Even flat-out rejecting the desire to charge them more wouldn't be bending over backwards for them. It would simply be charging them based on harm done rather than what affects them.

And the post you're responding to is making a much less extreme position, that it's hard to scale the fine properly.

With laws, you generally want to charge and cover for the harm done, but also to disincentivise law breaking.

For instance, someone might be significantly speeding for 10 years, and never hurting anyone or causing any harm (financial or otherwise). Should they pay nothing?

Or should we distribute harm from all speeders (accidents, injuries and deaths) to everyone speeding?

But does a fixed fee speeding ticket disincentivise behaviour that is known to cause harm statistically?