Based on the vehicle owner's income? Even if the owner isn't the one driving?
|
|
|
308 km/h on the QEW
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
Based on the vehicle owner's income? Even if the owner isn't the one driving?
As the owner you are ultimately responsible for the vehicle. Your insurance gets dinged if the person you lent your car to gets in an accident. Your responsibility.
I sure as hell wouldn't let my car to anyone I didn't trust to drive it properly.
I think that is a better solution. There are two upsides, first the owner strongly thinks through who should get the keys and secondly, the 19 yo will have very low income and therefore a minimal fine. You need pot size bets if you want to change behaviour.
And the driver is responsible for their own actions...
The owner's insurance only gets dinged if the claim is put through the owner's insurance... could go through the driver's insurance if they have non-owned coverage.
So.. a low income person would come out pretty good if they were speeding in their own car.
What if the owner is unemployed at the time? Would the fine be zero?
And typically if you're borrowing a car, you don't have your own (unless you REALLY need that car) so the accident would go through the owner's insurance. Then let the owner and driver fight it out.
No different from red light cameras. Owner gets the ticket, and it's on him to settle with the driver.
Fines linked to income is not a brand new concept, it's currently used in very few countries.
If their income submitted on their previous tax return is zero, the extra fine geared to income could be zero. You'd still have the base fine to deal with. If you are low income, a 1,000 to 10,000 fine and associated insurance hit really hurts. If you made 200K last year, you could give a crap about the base fine.
The interesting situation is what if a business owns the vehicle. Is 100% of business income available for the fine? Muzzo was driving a company car, I can't remember if he had any racing/stunting charges in his pile.
Last edited:
Never saw him again.And she never mentioned him again.
That's on the driver though.. not the owner.
The red light camera thing, although I don't agree with it.. is a lot more fair than nailing someone based on their income.. when they didn't even commit a crime.
If he was charged with dangerous driving.. I think he was... then the sentencing judge can fine him to the amounts you're talking about .. and/or send him to prison.
JTR
Well-known member
A judge could definitely throw the book at him. But we have Marco Muzzo as a fine example of the realities of that expectation.
Life. I liken drunk driving causing death with manslaughter, or second degree murder. Sure you may not have planned on killing anyone, but you got behind the wheel drunk...you have to be completely irrational if you think there won't be consequence to that action.
What do you think he should have gotten?
I figured he get 12-14 years.. and that would have been about right in my mind. I think 10 years was a little light...
DUI precedent was damn low. Judge was already pushing at 10 years. I think that is an embarrassing indictment on our legal system that the sentences are so short, but that's what we've got. If the judge went too high, it would be guaranteed to be overturned on appeal. I still think that if you kill someone with a DUI, you should instantly be ineligible for a drivers license ever again. No negotiating, no option, just gone.
10 years per death I agree with. 2.5yrs per death is way too light IMO.
lifetime driving ban added to it. Caught driving without a license. Say hello to your cell mate for the rest of your life.
Sadly the way our legal system works, you normally get time for the first one and then the rest are thrown in as freebies or a slightly modifier (eg +10%)
If I remember right... He got a 12 year driving ban.. that I assume begins after his prison sentence is over.. not when he gets out of prison.. when the whole sentence is done.. So, should be 20+ years before he can drive again...
|
|
|
|
|