That's a good question, but I think the fine based punishment model within a monopolistic institution is a poor model to begin with. I admit it isn't an easy problem to solve, but the above method is crap, imo, and will produce extremely negative results for many more people over the long term.

I think privilege and access control with competing providers gives better incentives and results. Though it's not like we can just overnight implement something like that.

You're assuming that the fines should be proportional to the wealth of the violator rather than proportional to the inconvenience caused by the violator as a result of the action being fined.

The question isn't how to make fines proportional to wealth, the question is how to make fines proportional to actual inconvenience caused rather than assessed arbitrarily by the state.

In a world where money earned actually represents value produced, I have no problem with people with more money having to worry less about fines. If something is really a crime, there should be more punishment then a fine anyway. A fine usually only applies to crimes where something inconvenient or reckless happened but nobody actually was a victim of.

Possibly. I think localism is the solution to all of these major problems. And luckily Bitcoin destroys the false incentives that get in the way of natural localism, so we should see a significant return to local incentives and capital nurturing.

Excellent question. I have no good answer

And another one is, how enforceable is all of that ticketing really? Employing 1/1000 people to police the others is proving to be ridiculously expensive and a much greater cost to society than the crimes they are meant to prevent.

This is the way

That's an interesting question too. I suspect incentives would be far better without speed limits and instead using insurance, liability, & road/space design to align driver and incentives. Its actually a massive state created problem that roads and inner cities have done top-down development that put the car as the focus of movement. Its destroyed the connection of local community and made people aggressive drivers who treat pedestrians not as the prime owners of the space, but as a nuisance. It literally leads to the type of behavior that makes the roads dangerous and makes people feel that they "own the road" while in the car and that everyone else is getting in their way.

The autobahn is a decent example of how the lack of speed limits and arbitrary punishment don't create disaster, it creates a different, more natural order. then another great example is a packed city that had an experiment in a small area that was hugely disconnected because of a big intersection and busy multilane road that created a huge division between major blocks -- they took the huge intersection and made a round about, and they removed all of the curbs so the bricked sidewalks merged right into the road. The only separation was difference in material. Basically overnight the community got hugely more connected, the pedestrians were way safer, the drivers were more aware, the intersection wasn't constantly packed with angry drivers, and foot traffic for business on both sides of the road sky rocketed. It literally transformed from a road that disconnected people, to a communal space.

TL;DR, design and natural development are far better at producing positive incentives and aligning behavior than top-down "planning" and broad sweeping rules and punishments.