AJ,

The demerit system makes the system equitable, the rest is just revenue raising.

There is nothing fair or equitable about the system of fines in Australia. I begin by firstly saying I have no speeding convictions past or present. I have a 'clean' driving record and I have been driving 'legally' for approx 50 years. What I am angered about regarding fines is the points system. Apparently, the points remain on record for three years. I believe this is supposed to somehow 'shame' you into being compliant.
NOTHING the law makers do make any difference to peoples driving habits. We are being treated worse than children. Unfortunately the great majority of Australians today, act like children. This means the law makers are on the same level as pedophiles! First load of crap is all these fines have reduced road related deaths and injuries. CRAP! Secondly, the fines are intended to be deterrents and nothing to do with revenue raising. CRAP! The part that infuriates me and wants to see these law makers attacked in a dark alley is, their blatant and total dis-regard for the lives and livelihoods, families and future they destroy by removing someones license. If its money these bastards want fine take your blood money but let these guys get on earning more money so you can take it off them again. What moron takes away the very life blood that will help pay the fine in the first place. These ignorant law makers have to be brought to heel and stop killing people. What I suggest is, forget the stupid points system, when someone is charged with an offense just impose a fine. If no-one was injured or compromised and no property was damaged, then as far as I am concerned 'nothing' happened. Now even if something happened, and it was clearly an act of aggression or anger, then by all means throw the book at them. I have to laugh, these idiots take away the very thing that allows someone to earn the money that can pay the fines. Their drivers license! Morons! We get it you want money, because your not stealing enough off us already.

If the purpose of a fine was intended to impose equal pain as punishment on each person, then better equity under the law would require all fines to be determined using criteria that includes a mix of the persons net worth, capacity to pay and current financial circumstances.

There is a reason all fines are expressed in dollar terms and that's because its the same for everyone so that's fair isn't it? Wrong, a $200 fine is enough to make some people homeless while for others it's the source of a laugh around the restaurant table

The rich love nominated set fines because its only the price of a glass of wine anyway and all they have to do is make a credit card payment.

I suppose that the trite reply to the OP is that penalties are avoidable. Just obey the law.

However, even where we try to avoid all contact with the law it is inevitable in modern life that we must come into contact with it and yes, wealth with its accompanying smarts and contacts, can soften the blow or even allow escape from consequences.

There are manner of reasons why the less well off may come into contact with the law more often and on the wrong side.

But then those who can access free legal aid and may not have assets or income can escape the costs and lack of legal help through costs of same, that plague wage earners and small business people.

On the spot fines are supposed to reduce the impact on the individual and wastage of court time. However where society is built around car ownership government needs to consider the impact of fines on the less well off. How to do that is the problem.

I reckon though that we should be worrying instead about the increasing criminalising of behaviour. To explain, because government itself wants to collect fines economically and it also wants to encourage and ensure the profitability of business providing essential services such as transport, behaviours such as fare evasion are being made criminal acts at law. Put under the criminal code. Of course the penalties are big money too and lets face it, it is unlikely that the 'rich' make public transport their popular 'ride'.

The political parties who lay claim to representing the 'worker' and 'trodden over' would have to be among the first to criminalise behaviour that was never imagined to be criminal before.

How comfortable is everyone with that? Does the end ever justify the means?

No one has the god given right to defy the law, those that do deserve the penalties that are imposed. Why do some people say revenue raising, that means they think they have a right to defy the law.
If you can not go from here to there without penalties they have no right to own devices that enables them to do that. We have rules that enable a persons passage to somewhere, and you come across someone that is outside of them rules, it takes your right of passage away for someone else’s ignorance.
As far as I know the only ones that have the right of traveling out side of the general rules is vehicles with lights and sirens. If you do not have that sort of equipment there is no right of breaking any rules.