cap. implementing lower fines for lower income is not the correct implementation...
This post was edited on 3/26/26 at 8:11 am
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:14 am to Will Cover
Income level shouldn’t change your consequences. Everyone should have the opportunity to work off a fine rather than pay it if they don’t have the means to pay the ticket
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:16 am to Will Cover
I wonder if this violates the equal protection clause
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:22 am to Will Cover
Give the left enough time and you'll have different consequences depending on race.
White man stealing? - 3 years
Black man stealing? - get a warning
White man stealing? - 3 years
Black man stealing? - get a warning
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:34 am to BigGreenTiger
quote:Well, you agree with something retarded, so…
I kind of agree with the concept
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:36 am to Upperdecker
quote:
Income level shouldn’t change your consequences. Everyone should have the opportunity to work off a fine rather than pay it if they don’t have the means to pay the ticket
100% this. Fines should be a set amount based on the level of the infraction and frequency of infractions. And there should be an option for everyone to either pay the fine and be done with it or to be able to work off the fine through a community service program.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:43 am to Will Cover
quote:
aren't worth the paper they are printed on, and many are
I picked up two traffic cam violations in Baker a few years back. I threw them in the trash. Doubtful I'll return to Baker or EBR parish anytime soon.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:49 am to Will Cover
quote:
Two people commit the same offense, but the consequences depend on their income. That’s the version of “equity” being applied in Los Angeles.
Isn't this what they do in London or some shite like that? I remember a thread about it a few months ago.
It's absolutely shocking that LA/Cali would want to adopt some bullshite like that. Shocking I say.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:50 am to BigGreenTiger
quote:
I kind of agree with the concept
Why in the frick would you "kinda agree" with a concept as stupid as this? I'd love to hear your reasoning behind that dumbass shite.
That is the slipperiest of slopes. Someone already mentioned the racial example.
This post was edited on 3/26/26 at 8:52 am
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:58 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Why in the frick would you "kinda agree" with a concept as stupid as this? I'd love to hear your reasoning behind that dumbass shite.
If my household income is $750k and i get a $175 speeding ticket do you think that impacts me the same way that a $175 parking ticket impacts someone making $25k a year?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 9:04 am to Will Cover
Tickets affect me more than say a doctor. Because I don’t want a ticket, I take my time, drive the speed limit, actually stop at stop signs, wear my seat belt the crazy part…. Haven’t gotten a ticket.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 9:24 am to BigGreenTiger
quote:
If my household income is $750k and i get a $175 speeding ticket do you think that impacts me the same way that a $175 parking ticket impacts someone making $25k a year?
Of course not. I'm not sure of the argument you're trying to make here though. I assume it's the argument of crime penalties as a deterrent, so you're more likely to speed since you wouldn't care about the $175.
Now take that stance and apply it to all other crimes and see if the logic sticks.
That should be how you're viewing this IMO. Not from a one-off "speeding ticket fine" viewpoint.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News