Is that really equalized? Poor people are much more severely impacted by a loss of their license than rich people. Outside cities, for example, your driver's license is pretty intimately connected to your livelihood. I imagine this is why so many people get busted for driving with a suspended or no license. They have to get to work reliably and at a specific time, or they don't get paid. They have to pick up and drop off their kids.
A rich man can just get a driver, take an Uber, etc., and is not likely to be fired for being late, assuming he works.
If they don't care about driving and they were being a shit driver then didn't the law also work? either they are forced to drive like less of an idiot or they don't drive... I don't really care if they get a professional driver - good, less dead people on the road.
Right, but then you're worried about getting bad drivers off the road, not proportionate impact. For a poor person, losing their license (and not continuing to drive anyway) is devastating and can mean the impossibility of keeping a job or even raising their kids.
For a rich person, it just means they can't enjoy the pleasure of driving themselves around. You were talking about equalized impact to start with, I really don't see how this is a good example.
> If they don't care about driving and they were being a shit driver
These are also pretty big assumptions. I assume because of my demographic category, the times I was driving, and my car, several years ago, I received nearly two dozen tickets in a five-year period. None of the offenses were for speeding, but for various infractions like not coming to a complete stop (I was absolutely positive in every case that I did, especially after #3 or so I got paranoid about it), failure to yield, etc.
The only reason I have a license today is because I had a professional job, which allowed me the free time to go to court every single time without losing money and fight the ticket. I won every single time. Most people don't even know you can do that, they think you have to pay the fine.
If I had lost my license, I ultimately would have lost even that job. I would have to work remotely.
> You were talking about equalized impact to start with, I really don't see how this is a good example.
I am _not_ talking about equalised impact i'm talking about equalised results... the OP was suggesting that speed tickets don't stop rich people from speeding, but if you loose your license it does - that is the purpose of these laws, not to try to figure out how much punishment to deal out in relation to your personal wealth, punishment is a means to an end, not an end in itself - the end being to stop you from doing something damaging to society, in this case endangering other people's lives.
Taking away licences is an equaliser in this respect, because being rich doesn't give you more points to spend.
Licenses are for individuals, if some rich person wants to pay some _other_ individual who can actually keep their license that is fine, the law won because a safer person is driving.
Do you have a 1 or more recommendations for how to fairly treat poor who are also crappy drivers? Poverty sucks, and I don't have any bright ideas that would keep poor+bad drivers behind the wheel.
A rich man can just get a driver, take an Uber, etc., and is not likely to be fired for being late, assuming he works.