I heard about income-based traffic fines in Europe a couple years ago, and now I see the New York Times has an op-ed piece in support of it here in the U.S. The concept of basing fines for traffic violations on income is that flat-rate fines , associated costs, and collection fees weigh more heavily on lower-income drivers than on higher-income speeders. A flat-rate fine also fails its role as a behavioral deterrent to speeding if it is only a slap on the wrist to wealthy violators.

In Finland, several other European countries, and Argentina, penalties on offenses ranging from shoplifting to securities law violations are imposed on a sliding scale based  on a person’s last declared income and the nature of the crime. In these nations it is believed the wealthy and the poor should suffer equally for infractions. In other words, as the title of nytimes.com opinion piece by Alec Schierenbeck suggests : A Billionaire and a Nurse Shouldn’t Pay the Same Fine for Speeding.

And the author makes a good case for change: For people living on the economic margins, even minor offenses can impose crushing financial obligations, trapping them in a cycle of debt and incarceration for nonpayment. In Ferguson, Mo., for example, a single $151 parking violation sent a black woman struggling with homelessness into a seven-year odyssey of court appearances, arrest warrants and jail time connected to her inability to pay.

Across America, one-size-fits-all fines are the norm, which I demonstrate in an article for the University of Chicago Law Review. Where judges do have wiggle room to choose the size of a fine, mandatory minimums and maximums often tie their hands. Some states even prohibit consideration of a person’s income. And when courts are allowed to take finances into account, they frequently fail to do so.

Here in Vermont a judge is allowed “wiggle” room to consider income when handing out a fine. However someone charged with a violation that wishes a judge to consider their income must take the time to appear in court to contest rather than mailing in the traffic fine. Vermont fines range from 0-$1,000.00 with a non-waivable surcharge of $47.00. Conceivably someone could leave with only a $47.00 fee to pay as a “fine” if the judge accepts a public plea of poverty. Although more reasonable, than, say, the Ferguson Mo. practice, getting a day off work to plead your case carries a built in hardship — likely loss of pay for many low-income people.

In 2016 Vermont changed laws to help low-income drivers whose driver’s licenses had been suspended for non-criminal offenses regain the right to drive. Now the legislature is exploring changes to the new, rigid, computer-driven vehicle-inspection regulations. The change sought would allow some repairs to be listed as “recommended,” rather than “required,” where the faulty part is not safety-related. There is growing awareness that the stricter rules can be an unfair burden, particularly on low-income drivers who rely on high-mileage used vehicles.

So now might be the time for income-sensitive traffic fines to be considered for the same reasons.

Income based fines — charging wealthy drivers enough for traffic and speeding violations so it really is a deterrent — might be just the ticket for economic fairness and safety.

Hmmm, imagine that Jaguar driver on the side of the road in front of blue flashing lights having to pay 10 times what the 10-year-old Chevy driver pays. In the privacy of your vehicle, you’re allowed to smile.