> They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the process than is ever collected if this ever happens.

The point of regulation isn't for the state to turn a profit. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that regulations that drive a monetary profit for the state are generally bad because they create a perverse incentive. For example, municipal governments adversely affect traffic flow by lowering speed limits because those lower speed limits generate more ticket revenue.

▲

ElProlactin 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're right that the point of regulation isn't to turn a "profit" but the laws of economics always apply. If you have a fine of $100 for a widespread practice that costs $1,000 to collect, the state isn't going to magically allocate resource to applying it.

You could create a private right of action for this, but that is its own bag of worms.

	▲	estearum 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> If you have a fine of $100 for a widespread practice that costs $1,000 to collect, the state isn't going to magically allocate resource to applying it. Seems empirically false given e.g. the immense investment we make in counter-drug enforcement.

▲

oblio 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> municipal governments adversely affect traffic flow by lowering speed limits because those lower speed limits generate more ticket revenue.

I don't know about the US because the US is weird, but:

* at 30kmph the rate of fatalities in case of a car hitting a pedestrian is basically 0%, at 50kmph I think it's 5% or more

* at 30kmph collisions are much easier to avoid due to the increased reaction time and the decreased braking distance (I don't remember the exact numbers)

* at 30kmph you can hold a conversation at normal speech levels next to a moderately busy road, at 50kmph you will have to shout (and not even notice it due to the high ambient noise)

Etc.