Swiss BMW Driver Slammed with $116,000 Tailgating Fine Because He's Rich(thedrive.com)
thedrive.com
Swiss BMW Driver Slammed with $116,000 Tailgating Fine Because He's Rich
https://www.thedrive.com/news/swiss-bmw-driver-slammed-with-116000-tailgating-fine-because-hes-rich
106 comments
I think fines that are proportional to your income or wealth are clearly a better approach than fixed fines. In practice, that kind of stuff can be really hard to figure out, but overall it seems sensible? There are lots of downsides to a highly connected financial system for poor people, but hopefully we can move towards scaled fines as something of a consolation for all of the downsides the poor endure.
I don't even think it needs to be hard to figure out. Fines could, and should, be set to something like "basis points [hundredths of one percent] of your gross income on last year's tax return", which the government already knows. A speeding ticket could then be set to e.g. 20 bp = [last year's gross income] * .002.
Yah - income is clearly the first way to do this, but you'd want to integrate assets at some point (many wealthy people do not have traditionally high incomes). That's the tricky part.
Mm. On paper, I am in poverty, earn less than €20,000 a year, and am up to my eyeballs in unsecured debt.
The reality is somewhat different.
The reality is somewhat different.
I know, if you can't pay the fine don't do the crime, but realistically income is not a constant and is much too temporal to be useful here. A decent income year last year, and little income this year, means you might have no hope of paying the fine.
Why not a fraction of the current value of gross assets at the time of investigation? This a much better reflection of someone's financial standing, is a greater deterrent, ensures that the fine is actually payable, and deals with the issue of the rich not having much in the way of income.
Why not a fraction of the current value of gross assets at the time of investigation? This a much better reflection of someone's financial standing, is a greater deterrent, ensures that the fine is actually payable, and deals with the issue of the rich not having much in the way of income.
It sounds very progressive for a society to admit high income spendthrifts are immune to self reflective remorse, but I feel like we should still try impose penalties to give them an opportunity for growth.
Fair enough. Then the fine shall be levied at the value of the car being driven when the offence occurred. Driving a $500 beater? Your fine is $500. Driving a $1,000,000 sports car? Your fine is $1,000,000.
While this theoretically allows the rich to drive said $500 car in order to minimize their liability in the event of a fine, it also means the rich have to drive a $500 car if that is what they are trying to optimize for, which is a decent social tradeoff.
While this theoretically allows the rich to drive said $500 car in order to minimize their liability in the event of a fine, it also means the rich have to drive a $500 car if that is what they are trying to optimize for, which is a decent social tradeoff.
That's a pretty interesting approach as it means you don't have to ask about how much money the person makes, which can vary.
Though it hurts poor people who prioritize their car over other essentials.
Though it hurts poor people who prioritize their car over other essentials.
I'd like to see progressive fines implemented as well.
I'm not sure what factor we should use but I think that it should quickly become economically infeasible for anyone to keep reoffending because the cost of separate instances of doing so quickly escalates. Maybe exponentially?
I'm not sure what factor we should use but I think that it should quickly become economically infeasible for anyone to keep reoffending because the cost of separate instances of doing so quickly escalates. Maybe exponentially?
remember when JP Morgan was caught manipulating price of silver making billions off it. They were 'fined' 100m or something.
Its like robbing a bank and when caught you need to give 10% back. And also you will be given stern warning to not do it again.
Its like robbing a bank and when caught you need to give 10% back. And also you will be given stern warning to not do it again.
The idea of having the fine scale based on how quickly people re-offend is also really interesting! I feel like I worry about...situations where people are pressed into breaking that law out of circumstances and then are extra-harshly punished by the mounting fines? Maybe you combine it with some kind of income-based ceiling or a loss in driving privileges (has its own problems ofc but it is a public danger for someone to always be breaking the law - even if they feel they have no choice).
Oh I don't just want this for driving fines but all fines in general.If the point of fines is to serve as a disincentive and to modify the behavior of people then they need to have some teeth to them.
People are free to do their own personal cost benefit analysis when they decide whether or not whatever personal circumstance they're in is worth breaking the law, and the law isn't there to give them a pass because their personal analysis on this resulted in them deciding to break the law.
People are free to do their own personal cost benefit analysis when they decide whether or not whatever personal circumstance they're in is worth breaking the law, and the law isn't there to give them a pass because their personal analysis on this resulted in them deciding to break the law.
This could be an incredible revenue stream for law enforcement at all levels, without heavy balances it's almost guaranteed that it will be egregiously abused, like asset forfeiture.
Solution really is that money does not go to law enforcement, instead it goes to general budget from which then law enforcement is funded. Law enforcement really should not be able to fund itself by any mechanism.
You could say the same thing about all fines in general or specifically the Swiss and Finish income proportional fines in general.
Is there any evidence of egregious behaviour from Swedish and Finnish law enforcement in the manner that you describe?
Is there any evidence of egregious behaviour from Swedish and Finnish law enforcement in the manner that you describe?
To simplify admin cops could write you up a fixed fine then send your fine to IRS who will calculate your additional fine at the end of year...
Keeps your income private from cops + uses existing mechanism of determining your income.
Keeps your income private from cops + uses existing mechanism of determining your income.
I belive that's how they do it. The ticket specifies the fine in "day-units".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
I would argue if the goal is justice then the fine is basically a tort on the externality imposed. At some point society imposes an injustice if the fine exceeds the externality imposed by tailgating, even if it's a pittance to the rich person.
That is, for justice rather than just retribution, I think the real nominal cost of tailgating is probably not closely linked to wealth or income of the offender
That is, for justice rather than just retribution, I think the real nominal cost of tailgating is probably not closely linked to wealth or income of the offender
It's fair to say and, on some level, I like the idea of scaling fines to lower income more than scaling them to higher incomes. The marginal utility of wealth goes down as you get more anyway.
I also think that, if you wanna critique the efficacy of fines in metting out justice, you need to go further than you do here. Scaling the fine tries, imperfectly, to match the punishment to the circumstances of the offender. We could imagine an even better system that more perfectly reacts to misbehavior, but exactly what that would be seems hard and this is a sensible adjustment to an existing system.
I also think that, if you wanna critique the efficacy of fines in metting out justice, you need to go further than you do here. Scaling the fine tries, imperfectly, to match the punishment to the circumstances of the offender. We could imagine an even better system that more perfectly reacts to misbehavior, but exactly what that would be seems hard and this is a sensible adjustment to an existing system.
But the point of the fine in this case is clearly not restitution, but disincentive. Justice in this case is ensuring everyone is equally incentivised to follow a law that society thinks everyone should follow.
If the goal were only to ascribe economic harms to certain actions and reclaim those costs, it would be called a tax or a fee, not a fine.
If the goal were only to ascribe economic harms to certain actions and reclaim those costs, it would be called a tax or a fee, not a fine.
beaglesss(3)
[deleted]
But without progressive fines, the rich can basically buy themselves out of the law, which is worse than having no proportionality to the offense.
Reminds me of this podcast, “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie… Will He Want a Welfare Check?”
The argument being if fines for breaking rules are not proportional to wealth, then wealthy people will become disdainful of those rules.
https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring/2024/09/how-if-you-g...
The argument being if fines for breaking rules are not proportional to wealth, then wealthy people will become disdainful of those rules.
https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring/2024/09/how-if-you-g...
Along with the wealth tax, these revenue-based fines also pushes you to minimize the revenues that you declare to the state, ending with overall losses in collected taxes.
For example, many crypto-bros are insanely poor on paper.
Companies can spend on behalf of a person, etc.
A more fair system is to be able to pick between jail or community service.
Time is equally precious to all humans and giving some of your time to repair your mistakes is the best you can do.
For example, many crypto-bros are insanely poor on paper.
Companies can spend on behalf of a person, etc.
A more fair system is to be able to pick between jail or community service.
Time is equally precious to all humans and giving some of your time to repair your mistakes is the best you can do.
A poor person cannot afford to miss a day at the job, or not care for their children, when it would just be another day not working for a rich one. Not to mention the difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest populations are 10-15 years. If anything jail sentences should be longer for wealthy people!
Should some people be able to drive recklessly just because they can't afford to pay speeding tickets? I don't see what problem this is trying to solve. Is there an epidemic of wealthy people speeding and running over school children? In America you get points for speeding and your insurance goes up (more expensive car, more expensive insurance) and after a number of points you lose your license.
Wealthy people don't break the law any more than less wealthy people even though the naive view of the economic costs of crime would have you think they would.
Wealthy people don't break the law any more than less wealthy people even though the naive view of the economic costs of crime would have you think they would.
Should some people be able to drive recklessly just because they can afford to pay speeding tickets?
No, they'll lose their license. That's what points are for. That's a huge inconvenience for a rich person
The day-fine system is kinda interesting, because it recognizes that the impact of paying a $500 fine is very different based on your income.
I was surprised to learn that the UK experimented with it, briefly, but it's something that exists in several other countries for example Finland has had the system since 1921.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
I was surprised to learn that the UK experimented with it, briefly, but it's something that exists in several other countries for example Finland has had the system since 1921.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
For speeding, we do have a fine based on your weekly income. It can be up to 175% of your weekly income (capped to £2,500), if doing >100 MPH on a motorway (or >76 MPH if speed restricted to 50 MPH).
I think the law should apply equally to all. That means you don't give special breaks or come down especially hard on someone just because of their economic circumstances.
The funny thing about this opinion is that it is both extremely widely shared and extremely unpopular, depending on the context. Just seems invasive to me for a court to demand your personal monetary situation when determining how much to punish you.
The flip side to this is no-cash bail and people being allowed back on the streets after committing awful anti-social crimes. In NYC some people get released on no cash bail for 2nd degree manslaughter. But you know, economic circumstances
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/all-crimes-new-york-bai...
The funny thing about this opinion is that it is both extremely widely shared and extremely unpopular, depending on the context. Just seems invasive to me for a court to demand your personal monetary situation when determining how much to punish you.
The flip side to this is no-cash bail and people being allowed back on the streets after committing awful anti-social crimes. In NYC some people get released on no cash bail for 2nd degree manslaughter. But you know, economic circumstances
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/all-crimes-new-york-bai...
The law should have the same consequences for everyone. $1M fine for you is likely making you bankrupt, but is a rounding error for Elon. Is that the same consequence?
If fines don't scale with wealth, they mean the activity is only illegal for the poor & middle class.
If fines don't scale with wealth, they mean the activity is only illegal for the poor & middle class.
So in principle, different rules for different people? If you have no money you should be able to break the law more cheaply?
Principles are principles for a reason. You don't hold equal treatment / punishment under the law as a principle. Equal does not mean relative to something.
Principles are principles for a reason. You don't hold equal treatment / punishment under the law as a principle. Equal does not mean relative to something.
> If you have no money you should be able to break the law more cheaply?
Yes, the total value of the fine is less for someone with no money, but has the same impact the same because it is the same portion of their overall income.
Just like "if you have no money, you should be able to live in country more cheaply by paying less in taxes".
Yes, the total value of the fine is less for someone with no money, but has the same impact the same because it is the same portion of their overall income.
Just like "if you have no money, you should be able to live in country more cheaply by paying less in taxes".
And realistically poor will always have more impact due to any fine. As they have almost always both in relative and absolute terms less disposable income. It is not like taking 9 million from someone on net earning 10 million will make them starve, but try to do same with someone making 20k and taking 18k from that...
Huge point! This fine will not affect the lawyer’s ability to provide for his family at all. Maybe one less fancy BMW.
It's the same rule, the calculation is just different.
Imagine it were prison. Should we say that a rich person should get a 1 day sentence and a poor person should get a 1 year sentence simply because the rich person's time is worth more?
Imagine it were prison. Should we say that a rich person should get a 1 day sentence and a poor person should get a 1 year sentence simply because the rich person's time is worth more?
In fact that's exact how the fine is calculated:
day-fine = punishment financially equivalent to incarceration for one day without salary.
Rich and poor get the same number of days "without salary". There's also a minimum fine. People with no income will still pay a fine.
day-fine = punishment financially equivalent to incarceration for one day without salary.
Rich and poor get the same number of days "without salary". There's also a minimum fine. People with no income will still pay a fine.
Terrible example since equality would mean they both get N day sentence as I'm advocating keeping the fee fixed regardless of circumstances. Here is how the example would actually work:
A 20 year old probably has 60 years left. Spending a year in prison for a 20 year old is only 1/60th his expected life span. But for a 50 year old it would be 1/30th his life span. So perhaps the young person should get a harsher penalty.
You see why this is wrong?
A 20 year old probably has 60 years left. Spending a year in prison for a 20 year old is only 1/60th his expected life span. But for a 50 year old it would be 1/30th his life span. So perhaps the young person should get a harsher penalty.
You see why this is wrong?
We already kinda do this, old people get let out of prison if they're ill, etc.
I don't really think my example is terrible, I think it depends on what you think of as "equal". If the idea is to disincentivize an action, it needs to have a similar amount of pain to all people, presumably.
I don't really think my example is terrible, I think it depends on what you think of as "equal". If the idea is to disincentivize an action, it needs to have a similar amount of pain to all people, presumably.
The point is that it achieves, proportionally, the same rule for different people.
The word "equality" is underdetermined here. To me, it is obvious that scaling fines with income (so everyone gets 1/500th of their annual wage for a speeding ticket, e.g.) is equality and that flat fine amounts, being a larger burden on the poor, are unequal. Apparently you don't agree, but that means we need to sit down and hash out an agreed-on definition of equality first, not go slinging around emotive rhetoric.
Imagine speeding and then having to disclose your income to the court. Seems very invasive and dystopian.
You can choose not to operate the dangerous machinery in an unsafe manner if this bothers you.
Or just don't break the law.
Thousands of people die in car related situations. Most of them are preventable if people would just drive they are told in drivers ed. Don't tailgate is a big on as it means when (not if!) someone makes a mistake there is enough time and space to take evasive action. Many other safety laws exist that people think nothing of violating.
Thousands of people die in car related situations. Most of them are preventable if people would just drive they are told in drivers ed. Don't tailgate is a big on as it means when (not if!) someone makes a mistake there is enough time and space to take evasive action. Many other safety laws exist that people think nothing of violating.
If you think that simply disclosing your income is dystopian, I can't imagine how much you hate having to pay taxes.
The government already knows your gross income from your tax return. No new information is being disclosed here.
Imagine if such progressive fines only applied to severe offences.
Fines for doing 10 km/h over posted speed, etc doesn't have be so draconian.
Fines for doing 10 km/h over posted speed, etc doesn't have be so draconian.
> Just seems invasive to me for a court to demand your personal monetary situation when determining how much to punish you.
What if the default punishment was instead a nice, equitable 21 days in jail for rich and poor alike, with the option to instead pay a fine of 21 days income, if you were willing to disclose your income?
What if the default punishment was instead a nice, equitable 21 days in jail for rich and poor alike, with the option to instead pay a fine of 21 days income, if you were willing to disclose your income?
would still be worse for the poor. 21 days without being able to work is life-crashing when you are living paycheck to paycheck.
The equality is that the fine is for hours of your life it takes to pay that fine. If you make $20/hr and the fine is $100, that's 5 hours of work that you could use to pay for whatever, that you have to use to pay the ticket. If you make $200/hr, then the fine is $1,000, also 5 hours of your life. That's where the equality is. No matter who you are, violating this thing costs, in this example, 5 hours of work.
Courts can imprison you, take your assets, and much more. Asking your income is pretty mild.
IDK everyone seems to be happy with taxes taking a fixed % and most countries even higher % if you work your ass off.
The law does apply equally.
The law is: your fine amount is based on your daily income.
This law is applied equally.
The law is: your fine amount is based on your daily income.
This law is applied equally.
Fining 1% of income is no less principled than fining a flat $1000.
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
Swiss has had fines directly proportional to the income for decades, and as someone that lived there, I fully agree with them.
Otherwise most rich people will only consider them a mere inconvenience, like in most countries.
Otherwise most rich people will only consider them a mere inconvenience, like in most countries.
Precisely that. A fine is a simple non-violent way of enforcing consequences for actions we, as a society, want to discourage.
Here in Poland I have met too many corpo-achievers literally bragging that they just put all their speeding tickets on the corpo-card because it's _peanuts_, so they drive as fast and as loose as they feel...
And no, things are not simple, but fines being proportional to income is better than fixed fines.
Here in Poland I have met too many corpo-achievers literally bragging that they just put all their speeding tickets on the corpo-card because it's _peanuts_, so they drive as fast and as loose as they feel...
And no, things are not simple, but fines being proportional to income is better than fixed fines.
Sounds like something that the entire EU should impose.
Good. We should do more to tailor fines to income to the extent feasible. Otherwise it's just a hardship for the poor and an inconvenience fee for the rich.
No, not good. $116k is a ridiculous fine for tailgating. Fines should be at least partially related to the damage or potential damage inflicted on the public. I'd be fine with sublinear scaling but straightline increasing a fine ad infinitum is ridiculous. And/or the fine should be cut for the poor.
I think there's a big difference between what people say (the poor shouldn't be massively overburdened by a traffic fine, which most people would support), and what many advocates of these policies are actually motivated by (make the rich pay reeeee), which is silly schadenfreude I won't support.
I think there's a big difference between what people say (the poor shouldn't be massively overburdened by a traffic fine, which most people would support), and what many advocates of these policies are actually motivated by (make the rich pay reeeee), which is silly schadenfreude I won't support.
I'll add that it could create some really perverse incentives. Small town cops encouraged to pull over any newer or more expensive car and ignoring ones that look janky.
That would be the case in systems where the fines go to the local police force. I don’t know the prevalence, but in the countries where I’ve lived, the fines go to the central government, so local cops don’t have this (completely perverse, as you say) incentive.
I would argue that fixing that is important, even without income-based fines. Particularly if you have things like civil forfeiture (which also needs some fixing and really sounds like something that belongs in a banana republic).
I would argue that fixing that is important, even without income-based fines. Particularly if you have things like civil forfeiture (which also needs some fixing and really sounds like something that belongs in a banana republic).
In the US there are speed traps in small towns already where it's known that it is a major source of government income. To be somewhat fair, people often speed through these small towns they'll never see or think about again and cause issues.
Outside the US, it's somewhat less common for units of government with the power to levy fines to be anywhere near that small. In the UK, "safety camera" income goes to national (Westminster, Scottish, NI) government, not local government. And to the general fund, not to any road- or policing-specific department.
It's an American oddity where (crooked) local police departments fund themselves off fine revenue. Most countries centralise fine revenue with the state or federal government to remove such incentives.
They also don't have the government sanctioned theft through the ridiculous notion of civil forfeiture...
They also don't have the government sanctioned theft through the ridiculous notion of civil forfeiture...
I'm Black. This is such an abstract incentive problem such that I can't much care, given the obvious real ones we already have.
If they drove properly, that wouldn’t be a problem.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not going to shed any tears for a Ferrari driver who has to pay a $50k fine for going 30 miles over the speed limit. It would just make society strange if this is how we enforced the laws.
I think there's a crucial difference here.
If we want to prohibit an activity, having a fine that's the same in dollars is not great because of the whole inconvenience-fee thing. If the purpose of the fine is punishment and deterrence it is ineffective.
If we want to have less of an activity but reach a quantity where there's a equilibrium between the social costs and social benefits for the activity, then that's really a tax. And it should be uniform and not vary based on income.
Which is tailgating?
If we want to prohibit an activity, having a fine that's the same in dollars is not great because of the whole inconvenience-fee thing. If the purpose of the fine is punishment and deterrence it is ineffective.
If we want to have less of an activity but reach a quantity where there's a equilibrium between the social costs and social benefits for the activity, then that's really a tax. And it should be uniform and not vary based on income.
Which is tailgating?
Tailgating is ridiculous and can kill people. I experience that every day where I live and it’s a psychological nightmare. I say we should fine them and remove their license, it’s the only thing those morons understand.
> I'd be fine with sublinear scaling but straightline increasing a fine ad infinitum is ridiculous.
What is actually properly ridiculous is that some people get enough money that a linear fine seems ridiculous. Income distribution is completely out of whack.
What is actually properly ridiculous is that some people get enough money that a linear fine seems ridiculous. Income distribution is completely out of whack.
$116K is far less than the potential damage to life and property that can be caused by a car crash.
downvoters haven't gone car shopping lately
Aren't "many advocates" only seeking to make penalties for unsafe behavior felt? Wealthy people can and do routinely scoff at -- for them -- trivial costs, abusing their wealth until someone ends up injured or killed, and then employ a team of lawyers to skate on that as well.
I bet the f*cker stops now.
I bet the f*cker stops now.
Instead of income, it should be something else, because a lot of wealthy people do not have incomes.
Good point. You still want to punish, despite not having income.
Perhaps a % of their assets should be put into government trust which is realised when they liquidate?
Perhaps a % of their assets should be put into government trust which is realised when they liquidate?
How much would Bezos or Musk be charged for a similar traffic ticket
Article says that there is a cap of CHF3,000 for the daily rate and that the fine imposed in this case was 50 daily rates. So the maximum fine is CHF150k or about $175k.
Can they just apply as many daily rates as they want? Where does the 50 come from?
Law broken, possibly how often the individual broke it before, too.
The difference between equality under the law or equity under the law.
Equity is by definition relative. Equality is at least absolutely reasoned without the interference of relativity or subjectivity.
By what measure can a system of government be most fair and immune to corruption? The one where everyone has equal rights or the one one where some are “more equal” or “less equal” than others?
Equity is by definition relative. Equality is at least absolutely reasoned without the interference of relativity or subjectivity.
By what measure can a system of government be most fair and immune to corruption? The one where everyone has equal rights or the one one where some are “more equal” or “less equal” than others?
Like taxes, I'm a fan of proportional fines, at least for major offenses. The purpose of fine is to deter the perpetrator. If you fine a (m|b)illionaire 20 quid like the rest of us, how much of a deterrence can that be? I'm also a fan of increasing the fine exponentially for frequent and/or repeated offenses.
I’d be happy if people would actually get fined for tailgating around here. Even €35 would do.
> The court can impose a fine of daily rates between 30 and 3,000 francs, or roughly $35 to $3,500, in cases like these, but settled on fining the lawyer 50 daily rates of 1,970 CHF.
How is the number of days determined - is it fixed by type of offense?
How is the number of days determined - is it fixed by type of offense?
That was one thing that the article didn't explain that I was curious about. What does days mean in this context and how does the court determine the number of them? Why days combined with a variable fee vs just a variable fee?
Very likely some table. Tail gating is one amount, running red light is an other, going over 20 km/h(Finland) is one and then you get more as the speed increases 40, 60, 80, 100 over limit...
It's easy, many lawyers are already charging by hour/day. Otherwise take annual income and divide by number of days worked.
My question wasn't about the day rate it was about the number of days, ie is it variable or fixed for each type of offense.
[deleted]
Compared to the person making minimum wage (say $11/hr) receiving a $450 fine paid on an installment plan, I think this sends the right message.
Income proportional fines should also have an alternative minimum fine that weighs their entire liquid balance sheet value because it's entirely possible decamillionaires to billionaires keep their live expenses allowances low compared to vast assets they control.
Income proportional fines should also have an alternative minimum fine that weighs their entire liquid balance sheet value because it's entirely possible decamillionaires to billionaires keep their live expenses allowances low compared to vast assets they control.
Good...
I don't care how rich you are, a $100,000 fine for tailgating is absurd.
How much was the public hurt by his actions?
How much was the public hurt by his actions?
Rule number 1 when you go to Switzerland: it is the most anti-car country there is.
There are so many possibilities to make costly "lessons" if you do not prepare in advance. I lived in Zurich - lovely country, but what in other countries is more or less tolerated or fined with a price tag of two McDonalds menus, can hit you very hard.
A parking violation and driving a bit too fast downhill (it's a hilly region, isn't it?) because you overlooked a sign, and not only ordinary people will wish they were billionaires.
There are so many possibilities to make costly "lessons" if you do not prepare in advance. I lived in Zurich - lovely country, but what in other countries is more or less tolerated or fined with a price tag of two McDonalds menus, can hit you very hard.
A parking violation and driving a bit too fast downhill (it's a hilly region, isn't it?) because you overlooked a sign, and not only ordinary people will wish they were billionaires.
> Rule number 1 when you go to Switzerland: it is the most anti-car country there is.
Not even close, even for the more general superalative meaning of most.
Lots of Swiss drive, car and gas prices are more affordable than the rest of Europe, many Swiss live outside of big cities where parking is harder/expensive. I even saw a drive thru at a McDonalds in Renens (suburb near Lausanne), which...I've never seen a drive thru at McDonalds anywhere else in Europe (although I only lived in Switzerland).
Yes, Switzerland is very law and order, you follow the rules (like in Germany). But it is definitely a place where you can drive if you want, and many people do.
Not even close, even for the more general superalative meaning of most.
Lots of Swiss drive, car and gas prices are more affordable than the rest of Europe, many Swiss live outside of big cities where parking is harder/expensive. I even saw a drive thru at a McDonalds in Renens (suburb near Lausanne), which...I've never seen a drive thru at McDonalds anywhere else in Europe (although I only lived in Switzerland).
Yes, Switzerland is very law and order, you follow the rules (like in Germany). But it is definitely a place where you can drive if you want, and many people do.
Switzerland is a car country that would make AAA drool. But it doesn't have the same approach to laws and flexibility of the system as the US because it didn't need to encode different outcomes for different people in authority discretion like the US did.
No, Swiss love their cars, but in an orderly fashion. Most relaxed driving in Europe.
I also lived in Switzerland for a couple of years, learn to abide by the rules, no problem.