From: Erick T. Barkhuis on
Tim C.:

>On 8 Jan 2010 11:12:02 GMT, Erick T. Barkhuis wrote in post :
><news:7qoi82F91rU1(a)mid.individual.net> :
>
>> That's called a "H�rtefall" in Germany, and regulations to prevent
>>that from happening are in place.
>
>But the poor man will be at the limit of his existence,

I don't believe this. The poor man has a car, remember?


--
Erick
From: Tim C. on
On 8 Jan 2010 11:26:03 GMT, Erick T. Barkhuis wrote in post :
<news:7qoj2bFduaU1(a)mid.individual.net> :

> Tim C.:
>
>>On 8 Jan 2010 11:12:02 GMT, Erick T. Barkhuis wrote in post :
>><news:7qoi82F91rU1(a)mid.individual.net> :
>>
>>> That's called a "H�rtefall" in Germany, and regulations to prevent
>>>that from happening are in place.

And the social stigma that involves in claiming that clause should not be
underestimated.

>>But the poor man will be at the limit of his existence,
>
> I don't believe this. The poor man has a car, remember?

Because you have a car doesn't mean you are well-off. The loss of which
might ruin him. A rich man will not have this problem.

I'm arguing that a fixed fine or loss of licence hits the poor man harder
than the rich man. A fine based on income - or some value of "wealth" would
not be perfect, but would be fairer, or at least more "balanced". I
disagree that 3 moths without a licence is a similar discomfort to both
rich and poor.

--
Tim C.
From: Tim C. on
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:56:11 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
<news:h87ek51skhqf05119j2ejfnpl9eedbko8a(a)4ax.com> :

> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:38:50 +0100, "Tim C." <spamtrap(a)tele2.at> wrote:
>
>>On 8 Jan 2010 11:26:03 GMT, Erick T. Barkhuis wrote in post :
>><news:7qoj2bFduaU1(a)mid.individual.net> :
>>
>>> Tim C.:
>>>
>>>>On 8 Jan 2010 11:12:02 GMT, Erick T. Barkhuis wrote in post :
>>>><news:7qoi82F91rU1(a)mid.individual.net> :
>>>>
>>>>> That's called a "H�rtefall" in Germany, and regulations to prevent
>>>>>that from happening are in place.
>>
>>And the social stigma that involves in claiming that clause should not be
>>underestimated.
>>
>>>>But the poor man will be at the limit of his existence,
>>>
>>> I don't believe this. The poor man has a car, remember?
>>
>>Because you have a car doesn't mean you are well-off. The loss of which
>>might ruin him. A rich man will not have this problem.
>>
>>I'm arguing that a fixed fine or loss of licence hits the poor man harder
>>than the rich man. A fine based on income - or some value of "wealth" would
>>not be perfect, but would be fairer, or at least more "balanced". I
>>disagree that 3 moths without a licence is a similar discomfort to both
>>rich and poor.
>
> 3 moths from your wallet? :o)

Doh!
Well, they don't have driving licences anyway. I suspect the loss of their
pilot's licence would hit them harder.

--
Tim C.
From: Tim C. on
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:16:21 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
<news:ef8ek595ev1s2pjus1ala7tmob291bkvn7(a)4ax.com> :

> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:04:09 +0100, "Tim C." <spamtrap(a)tele2.at> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:56:11 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
>><news:h87ek51skhqf05119j2ejfnpl9eedbko8a(a)4ax.com> :
>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:38:50 +0100, "Tim C." <spamtrap(a)tele2.at> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 8 Jan 2010 11:26:03 GMT, Erick T. Barkhuis wrote in post :
>>>><news:7qoj2bFduaU1(a)mid.individual.net> :
>>>>
>>>>> Tim C.:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 8 Jan 2010 11:12:02 GMT, Erick T. Barkhuis wrote in post :
>>>>>><news:7qoi82F91rU1(a)mid.individual.net> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's called a "H�rtefall" in Germany, and regulations to prevent
>>>>>>>that from happening are in place.
>>>>
>>>>And the social stigma that involves in claiming that clause should not be
>>>>underestimated.
>>>>
>>>>>>But the poor man will be at the limit of his existence,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe this. The poor man has a car, remember?
>>>>
>>>>Because you have a car doesn't mean you are well-off. The loss of which
>>>>might ruin him. A rich man will not have this problem.
>>>>
>>>>I'm arguing that a fixed fine or loss of licence hits the poor man harder
>>>>than the rich man. A fine based on income - or some value of "wealth" would
>>>>not be perfect, but would be fairer, or at least more "balanced". I
>>>>disagree that 3 moths without a licence is a similar discomfort to both
>>>>rich and poor.
>>>
>>> 3 moths from your wallet? :o)
>>
>>Doh!
>>Well, they don't have driving licences anyway. I suspect the loss of their
>>pilot's licence would hit them harder.
>
> worse than having a fatal attraction to candles?

Occupational hazard of being a moth. I'm not sure how we can stop them from
flying too fast on motorways though.

--
Tim C.
From: Erick T. Barkhuis on
Tim C.:

>On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:56:11 +0100, Martin wrote in post :
><news:h87ek51skhqf05119j2ejfnpl9eedbko8a(a)4ax.com> :

>> 3 moths from your wallet? :o)
>
>Doh!
>Well, they don't have driving licences anyway. I suspect the loss of
>their pilot's licence would hit them harder.


They don't have a licence? Then how was the rich man speeding?