Mediocre policies, it’d be better to:

• Install speed bumps
• Make fines progressive by income, about 1% of yearly net discretionary income (plus 2% of all other assets and their growth, including bonuses and stocks).* Fines cannot be paid for by raising rent and so on. The assets is higher because someone who has those, is likely to be influential, and therefore must serve an exemplary role.
• Install roundabouts and traffic calming measures

* Assuming a conservative estimate of the discretionary income - to be about half that of disposable incomes -, in the US that’d yield a median discretionary income of about $31,000 a year (2026). So a fine would then be about $310.

If we take a random amount of $40k in stocks and bonuses, that gets bumped up to $1,110 as a fine.

Someone whose discretionary income is about $5,000 and nothing else, then would have a fine of $50.

A fascist billionnaire would be fined $10 billion, probably closer to $100 billion (to negate the growth of assets).

Instead of a labourer having to pay 15% of his monthly wage and getting robbed, while the fascist billionnaire pays what might as well be nothing, both now face equal consequences.

That 100mph fine seems worth it
I can go 4x the speed for only 2.5x the fine
That’s a deal

But seriously. We’ll do anything to not build slower streets.

I mean, it should be if you break it (within accepted gauge tolerance) you should lose the right to drive. No grace given. People will learn quickly to obey the limits. Easy.

That fine is so insubstantial it’s more like a ticket to ride.

Reminds me of signs in Oregon “No littering, $500 maximum fine"

Like why the fuck would you put the max when it’s low? Talk about a Cobra Effect…but that’s the point, it’s not desired to be effective, might inadvertently make driving slightly less appealing and cut some infinitesimal slice of big oils profits to be able to cross the street safely.

Isn’t 16mph 11mph+? And isn’t 26mph also 11mph+?