Normally me neither, bit in this context where you are driving so recklessly you are endangering everyone else and we are talking over double the speed limit I’ll allow it. Noone has any rights left when you are doing that kind of stuff deliberately.
@TDCN@GBU_28 In a country like Denmark where it’s unlikely that having a car vs. not is the difference between living indoors and dying on the street I can see this working okay. I don’t think it would translate well to a country like the US where as well as killing the poor generally it would also be heavily exploited by the police to kill minorities.
I hope in Denmark there’s a very high standard of evidence which the police have to present so they can’t just lie about the speeds they observe?
@TDCN@GBU_28 i’m genuinely missing how the state keeping the car versus giving it back to the leasing agency is a reasonable choice. Why does the owner of the car, if it is not the violator, get to get fucked by this?
As I wrote to someone else my reasoning is this. It puts the responsibility into the hands of the car owner. Just replace the word car with gun and it all sounds reasonable. If I just lend my gun to a friend who I only know very little or I have never seen hold a gun in his hand that would be very bad. Or if a company leases big guns that are super dangerous. Even if he has a license for guns. And if he shot someone or broke the law in other ways with the gun I’d only expect the gun to be confiscated regardless of who owns it.
@TDCN@jbsegal Here’s a concrete example of something I would’ve hated when I was younger and thought freedom and individual rights were everything but now that I’m older and understand that we live in a society (or at least it would be nice if we did), I love it.
@jamesjm@TDCN@GBU_28 this presumes a: the perpetrator has compensation they can pay to the car owner, B: that the car owner can deal without the car, or without the compensation, for the length of time it takes to get the lawsuit processed and paid out. This is not fair to the owner. Punish the fuck out of the perpetrator, sure. Don’t fuck the car owner.
@antipode77@revk@TDCN@GBU_28 Does the accused’s elderly parent, who doesn’t know what they get up to, but who needs the car for some reason or another have any? If, after due process it can be shown that they reasonably SHOULD’VE known? Ok, maybe. Before that? Nope.
@jbsegal@GBU_28@antipode77@TDCN I’m all for those who are guilty being punished, which may include a fine or losing some of their property, but it needs to be with due process and without impact on parties that are not guilty of a crime, IMHO.
@GBU_28@TDCN@jbsegal@antipode77 just to check. Are you saying it should be valid to impose legal penalty on innocent companies because they are not human? (That is before considering whether the owners and employees of companies that may suffer from a penalty have “human rights”).
A company is a legal construct consisting of a group of humans taking decisions on behalf of a collective we call a company.
As such the decision makers are in the end guilty or innocent. Therefore they are the ones the law must hold accountable for what the company did or did not do.
When guilty these persons must go to prison or pay significant fines.
The company itself must be fined for the damage they did.
@nortix@TDCN@GBU_28 forcing the owner to deal with the court system, and to be without a car for however long this takes seems extremely unfair to me. And potentially seriously damaging, if they rely on their car for something. Punish the fuck out of the perpetrator, but if it is not their car you don’t get to take it away from the person who owns it.
@jbsegal@TDCN@GBU_28 There are a lot of leasing agencies (small backalley operations) that exist for exactly this cause: leasing cars to speeders and criminals, so they don’t own anything that can be confiscated. This law will stop those businesses.
Bona Fide leasing agencies will just have contract clauses with an employer as a warrantee against the cost of a car when someone drives reckless, or speed limiters installed.
Why would anyone need a car that can do 100km/h over the speed limit?
In effect, is it really that different to a fine? It seems to have a couple of advantages, though: it’s easier to collect, and it’s proportional, so a person who can afford a fancy luxury car pays more than someone in an old banger, without the complexity of having to evaluate their income and savings.
This is exactly the reason they are doing it. Proportional to income and the car is completely and physically removed from the road. There was a big issue here where the offender would just drive without license or the car was leased or borrowed so there was no real penalty. Now the leasing company would have to take responsibility for leasing fancy supercars to anyone and everyone and people lending their car to a known drunk or fast driver would definitely think twice.
That part is all good. The problem is they don’t care whose car it is. If I was to borrow your car, and then break this law, then YOU are out a car. Yes, you can try and get the money back from me, but that might take a decade if I don’t have money to replace your car.
If you ask me, that’s crazy.
Well I agree it might be a bit crazy, but I also must admit that I like the law because it works and it makes it such that I don’t want to lend my car out to anyone unless I know for sure how they drive by driving with them a few times. It puts the responsibility into the hands of the car owner. Just replace the word car with gun and it all sounds reasonable. If I just lend my gun to a friend who I only know very little or I have never seen hold a gun in his hand that would be very bad. Even if he has a license for guns. And if he shot someone or broke the law in other ways with the gun I’d only expect the gun to be confiscated regardless of who owns it.
@TDCN@joland here in the Netherlands the fine for a traffic violation is already up to the owner to sort out. They don’t give AF who drove the car. Your car. Your responsibility. Your problem.
@TDCN@joland replacing car with gun or riffle makes it even more absurd. You saying that if I lend a riffle to someone on a hunt, I should bear the consequences for their actions if they miss and hit something? Thankfully the law in rest of Scandinavia isn’t as insane…
@TDCN There is nothing about being “wreckless” when borrowing something to someone else. If person has a valid driving license that is all that matters. We ain’t even taking about lending a car to a obviously drunk idiot which is punishable.
@joland@TDCN yeah but if you borrow your car to someone they could also just total it in an accident and die, and in that case they also won’t be able to give it back to you and you definitely won’t get paid for the car.
This is just one more reason to not borrow your car to people you don’t trust 100%.
@sldrant@TDCN@threedaymonk as a Dane, I like the law. Most debate in Denmark has been revolving about all the “what if?” cases. What if it’s a loaned car? Or leased?
Personally I think it’s great that responsibility is also on the owner. If you lend your car to a reckless driver, you always risk losing it. Either because he crashes, or now, because it’s confiscated. So make your own precautions.
@mhgottlieb@sldrant@TDCN@threedaymonk As a Canadian who lives in Denmark, I also like the law. If you engage in reckless endangerment of other person’s lives, you should lose your favourite playtoy. If you walk around downtown swinging a machete over your head, and then you hop in your car and drive away at 200 km/h, you should lose the machete and the car.
An argument over whether the machete was borrowed or not are exceptions that can be dealt with in court.
@mhgottlieb@sldrant@TDCN@threedaymonk It would, however, be nice if the car companies could align with the expectations of the speed limits. On both of our cars, the minimum possible cruise control speed is 30 km/h. However, there are more than a couple of 20 km/h speed limits in the area.
I know that, of all the things I could complain about in life, this one is well down on the list. However, it’s also not a difficult problem to solve.
@GBU_28@TDCN this is basically an income adjusted fine for breaking the law in egregious ways. Are you also opposed to fines for other bad behavior?
I also appreciate that it gets more people thinking about ways to move without a car. that is more doable in Denmark then in the US, but cars are dangerous, and if you put other at risk so casually I have little sympathy.
For the sake of conversation, let’s consider some other owned object. I’m grasping here but say you had your computer seized for anti government speech. (I know, not the same as endangering people with a car).
It wouldn’t be right to lose a multi thousand dollar device simply because the government willed it. Certainly not without compensation.
@GBU_28 skip any example that doesn’t routinely involve the single biggest cause of child death in the US. There is no reason for a person to be exceeding the speed limit by double. That’s just gambling with others life and limb.
I think a multi-thousand dollar, income adjusted fine should be the minimum in that case.
@GBU_28@TDCN It’s a fine imposed on the vehicle owner.
Tbh, I think this was instituted after the “fines proportional with income” because drug dealers had fast cars but no official income and were among the most likely to drive extremely recklessly. And they don’t necessarily officially own their own car.
@GBU_28@TDCN I can get behind a law like this in the states. Too many drunk drivers who kill have had close calls before and were able to get back in their cars and do it over and over. Auction the car and any $ from that should be deemed a fine.
@briankrebs@GBU_28@TDCN in germany we had cases in front of the court where the truck driver killed f a second time and still got a punishment that was essentially telling him he didn’t do anything severly wrong.
@briankrebs@GBU_28@TDCN We finally got rid of civil forfeiture. Thank goodness. It was such a corrupting incentive to police forces. It works on the first case, and then it is just abused by municipalities to line everyone’s pocket.
@hwyaden@briankrebs@GBU_28@TDCN in the Scandinavian countries (except for parking fines) go to the central government and are not dedicated to any special purposes, so there aren’t incentives like that.
If there are any bad incentives involved it’s that police let “small” speeding infractions go with warnings, in order to seem relaxed and be more popular or something.
@hwyaden@briankrebs@GBU_28@TDCN The rules are pretty clear in this case. I’m curious how it would be abused and how anyone’s pockets could be lined. Can you explain? Or were you talking more about the concept in general and not so much about the specific Danish scenario?
@hwyaden@briankrebs@GBU_28@TDCN i guess it depends a lot on your baseline of corruption which I guess is fairly low in denmark. Even if some corruption happens, I’d rather have that than people killing other people.
@GBU_28 play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Driving a car is not a right. Especially in Denmark where public transport is an perfectly viable alternative for most of the population.
@GBU_28
I’ve found that people are big fans of government action against people with little or no due process, until it happens to them. @JegVilleSeShitposts
@GBU_28
That really, *really* shouldn’t matter. One of the biggest problems around the world today are people checking for labels and group membership before considering otherwise valid points.
For what it’s worth, I’ve found this behavior exhibited by all groups.
@GBU_28@JegVilleSeShitposts , all property is owned at the whim of someone else !
The person that chooses to work for you, the customer that chooses to buy your goods, the person that chooses to sell their house, etc …
You’re just a care taker for a short while and if you’re mistreating that privilege it should be able to be revoked!
Fines are fine. I understand at the end of the day they behave similarly. But the value of the car may not be the right amount for the fine, and the citizen may be able to get the best sale price for the car.
@GBU_28@TDCN It is seizure of a dangerous means to commit a crime, it is punishment. And no, you shouldn’t have the money to buy yet another dangerous car.
@GBU_28@TDCN, really??
You happily can endanger other people’s lives but can’t have your means to do so taken away?
Same for CEOs of companies going bankrupt: you can take away others livelihood by your decisions but nobody can touch your hording.
That sounds like rich person’s privilege syndrome!
@GBU_28@TDCN Think of the car as a “dual use” item - i.e. you can use it as transport or to (potentially) get other people injured or killed.
The law aims at the second (mis)use. Even though I’m a car-loving German I really second that part of the Danish law and I honestly wish we would have something similar.
@GBU_28
We often have the discussion whether it is an instrument for murder.
So going insanely fast, often within city limits, is considered in comparison to planned homocide.
So why should they hand out the potential weapon, just because you missed someone?
Furthermore we have issues of companies renting out overly powerful cars, so some tourists can go crazy on our autobahn in a Ferrari.
IMHO this business model is insane and this is a valid way to stop it.
I can’t get behind property seizure without compensation, but I can understand everything else.
Even if they said “you can’t have this car any more, but can sell it from our facility” that’d be better I think
Normally me neither, bit in this context where you are driving so recklessly you are endangering everyone else and we are talking over double the speed limit I’ll allow it. Noone has any rights left when you are doing that kind of stuff deliberately.
@TDCN @GBU_28 In a country like Denmark where it’s unlikely that having a car vs. not is the difference between living indoors and dying on the street I can see this working okay. I don’t think it would translate well to a country like the US where as well as killing the poor generally it would also be heavily exploited by the police to kill minorities.
I hope in Denmark there’s a very high standard of evidence which the police have to present so they can’t just lie about the speeds they observe?
@TDCN @GBU_28 i’m genuinely missing how the state keeping the car versus giving it back to the leasing agency is a reasonable choice. Why does the owner of the car, if it is not the violator, get to get fucked by this?
As I wrote to someone else my reasoning is this. It puts the responsibility into the hands of the car owner. Just replace the word car with gun and it all sounds reasonable. If I just lend my gun to a friend who I only know very little or I have never seen hold a gun in his hand that would be very bad. Or if a company leases big guns that are super dangerous. Even if he has a license for guns. And if he shot someone or broke the law in other ways with the gun I’d only expect the gun to be confiscated regardless of who owns it.
@TDCN @jbsegal Here’s a concrete example of something I would’ve hated when I was younger and thought freedom and individual rights were everything but now that I’m older and understand that we live in a society (or at least it would be nice if we did), I love it.
@TDCN @jbsegal
And are the owners changing the contracts so the driver has to compensate the owner in case of confirmation?
@EikeLeidgens @TDCN @jbsegal I guess they still have to pay the lease?
@jbsegal @TDCN @GBU_28 they have to demand compensation from the driver
@jamesjm @TDCN @GBU_28 this presumes a: the perpetrator has compensation they can pay to the car owner, B: that the car owner can deal without the car, or without the compensation, for the length of time it takes to get the lawsuit processed and paid out. This is not fair to the owner. Punish the fuck out of the perpetrator, sure. Don’t fuck the car owner.
@TDCN @jbsegal @GBU_28 quite, that is punishing an innocent party, which seems like a major human rights issue.
@revk @TDCN @jbsegal @GBU_28
Do companies have human rights ? Nope.
@antipode77 @revk @TDCN @GBU_28 Does the accused’s elderly parent, who doesn’t know what they get up to, but who needs the car for some reason or another have any? If, after due process it can be shown that they reasonably SHOULD’VE known? Ok, maybe. Before that? Nope.
@jbsegal @GBU_28 @antipode77 @TDCN I’m all for those who are guilty being punished, which may include a fine or losing some of their property, but it needs to be with due process and without impact on parties that are not guilty of a crime, IMHO.
@GBU_28 @TDCN @jbsegal @antipode77 just to check. Are you saying it should be valid to impose legal penalty on innocent companies because they are not human? (That is before considering whether the owners and employees of companies that may suffer from a penalty have “human rights”).
@revk @GBU_28 @TDCN @jbsegal
A company is not able to be guilty or innocent.
A company is a legal construct consisting of a group of humans taking decisions on behalf of a collective we call a company.
As such the decision makers are in the end guilty or innocent. Therefore they are the ones the law must hold accountable for what the company did or did not do.
When guilty these persons must go to prison or pay significant fines.
The company itself must be fined for the damage they did.
@jbsegal @TDCN @GBU_28 The owner can sue the driver for compensation.
@nortix @TDCN @GBU_28 forcing the owner to deal with the court system, and to be without a car for however long this takes seems extremely unfair to me. And potentially seriously damaging, if they rely on their car for something. Punish the fuck out of the perpetrator, but if it is not their car you don’t get to take it away from the person who owns it.
@jbsegal @TDCN @GBU_28 There are a lot of leasing agencies (small backalley operations) that exist for exactly this cause: leasing cars to speeders and criminals, so they don’t own anything that can be confiscated. This law will stop those businesses.
Bona Fide leasing agencies will just have contract clauses with an employer as a warrantee against the cost of a car when someone drives reckless, or speed limiters installed.
Why would anyone need a car that can do 100km/h over the speed limit?
@TDCN @GBU_28 https://www.advrider.com/danish-police-confiscate-about-three-vehicles-a-day/
deleted by creator
In effect, is it really that different to a fine? It seems to have a couple of advantages, though: it’s easier to collect, and it’s proportional, so a person who can afford a fancy luxury car pays more than someone in an old banger, without the complexity of having to evaluate their income and savings.
This is exactly the reason they are doing it. Proportional to income and the car is completely and physically removed from the road. There was a big issue here where the offender would just drive without license or the car was leased or borrowed so there was no real penalty. Now the leasing company would have to take responsibility for leasing fancy supercars to anyone and everyone and people lending their car to a known drunk or fast driver would definitely think twice.
@TDCN
That part is all good. The problem is they don’t care whose car it is. If I was to borrow your car, and then break this law, then YOU are out a car. Yes, you can try and get the money back from me, but that might take a decade if I don’t have money to replace your car.
If you ask me, that’s crazy.
Well I agree it might be a bit crazy, but I also must admit that I like the law because it works and it makes it such that I don’t want to lend my car out to anyone unless I know for sure how they drive by driving with them a few times. It puts the responsibility into the hands of the car owner. Just replace the word car with gun and it all sounds reasonable. If I just lend my gun to a friend who I only know very little or I have never seen hold a gun in his hand that would be very bad. Even if he has a license for guns. And if he shot someone or broke the law in other ways with the gun I’d only expect the gun to be confiscated regardless of who owns it.
@TDCN @joland here in the Netherlands the fine for a traffic violation is already up to the owner to sort out. They don’t give AF who drove the car. Your car. Your responsibility. Your problem.
I like that actually
@sheean @TDCN @joland Except it’s not proportional to one’s income. I lived in Denmark and I like how they do things quite a bit better.
@TDCN @joland replacing car with gun or riffle makes it even more absurd. You saying that if I lend a riffle to someone on a hunt, I should bear the consequences for their actions if they miss and hit something? Thankfully the law in rest of Scandinavia isn’t as insane…
There’s a significant difference between an accident and deliberately being wrekless
@TDCN There is nothing about being “wreckless” when borrowing something to someone else. If person has a valid driving license that is all that matters. We ain’t even taking about lending a car to a obviously drunk idiot which is punishable.
But the law will definitely make me think twice before lending my car to anyone.
@joland @TDCN it’s the same as if you crash a borrowed car while doing something that invalidates the insurance, eg racing.
@joland @TDCN yeah but if you borrow your car to someone they could also just total it in an accident and die, and in that case they also won’t be able to give it back to you and you definitely won’t get paid for the car.
This is just one more reason to not borrow your car to people you don’t trust 100%.
@joland @TDCN I think it’s good. Don’t lend your car to friends that you know don’t respect the law
deleted by creator
@joland @TDCN
There is only a problem when the car was stolen from the owner.
@TDCN @threedaymonk exemption for stolen cars?
@sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk yes. Stolen cars are returned to the owner, not confiscated.
@mhgottlieb @TDCN @threedaymonk 👍 would have assumed so.
Sounds like a pretty sensible law. No excuse for reckless driving
@sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk as a Dane, I like the law. Most debate in Denmark has been revolving about all the “what if?” cases. What if it’s a loaned car? Or leased?
Personally I think it’s great that responsibility is also on the owner. If you lend your car to a reckless driver, you always risk losing it. Either because he crashes, or now, because it’s confiscated. So make your own precautions.
@mhgottlieb @sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk As a Canadian who lives in Denmark, I also like the law. If you engage in reckless endangerment of other person’s lives, you should lose your favourite playtoy. If you walk around downtown swinging a machete over your head, and then you hop in your car and drive away at 200 km/h, you should lose the machete and the car.
An argument over whether the machete was borrowed or not are exceptions that can be dealt with in court.
@mhgottlieb @sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk It would, however, be nice if the car companies could align with the expectations of the speed limits. On both of our cars, the minimum possible cruise control speed is 30 km/h. However, there are more than a couple of 20 km/h speed limits in the area.
I know that, of all the things I could complain about in life, this one is well down on the list. However, it’s also not a difficult problem to solve.
@GBU_28 @TDCN In Australia we have a law that lets the police make you watch while they crush your car.
@jessta @GBU_28 @TDCN is it public? can i come and laugh at them?
@yetzt
They often post it to fb/youtube
@jessta @GBU_28 @TDCN
@jessta @GBU_28 @TDCN 😱😱😱
@jessta @GBU_28 @TDCN That’s amazing but how do they *make* you watch?
@GBU_28 @TDCN this is basically an income adjusted fine for breaking the law in egregious ways. Are you also opposed to fines for other bad behavior?
I also appreciate that it gets more people thinking about ways to move without a car. that is more doable in Denmark then in the US, but cars are dangerous, and if you put other at risk so casually I have little sympathy.
It also makes people think twice before lending their car to any random friend
For the sake of conversation, let’s consider some other owned object. I’m grasping here but say you had your computer seized for anti government speech. (I know, not the same as endangering people with a car).
It wouldn’t be right to lose a multi thousand dollar device simply because the government willed it. Certainly not without compensation.
@GBU_28 skip any example that doesn’t routinely involve the single biggest cause of child death in the US. There is no reason for a person to be exceeding the speed limit by double. That’s just gambling with others life and limb.
I think a multi-thousand dollar, income adjusted fine should be the minimum in that case.
The point is I selected an example that had no relation to cars or driving, and no safety context.
The point of the example was ownership, and dealings with the government.
Critical thinking 101
I made clear in earlier comments that I’m aware driving is a privilege and reckless driving is a serious crime
@GBU_28 @TDCN
If leasing companies face no loss, they can continue to lease supercars to morons.
Why are you @'ing everyone? You replied, we will see it.
Leases are not ownership
@GBU_28 @TDCN It’s a fine imposed on the vehicle owner.
Tbh, I think this was instituted after the “fines proportional with income” because drug dealers had fast cars but no official income and were among the most likely to drive extremely recklessly. And they don’t necessarily officially own their own car.
@GBU_28 @TDCN I can get behind a law like this in the states. Too many drunk drivers who kill have had close calls before and were able to get back in their cars and do it over and over. Auction the car and any $ from that should be deemed a fine.
@briankrebs @GBU_28 @TDCN in germany we had cases in front of the court where the truck driver killed f a second time and still got a punishment that was essentially telling him he didn’t do anything severly wrong.
@briankrebs @GBU_28 @TDCN We finally got rid of civil forfeiture. Thank goodness. It was such a corrupting incentive to police forces. It works on the first case, and then it is just abused by municipalities to line everyone’s pocket.
@hwyaden @briankrebs @GBU_28 @TDCN in the Scandinavian countries (except for parking fines) go to the central government and are not dedicated to any special purposes, so there aren’t incentives like that.
If there are any bad incentives involved it’s that police let “small” speeding infractions go with warnings, in order to seem relaxed and be more popular or something.
deleted by creator
@hwyaden @briankrebs @GBU_28 @TDCN The rules are pretty clear in this case. I’m curious how it would be abused and how anyone’s pockets could be lined. Can you explain? Or were you talking more about the concept in general and not so much about the specific Danish scenario?
@hwyaden @briankrebs @GBU_28 @TDCN i guess it depends a lot on your baseline of corruption which I guess is fairly low in denmark. Even if some corruption happens, I’d rather have that than people killing other people.
@GBU_28 @TDCN the compensation is “not getting a life sentence”, I think it’s very fair
As long as it then goes swiftly through the court system to confirm this. Otherwise it is theft, like US asset forfeiture.
@TDCN @GBU_28 no! If you know the consequences beforehand, not a problem!! As the old saying goes, if you can’t serve the time, don’t do the crime.
Sorry I won’t budge on property rights.
Driving is a privilege, and the government can absolutely bar you from using public services (roads) but ownership is a serious thing to me
@GBU_28 @TDCN it’s not a property issue. They are removing a weapon. Like they do it with guns used for committing a crime.
@GBU_28 play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Driving a car is not a right. Especially in Denmark where public transport is an perfectly viable alternative for most of the population.
Totally agree, which I said in my comment.
But owning property is owning it outright. You don’t own it at the whim of someone else.
I in general do not agree with government seizure of property without compensation.
I agree with losing your license, losing the privilege to drive and use public roads, etc.
@GBU_28
I’ve found that people are big fans of government action against people with little or no due process, until it happens to them.
@JegVilleSeShitposts
I don’t know if you’re aligned with me or not
@GBU_28
That really, *really* shouldn’t matter. One of the biggest problems around the world today are people checking for labels and group membership before considering otherwise valid points.
For what it’s worth, I’ve found this behavior exhibited by all groups.
I have no clue what you’re talking about,
I essentially said “I don’t understand the wording of your comment”
@GBU_28 @JegVilleSeShitposts , all property is owned at the whim of someone else !
The person that chooses to work for you, the customer that chooses to buy your goods, the person that chooses to sell their house, etc …
You’re just a care taker for a short while and if you’re mistreating that privilege it should be able to be revoked!
Wrong! You challenge bodily autonomy if you disrespect physical property.
Do you disrespect a person’s bodily autonomy?
@GBU_28 @JegVilleSeShitposts 🤡 Welcome to society.
Childish reply
@GBU_28 @JegVilleSeShitposts How do you feel about steep fines for drunk driving? How is this different?
Fines are fine. I understand at the end of the day they behave similarly. But the value of the car may not be the right amount for the fine, and the citizen may be able to get the best sale price for the car.
@GBU_28 @JegVilleSeShitposts do you also oppose confiscation of guns from murderers?
I do, with compensation. Obviously I am not suggesting there isn’t incarceration happening
@GBU_28 Forfeiture of property involved in committing a crime is standard practice.
So is police brutality.
I’m allowed to have opinions not codified in existing standards
deleted by creator
@GBU_28 @TDCN It is seizure of a dangerous means to commit a crime, it is punishment. And no, you shouldn’t have the money to buy yet another dangerous car.
@GBU_28 @TDCN Yes, but in this case it is rather an illegally owned weapon than a car we are talking about.
@GBU_28 @TDCN, really??
You happily can endanger other people’s lives but can’t have your means to do so taken away?
Same for CEOs of companies going bankrupt: you can take away others livelihood by your decisions but nobody can touch your hording.
That sounds like rich person’s privilege syndrome!
My dude, I said take the car away! Fine them! Take the driving privileges! Just pay them for their property or allow them to sell it!
Man you can’t hold more.thwn one thought at a time huh
@GBU_28 @TDCN Think of the car as a “dual use” item - i.e. you can use it as transport or to (potentially) get other people injured or killed.
The law aims at the second (mis)use. Even though I’m a car-loving German I really second that part of the Danish law and I honestly wish we would have something similar.
@GBU_28 @TDCN
Then don’t drink and speed.
Done.
Where did I say consequences shouldn’t exist? Massive ones?
You have the reading comprehension of a child
@GBU_28
We often have the discussion whether it is an instrument for murder.
So going insanely fast, often within city limits, is considered in comparison to planned homocide.
So why should they hand out the potential weapon, just because you missed someone?
Furthermore we have issues of companies renting out overly powerful cars, so some tourists can go crazy on our autobahn in a Ferrari.
IMHO this business model is insane and this is a valid way to stop it.
Would love this in De.
@TDCN
deleted by creator