In Denmark we have the lovely new law that if you drive more than 100% over the speed limit and over 100 kmh or drive over 200 kmh at all or drunk driving with over 2‰ they confiscate the car and you are not getting it back at all. They confiscate the car regadles of who owns the car (with very few exceptions) and that is also if it is leased. So far since when the law started they have confiscated over 2000 cars in two years. It’s my favourite law of all laws right now. The fine for driving crazy is also nicely proportional to your income and it removes the car so the person cannot just drive without license afterwards.
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.
@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?
@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.
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.
@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 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 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@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 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 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 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
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.
Lol thank for letting me know. That’s definitely interesting. I ditched Reddit so don’t really care for karma farmers. They could at least have linked to my original post but it’s Reddit after all so what can you expect. Funny it gets reposted back to lemmy
It is already super expensive for a normal speeding ticket so yes people are really careful. Still people speed everywhere it’s just only a little over
@TDCN@Showroom7561 In my hometown its kind of a hobby to rent fancy sports cars for the weekend and this is as stupid as it sounds. I would love this law for Germany as well.
@TDCN@Showroom7561 I’ll be honest I think it’s an an odd stance to take to say confiscation is wrong. The 100 kmh limit is about 60 mph, to be over 100% that means the limit is 30 mph. This limit is normally through a town, village or urban area. So if someone drives at 60 mph down the high street, that’s not just a “little bit of speeding”, that’s completely reckless
@adam_straughan@TDCN@Showroom7561 I mean there should just be a pigovian tax. it shouldn’t depend on what car you’re driving. this is economic illiteracy.
@TDCN@Showroom7561 unfortunately, police in the US have a great deal of leeway in how and when they enforce laws like this. I’m sure some wealthy individuals would get punished, but as is often the case over here, non-whites would probably be disproportionately represented as they already are with civil forfeitures. Conversely, I am all for the drivers of White BMW/AUDI SUVs having their cars seized and crushed, you know who you are.
@TDCN@Showroom7561 do you know why they put the 100kmh limit on? Driving double the limit in an urban area is more likely to kill someone than a deserted rural road.
@TDCN@acs 5 out of 5 pedestrians will survive a collision with a car traveling at 20km/hr, only 4 out of 5 will survive a collision with a car traveling at 40km/h.
This doesn’t include the large difference in level of injury.
So by speeding your taking a situation where nobody should die and making it a situation where someone might.
A 20km/h area is an area where there will be lots of people to hit so it’s even more important to stick to the speed limit in that situation
@jessta@TDCN 20kph is also the extreme end of the scale. The figures get even worse if you are going at 80 in a 40 zone, only 1 person in 4 will survive that.
You still get a massive fine of 1200 kr (175usd) in this case at 20kmh and at only 30% above you get a “cut in your license” (like a yellow card in football). 3 of those “cuts” and you have to get a new licens. 60% above the limit they outright take your licens and the fine goes up. If the speed limit is reduced due to road work the fine is doubled. And many more rules. If you are a student or pensioner you fine gets halfed for instance.
Besides the fine if you go at 60% or above you also need to pay 500kr or more to a “victims” fond that raises money for the victims of traffic accidents.
@TDCN
To seize the property of someone who isn’t the perpetrator goes against my sense of right and wrong and is normally a signpost of fascist governments. @Showroom7561
@EikeLeidgens@TDCN@Showroom7561 I also doubt that the part of the law that allows the car to be confiscated if the owner wasn’t the driver would survive a trial at the Bundesverfassungsgericht. I understand why they are doing it that way in Denmark but think it goes over the top. Someone who isn’t guilty shouldn’t be punished.
@TDCN@Showroom7561 What would happen to Carsharing Organisations? Forcing them to drop these customers would be fine but confiscating their cars would be a very bad idea IMO.
It’s the same if I’d total the car driving drunk or similar behaviors. They have comprehensive insurance but that doesn’t cover reckless behavior so the risk is there already that they need to recover money from their members.
It’s a huge co-op - 30.000 drivers, 1.600 cars, close to 30 years experience. They can probably calculate the risks accordingly.
@FanCityKnits
This may be true for this co-op, but not for smaller ones. And I’m pretty sure that they can have insurance that compensates reckless behaviour by a third party and then tries to recover the cost there.
Anyway, I still see a big difference if the cost comes from direct action of the member or from the government inflicting costs to a non-perpetrator. Fascist policies seem to be en vogue. @giggls@TDCN@Showroom7561
It’s the action of the member that inflicts the cost.
Whether they total the car driving drunk or get it confiscated because of reckless driving - the car is gone. Reckless behavior has consequences and they are known up front.
“If you get drunk and drive we’ll kill your firstborn. No it wasn’t the government who killed the child, it was your action.” That’s *structurally* the same, and it is wrong.
And yes, reckless behaviour as in criminally risking the live of others should have severe consequences. But not for some co-op, the employer, other family members, friends, and so on. Collective punishment is a fascist idea, full stop. @giggls@TDCN@Showroom7561
@TDCN in some Australian states they impound your vehicle for various offences beyond just speeding and if they are severe enough they crush the car and share media of it in some cases https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ETtwBWe9yQc
@TDCN@Showroom7561 Rich person drives 240kmh drunk out of their mind, loses expensive car, gets another the next day because it’s still just pocket change to them.
Boyfriend “borrows” the old-but-working car of his abused girlfriend who’s barely making it paycheck to paycheck, drives 110kph, her car gets seized and she now has no hope of escape.
An extreme comparison? Yes. But it illustrates that nice simple one-size-fits-all laws often have abhorrent results.
I forgot to also add that they obviously don’t just take the car from the owner as the only thing with this kind of offence (obviously, otherwise it’ll be a dumb law). On top there’s a huge fine for the driver and they take your lisence and you are banned from driving for X amount of years. You have to pay for a completely new drivers license which is really expensive but mire importantly really time-consuming in Denmark we are talking weeks of training and mandatory tests, first aid exam and hours of theory and practical lessons. There are payments to a fond that raises money for traffic victims and possibly jail time if you drove exceptionally wreklessly or drunk. Even if you are rich this is not just “pocket money” there’s more context than you think.
@TDCN I envy you for having reason to believe that’s how things actually work most of the time. Here in the United Empire of Profit not nearly so many people believe that any more, because (as with “if you’re innocent and can’t afford a lawyer you’ll get equal justice from a public defender”) there are so many counter-examples to demonstrate that’s not how things actually work in practice.
@TDCN@Showroom7561 This sounds terrific. Do you have a link to that law please. (In Danish is fine). I want to use it as an example for discussion leading up to my city’s elections next year. It will upset the many car brains who run my city. 😀
It’s not a single law to say but changes to the existing law so the actual writing is spread out over a few paragraphs. Here’s a link for the entire traffic law LINK
Start at §119 about confiscation and §133 about offences that causes you to loose your licens. The details can be a bit difficult to sift out. It’s law stuff I guess.
@melissabeartrix@TDCN@Showroom7561
Counterpoint: some roads switch between 70km/h or 80km/h and 40km/h based on time of day; so you’re on a road engineered for 70-80km/h, there are no children anywhere because school won’t be out for another half an hour, but it’s already 75% or 100% over the speed limit if you mistake the time
@sabik@TDCN@Showroom7561 we have the same thing here … 80km down to 40km during school days … But I understand … May be a change … If you go 50% the speed limit in 60 and over the speed limit would be better … Hugz
Also I think there should be an instant loss of vehicle and licence if you double park in the school zone to let your children out … and if you live within 500 meter of that school zone, you never get to drive again
I just tried looking uh up and it’s still too early to say. Of course the car lobby ar criticising the law and asking why they are not year concluding anything yet but to be fair it has just been covid and 2 years is just so short to see any impact to the statistics.
In my own opinion I think it must work. It’s a specific type of people who drive wreklessly and often in groups of “cool guys”. If you start to remove cars from those groups they will be more hesitant to lend each other cars. If they get impacted the story will carry more impact than a massive fine. A car is very a physical object and is more visible than a debt. If a dad find his son drove wreklessly and got the car confiscated it wil be a stronger lesson for both the father and the son. I can be unfair but we have tried fines for so long and it has not worked. We already have the some of the biggest fines for traffic violations in the world.
@TDCN But naively, isn’t this also some sort of “never let a friend borrow your car”? Wouldn’t that encourage middle-class people who don’t own a car because they can sometimes borrow one to just buy one now? I suppose this is a miniscule percentage, but still. (Disclaimer: Am German, currently I have no car of my own, and averaged like 1 speeding ticket per 7 years of driving)
Maybe it will, but good second hand cars are not that difficult to get hold of. But people still lend eachother their cars, but I guess in suirtain groups of people where driving super fast is “cool” they’ll be more hesitant which is good because then the law is working
@TDCN Yeah don’t get me wrong, I think it will probably a net positive and I definitely would wish for harsher penalties here… but I can simply imagine a lot of “false positives” that could end catastrophically.
E.g. basically everyone here has a story where at a construction site on a highway/country road the signage was horrible and they breezed through the temporary 30/50 zone with the normal 100/120, just because there are no real rules. You can have a limit to any arbitrary number on the unlimited stretches of the highway, so there’s no “oh, construction zone, this must be 50 now”, no it could be any of: 100,80,70,60,50,40,30.
I don’t understand what you mean, of course they work and then if its high they verify with a blod sample to verify and to give you the benefit of the doubt
@TDCN@Showroom7561 Perfect timing, netherlands is planning a law to ban cash transaction over 3000 so you both just meet in germany and voila cheap cars for the cartells and you have regular traffic laws, so people stay in denmark.
@TDCN@Showroom7561 So if it is leased, do they sell the car and pay off the lease? Or do you have to pay for insurance that covers the lease holder if this happens? I guarantee you the banks that finance leases are not just eating that.
Here in the USA it is almost routine for the drunk who finally causes a fatal accident to have six DUIs, a .15 BAC, and a revoked license at the time of the mishap.
I think in the US, car leasing is more common than in Europe.
it also looks like to me that it is more acceptable to put someone in jail for a prolonged period of time even for minor offenses, than to confiscate material stuff for similar offenses.
@elCelio@TDCN This is true when it comes to car type violations. You can easily get yourself jailed for unpaid traffic tickets or street racing. It’s just about guaranteed for DUI - there are a lot of anti-DUI pressure groups. But you will still have the car when you get out and lots of people drive without a license. That gets you jailed too, but in large parts of the USA not having a license is basically house arrest anyway.
Drug and money offenses get property seized. Especially cash.
@TDCN@Showroom7561 it’s very nice as an idea, but I doubt it’s constitutional, I fear that a good lawyer would be able to get back your car. You would need the money to hire a good lawyer though.
Nope, doesn’t work like that here. We don’t have constitutions the way you do on the US. Many cases have been tried in court and the offender lost in many cases
@TDCN@Showroom7561 wow this is incredible! Now definitely this becomes one of my favourite laws too, while admittedly I never considered I could have any such favourite list.
The law works because if he was just slapped with a fine that’s just like saying "yes you can drive like a maniac as long as you just pay and he can clearly afford it. This way he’s stopped properly and will probably never be speeding again in dk
I do t agree on the crushing aspect of this law. It’s environmental iresponsibil and stupid. Just sell/auktion the car and spend the money on making better traffic safety
@TDCN@Showroom7561 We have to do something in Amer. about this terrible problem. The laws we have now are pretty tough, but these morons who like to drink and drive just AREN’T getting it. Think Denmark is too tough ? Ask the families of the dead victims that have been murdered by drunk drivers !! This crap has got to stop !!
@TDCN@Showroom7561 I assume they keep the car, so they get to steal innocent people’s cars (belonging to people who committed no crimes) and keep them for profit.
@TDCN Solid plan. Property seizure as an outcome of breaking the law seems completely reasonable in these circumstances, in the same way other items used to commission crimes of violence would be confiscated.
@TDCN@Showroom7561 I think you mean blood/alcohol level of .2% - at 2% you would be long dead. And .2% is not driving drunk, that’s driving practically passed out. To be that drunk a 50kg dude would need to have 7 drinks in an hour. That person needs detox, not a car.
@Z_Zed_Zed@TDCN@Showroom7561 2‰ = 0.2%. The per-thousand sign isn’t used often in informal English, but if someone took the effort to select the character, they probably meant it. 🙂
Exactly. In Danish we exclusively use promill (per thousands) for blood alcohol level so it’s a habit for me to use ‰ or more commonly the written form promille
@TDCN in Brazil if you are driving with ANY level of alcohol (limit is ZERO) you are arrested, and in case of accident you are most likely the guilt part.
@TDCN@Showroom7561 The law seems inspired by the Swiss. They have had proportional fines for long (e.g. I recall the wealthy Finn racing in CH in his sports car and had to pay a fortune). Car removal is probably common in CH as well.
Lithuania also has a similar law (so it clearly doesn’t conflict with any EU human rights legislation), they were donating the confiscated vehicles of DUI offenders to the war effort in Ukraine…
UK has speeding fines partly proportional to income (albeit with maximum of about £1500 or £2000, so still not a deterrent to superrich) and strong penalties for DUI (min 12 months driving ban + fine and 11 years of higher insurance premiums), but vehicles are only confiscated (usually temporarily) for Section 59 offences which normally involve deliberate anti-social driving (doughnuts, drifting, making noise in public areas with illegal exhaust mods) >>
the problem with 20mph zones in some parts of UK is resources aren’t always put into enforcement; which requires either “boots on the ground” and/or cameras - both aren’t cheap and they are often in middle class residential areas where folk get paranoid about any CCTV camera; even if it is clearly there for traffic enforcement purposes…
in England most of these areas are far from sudden, there are plenty of prominent speed limit signs. Also cops aren’t allowed to directly keep the revenue from speed camera fines, they go to a “road safety partnership” which is a mix of public sector organisations; and are reinvested in road safety measures. in a well designed 20mph (or 30mph) zone there are usually other physical traffic calming measures such as road narrowing, bollards etc
@vfrmedia@social.tchncs.de @mike805@noc.social @stahlbrandt@infosec.exchange @TDCN@feddit.dk @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca yeah, speed traps are something very different from an area that should have a low speed limit.
so the classical form of speed trap in the US is a small town along a state or US route - not many people live there, there’s not much of an economy at all (the one nearest me doesn’t have any grocery store, even, you have to go a few miles to the next town over), but they have a well-staffed police department, and they may or may not have decent public services for the few people and businesses that are there. this is because the police department’s job is to bring money into the town, from traffic offenses. they don’t keep all of it, but because they, not the tax department, are the primary revenue source for the town, they get what they want. to maximize revenue, they have to induce offenses.
usually this means a couple strategies: speed limit reductions that are more severe than expected or in places that they’re not expected, and trying to hide the speed limit signs (behind overgrown tree branches is a common strategy). in my state, the typical way you enter a municipality is, you reduce from the 55 MPH speed limit that most 2-lane rural roads use, to 35 MPH at the municipal limits which typically coincide with where things get built up, and 25 MPH in downtown or on residential side streets. a common speed trap pattern is to have the village limits far away from where things get built up, and drop the speed limit to 25 MPH at the limits (or, more insidiously, post 55 MPH at the village limit sign which overrides the 35 MPH default within municipal limits, then drop it to 25 a bit later. bonus points if the 25 MPH sign is hidden. and you know there’s a cop hiding right after that.)
there was actually an extreme case of that in my state where a speed trap town’s entire government was one family that also ran the police department and the village traffic court, and the police department was doing classic bastard shit like pulling people over, smashing their tail light with a baton, and then ticketing them for the tail light being broken. they were also doing shit like calling in false police chases to the highway patrol, and it actually got to the point where the highway patrol publicly said they wouldn’t continue any chases that this village’s police started, as long as you were down to the speed limit by the time you got out of village limits. IIRC the state ended up passing laws to make that village illegal, and then dissolved it.
@vfrmedia@social.tchncs.de @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca @TDCN@feddit.dk @mike805@noc.social @stahlbrandt@infosec.exchange also there’s the whole thing with cameras in the US, which could be a great tool to improve safety (as a band-aid until infrastructure can be fixed)
problem is that most of them are privately-run, the private company collects the fine and kicks back a portion to the municipality, and the private company expects a return on their investment, and the municipality is asked to ensure that there’s enough offenses to justify the camera. this means that dangerous road designs that encourage excessive speed become desirable, and things like yellow light timing are reduced to legal minimums (or in some cases, below legal minimums) to encourage red light running. (IIRC what ends up happening in US municipalities that deploy privatized cameras, is that T-bone crashes and fatalities do actually go down, but rear-end crashes go up significantly because of people going for sudden full brake applications on yellow lights to try to avoid a fine, due to how short the yellows are.)
(the solution here isn’t to get rid of cameras necessarily, it’s to prohibit private ownership and fine collection from the cameras, and to direct revenue properly to avoid perverse incentives.)
@bhtooefr@TDCN@stahlbrandt@Showroom7561@vfrmedia You had small town abuses like that where they were planting weed and seizing cars too. Small towns can get absurdly corrupt because only a few people control everything and they all know each other. This was the original purpose of the FBI before it too got corrupted by DC politics.
@vfrmedia@stahlbrandt@TDCN@Showroom7561 The better solution for that isn’t enforcement, but changing road layout in a way that makes 20 mph the maximum that one would like to drive. Still that takes investment and time.
in many parts of England we do have speed reducing layouts (for both 20 and 30 mph roads) such as road narrowing with pedestrian refuges every few hundred metres, and most 20mph streets have parked cars either side.
Even so, there are still those sociopathic motorists who will flout the limits, some even see it as a “protest” similar to environment activists but from the other side. Maybe UK has more of these than other Northern European countries?
@TDCN@Showroom7561 (reading the answers I’m once again struck by the similarity of European car lovers arguments with the NRA arguments. “What if I am running from 40 amok wild boars?”)
@TDCN@Showroom7561 Personally, I think banning.someone from driving hurts them harder than loosing a vehicle, as one can’t just get a new driving license - the loophole that allowed one to just make a new license in another EU member state has been closed for those barred from (re)issue of a license.
I said “or more” because I don’t know the details. Depending on what you did you can get banned for much longer or even face jail time if it’s very severe. It’s individual and depends on the offence
@TDCN Like there’s difference between “driving fast” and "being an antisocial asshole and seemingly wanting to commit vehicular assault against any random person that happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
@TDCN@Showroom7561 I really like this law in principle, but without *free* rehab, or really any other drug recovery assistance, and without a good social safety net, it does inordinately punish poor people. Yes, if the person is a rich asshole, 300% take *all* their cars. But sometimes the person is poor and using alcohol to just feel less shitty about their life and need the car to be able to have a job. Not that that’s good, but it *is* a reason to not take their car…
@neonregent@TDCN@Showroom7561 It’s Denmark. Country with functional public transport system. Country, where you really don’t need to own a car to have a job…
@kytkosaurus@TDCN@Showroom7561 and in Denmark, this is an excellent law! In the US, it absolutely isn’t. But people see it working (I assume?) in Denmark and think “yeah,we should do that here!” and don’t think about the disparate consequences for poor people in places where a car isn’t just a commodity but a prerequisite for living on par with (and arguably more so) a house or apartment that often people can’t afford to replace once lost.
@neonregent@TDCN@Showroom7561 True. Although any place, where it is necessary to own a car to get work is in deep problems and should immediately think about how it got into this stupid situation and how to get from it as quickly as possible.
It will make them much more livable and bring an important part of freedom to their citizens.
@Showroom7561@TDCN all the “but they need a car” people in the comments should also take a look at the amazing public transit options in Denmark and think about how that could make their life great (especially us USians)
Just don’t lend the car out to anyone you don’t fully trust. Take responsibility of your vehicle and make it clear to the borrower that he/she should drive properly regardles of that being your mom or your best friend. If the car is taken without your consent it’s theft and grounds for the exceptions in the law so you get it back.
Okay hers the thing. It’s naive to think that it’s just “nothing” for rich people. You have to take the rest of the law into consideration. They obviously don’t just take the car from the owner as the only thing with this kind of extream offence (obviously, otherwise it’ll be a dumb law). On top there’s a huge (and I mean huge) fine for the driver and they take your lisence and you are completely banned from driving for X amount of years. After the ban you have to pay for a completely new drivers license which is really expensive but more importantly really time-consuming in Denmark. We are talking weeks of training and mandatory tests, first aid exam and hours of theory and practical lessons. There are payments to a fond that raises money for traffic victims and for multiple offenses or if you drove exceptionally wreklessly there’s possibly jail time. Even if you are rich this is not just “pocket money” there’s more context than you think.
@jessta@TDCN@Showroom7561 it’s almost as if speeding fines are more about creating a revenue stream for the government than they are about preventing speeding 🤔
@nicklockwood@TDCN@Showroom7561 no, it’s just politically impossible to mandate speed limiters. Governments tried 50yrs ago and haven’t tried again since. Car manufacturers want people to know they can speed. It’s all over their marketing.
@jessta@TDCN@Showroom7561 if they really wanted to they could use the traffic camera network that already tracks numbers plates to do average speed checks on every car and issue fines automatically. I suspect they don’t because then traffic would grind to a halt.
Why would it grind to a haltm I see no reason for this. People just need to drive the speed limit. In Norway for example they have cameras at the begining of long stretches of highway and a camera at the end and if your average speed is higher than allowed it automatically sends you a fine. Those stretches of road are soooo nice to drive because everyone are driving the same speed and it’s so smooth
@TDCN@Showroom7561 it obviously shouldn’t be proportional to your income, it should be set to the actual negative externality cost. this is a failure to understand basic economics. If we can save more statistical lives with the money from the tax then the statistical expected loss, then we want these people speeding and paying for it.
In Denmark we have the lovely new law that if you drive more than 100% over the speed limit and over 100 kmh or drive over 200 kmh at all or drunk driving with over 2‰ they confiscate the car and you are not getting it back at all. They confiscate the car regadles of who owns the car (with very few exceptions) and that is also if it is leased. So far since when the law started they have confiscated over 2000 cars in two years. It’s my favourite law of all laws right now. The fine for driving crazy is also nicely proportional to your income and it removes the car so the person cannot just drive without license afterwards.
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 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?
deleted by creator
@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.
@TDCN @GBU_28 https://www.advrider.com/danish-police-confiscate-about-three-vehicles-a-day/
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.
@joland @TDCN it’s the same as if you crash a borrowed car while doing something that invalidates the insurance, eg racing.
deleted by creator
@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
@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.
@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 That’s amazing but how do they *make* you watch?
@jessta @GBU_28 @TDCN 😱😱😱
@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 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 @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 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
@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.
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
It also makes people think twice before lending their car to any random friend
@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 @TDCN Yes, but in this case it is rather an illegally owned weapon than a car we are talking about.
@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.
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.
@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, 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
As long as it then goes swiftly through the court system to confirm this. Otherwise it is theft, like US asset forfeiture.
@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 the compensation is “not getting a life sentence”, I think it’s very fair
@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 it’s not a property issue. They are removing a weapon. Like they do it with guns used for committing a crime.
@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 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 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 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
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
@TDCN @Showroom7561 the best law ever, and soooo sweet that this sucker got his new car confiscated: https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/shakhwan-ameen-ble-tatt-i-fartskontroll-i-danmark-_-far-ikke-tilbake-sin-splitter-nye-lamborghini-1.16446941
Åh jeg elsker denne historie. Det er det toppen af det bedste
@TDCN “Carma is a bitch” :)
deleted by creator
Lol thank for letting me know. That’s definitely interesting. I ditched Reddit so don’t really care for karma farmers. They could at least have linked to my original post but it’s Reddit after all so what can you expect. Funny it gets reposted back to lemmy
deleted by creator
It is already super expensive for a normal speeding ticket so yes people are really careful. Still people speed everywhere it’s just only a little over
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Exactly
@TDCN I do admire the Danish pragmatism endlessly. One of my favorite countries. Thanks for sharing.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 In my hometown its kind of a hobby to rent fancy sports cars for the weekend and this is as stupid as it sounds. I would love this law for Germany as well.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 I’ll be honest I think it’s an an odd stance to take to say confiscation is wrong. The 100 kmh limit is about 60 mph, to be over 100% that means the limit is 30 mph. This limit is normally through a town, village or urban area. So if someone drives at 60 mph down the high street, that’s not just a “little bit of speeding”, that’s completely reckless
@adam_straughan @TDCN @Showroom7561 I mean there should just be a pigovian tax. it shouldn’t depend on what car you’re driving. this is economic illiteracy.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 Impossible in Germany 😄 But it sounds very good - and easy to understand
@TDCN @Showroom7561 Sounds like a good idea indeed. Only one remark: what if the car is shared by 2 persons?
@alternative_be @TDCN @Showroom7561 then it’s gone for both, I guess, as it’s even confiscated from car sharing companies.
It’s still confiscate. The law is pretty clear that it pretty much doesn’t matter who owns the car.
@TDCN in a lot of US jurisdictions those would lead to arrest. Hazardous driving of that magnitude is almost unheard of.
@standev @TDCN i imagine there are plenty of “40 in a 20 zone” in the us
@TDCN @Showroom7561 unfortunately, police in the US have a great deal of leeway in how and when they enforce laws like this. I’m sure some wealthy individuals would get punished, but as is often the case over here, non-whites would probably be disproportionately represented as they already are with civil forfeitures. Conversely, I am all for the drivers of White BMW/AUDI SUVs having their cars seized and crushed, you know who you are.
deleted by creator
@TDCN @Showroom7561 do you know why they put the 100kmh limit on? Driving double the limit in an urban area is more likely to kill someone than a deserted rural road.
If you have a 20kmh zone it sounds unreasonable to get your car taken if you drive only 40 kmh. 40 is still quite slow
@TDCN @acs 5 out of 5 pedestrians will survive a collision with a car traveling at 20km/hr, only 4 out of 5 will survive a collision with a car traveling at 40km/h.
This doesn’t include the large difference in level of injury.
So by speeding your taking a situation where nobody should die and making it a situation where someone might.
A 20km/h area is an area where there will be lots of people to hit so it’s even more important to stick to the speed limit in that situation
@jessta @TDCN 20kph is also the extreme end of the scale. The figures get even worse if you are going at 80 in a 40 zone, only 1 person in 4 will survive that.
@acs @TDCN Ideally it shouldn’t be possible to actually go 80km/h in a 40km/hr area, at least not without immediately crashing your car.
You still get a massive fine of 1200 kr (175usd) in this case at 20kmh and at only 30% above you get a “cut in your license” (like a yellow card in football). 3 of those “cuts” and you have to get a new licens. 60% above the limit they outright take your licens and the fine goes up. If the speed limit is reduced due to road work the fine is doubled. And many more rules. If you are a student or pensioner you fine gets halfed for instance. Besides the fine if you go at 60% or above you also need to pay 500kr or more to a “victims” fond that raises money for the victims of traffic accidents.
@TDCN
To seize the property of someone who isn’t the perpetrator goes against my sense of right and wrong and is normally a signpost of fascist governments.
@Showroom7561
@TDCN @Showroom7561
I love it!
But it would need a revolution to get a law like that in Germany… 🫤
@EikeLeidgens @TDCN @Showroom7561 I also doubt that the part of the law that allows the car to be confiscated if the owner wasn’t the driver would survive a trial at the Bundesverfassungsgericht. I understand why they are doing it that way in Denmark but think it goes over the top. Someone who isn’t guilty shouldn’t be punished.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 What would happen to Carsharing Organisations? Forcing them to drop these customers would be fine but confiscating their cars would be a very bad idea IMO.
@giggls @TDCN @Showroom7561
They probably have to go after the person who lost the car for compensation.
I’m in a car sharing co-op in Germany and if I loose the vehicle because of recklessness I’d need to pay up for that.
@FanCityKnits
If you have the money.
@giggls @TDCN @Showroom7561
@jnfingerle @giggls @TDCN @Showroom7561
It’s the same if I’d total the car driving drunk or similar behaviors. They have comprehensive insurance but that doesn’t cover reckless behavior so the risk is there already that they need to recover money from their members.
It’s a huge co-op - 30.000 drivers, 1.600 cars, close to 30 years experience. They can probably calculate the risks accordingly.
@FanCityKnits
This may be true for this co-op, but not for smaller ones. And I’m pretty sure that they can have insurance that compensates reckless behaviour by a third party and then tries to recover the cost there.
Anyway, I still see a big difference if the cost comes from direct action of the member or from the government inflicting costs to a non-perpetrator. Fascist policies seem to be en vogue.
@giggls @TDCN @Showroom7561
@jnfingerle @giggls @TDCN @Showroom7561
It’s the action of the member that inflicts the cost.
Whether they total the car driving drunk or get it confiscated because of reckless driving - the car is gone. Reckless behavior has consequences and they are known up front.
@FanCityKnits
This isn’t true, and you know it.
“If you get drunk and drive we’ll kill your firstborn. No it wasn’t the government who killed the child, it was your action.” That’s *structurally* the same, and it is wrong.
And yes, reckless behaviour as in criminally risking the live of others should have severe consequences. But not for some co-op, the employer, other family members, friends, and so on. Collective punishment is a fascist idea, full stop.
@giggls @TDCN @Showroom7561
@jnfingerle @giggls @TDCN @Showroom7561
Hyperbole some?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
@TDCN @Showroom7561 excellent!!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Oh you be dead if you walk on a bike lane 😅☠️
deleted by creator
@TDCN in some Australian states they impound your vehicle for various offences beyond just speeding and if they are severe enough they crush the car and share media of it in some cases https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ETtwBWe9yQc
@TDCN @Showroom7561 This is The Way.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 We need such a law in Germany. Very urgently!
@TDCN @Showroom7561 Rich person drives 240kmh drunk out of their mind, loses expensive car, gets another the next day because it’s still just pocket change to them.
Boyfriend “borrows” the old-but-working car of his abused girlfriend who’s barely making it paycheck to paycheck, drives 110kph, her car gets seized and she now has no hope of escape.
An extreme comparison? Yes. But it illustrates that nice simple one-size-fits-all laws often have abhorrent results.
I forgot to also add that they obviously don’t just take the car from the owner as the only thing with this kind of offence (obviously, otherwise it’ll be a dumb law). On top there’s a huge fine for the driver and they take your lisence and you are banned from driving for X amount of years. You have to pay for a completely new drivers license which is really expensive but mire importantly really time-consuming in Denmark we are talking weeks of training and mandatory tests, first aid exam and hours of theory and practical lessons. There are payments to a fond that raises money for traffic victims and possibly jail time if you drove exceptionally wreklessly or drunk. Even if you are rich this is not just “pocket money” there’s more context than you think.
There are exemptions in the law for this exact matter. It states of the punishment is unreasonably hard on the owner they can get it back
@TDCN I envy you for having reason to believe that’s how things actually work most of the time. Here in the United Empire of Profit not nearly so many people believe that any more, because (as with “if you’re innocent and can’t afford a lawyer you’ll get equal justice from a public defender”) there are so many counter-examples to demonstrate that’s not how things actually work in practice.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 This sounds terrific. Do you have a link to that law please. (In Danish is fine). I want to use it as an example for discussion leading up to my city’s elections next year. It will upset the many car brains who run my city. 😀
It’s not a single law to say but changes to the existing law so the actual writing is spread out over a few paragraphs. Here’s a link for the entire traffic law LINK Start at §119 about confiscation and §133 about offences that causes you to loose your licens. The details can be a bit difficult to sift out. It’s law stuff I guess.
@TDCN Thanks very much!
@TDCN @Showroom7561 this makes me very happy
@TDCN @Showroom7561
CC: @TheWarOnCars
@TDCN @Showroom7561 onfeel they should drop the driving to 50% over the speed limit … Very generous with 100%
Hugz & xXx
@melissabeartrix @TDCN @Showroom7561
Counterpoint: some roads switch between 70km/h or 80km/h and 40km/h based on time of day; so you’re on a road engineered for 70-80km/h, there are no children anywhere because school won’t be out for another half an hour, but it’s already 75% or 100% over the speed limit if you mistake the time
The law states that it has to be 100% over AND over 100 kmh fo for a 40 zone you’d have to driver over 100kmh for the car to be confiscated
@sabik @TDCN @Showroom7561 we have the same thing here … 80km down to 40km during school days … But I understand … May be a change … If you go 50% the speed limit in 60 and over the speed limit would be better … Hugz
Also I think there should be an instant loss of vehicle and licence if you double park in the school zone to let your children out … and if you live within 500 meter of that school zone, you never get to drive again
Yes I am tough … Giggles
Hugz & xXx
@melissabeartrix @TDCN @Showroom7561
I believe we live in the same city 🙂
@sabik @TDCN @Showroom7561 hugz
Cool … I didn’t know that … Hugz
Hugz & xXx
@TDCN Sounds interesting. Does the law work - in the sense that it deters people from driving recklessly, or is it too early to tell?
I just tried looking uh up and it’s still too early to say. Of course the car lobby ar criticising the law and asking why they are not year concluding anything yet but to be fair it has just been covid and 2 years is just so short to see any impact to the statistics. In my own opinion I think it must work. It’s a specific type of people who drive wreklessly and often in groups of “cool guys”. If you start to remove cars from those groups they will be more hesitant to lend each other cars. If they get impacted the story will carry more impact than a massive fine. A car is very a physical object and is more visible than a debt. If a dad find his son drove wreklessly and got the car confiscated it wil be a stronger lesson for both the father and the son. I can be unfair but we have tried fines for so long and it has not worked. We already have the some of the biggest fines for traffic violations in the world.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 oooh! what happens in case of theft? Is it still confiscated from the owner?
That’s probably the exceptions I mentioned. I’m no expert, bit of be unreasonable to the owner if the car was stolen.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 I just cackled. I’d love to have this law in Germany!!
@TDCN But naively, isn’t this also some sort of “never let a friend borrow your car”? Wouldn’t that encourage middle-class people who don’t own a car because they can sometimes borrow one to just buy one now? I suppose this is a miniscule percentage, but still. (Disclaimer: Am German, currently I have no car of my own, and averaged like 1 speeding ticket per 7 years of driving)
Maybe it will, but good second hand cars are not that difficult to get hold of. But people still lend eachother their cars, but I guess in suirtain groups of people where driving super fast is “cool” they’ll be more hesitant which is good because then the law is working
@TDCN Yeah don’t get me wrong, I think it will probably a net positive and I definitely would wish for harsher penalties here… but I can simply imagine a lot of “false positives” that could end catastrophically.
E.g. basically everyone here has a story where at a construction site on a highway/country road the signage was horrible and they breezed through the temporary 30/50 zone with the normal 100/120, just because there are no real rules. You can have a limit to any arbitrary number on the unlimited stretches of the highway, so there’s no “oh, construction zone, this must be 50 now”, no it could be any of: 100,80,70,60,50,40,30.
Signage is suuuuper well here so no excuses at all for this sorry. And if you can prove the signs are wrong I guess you can take it up in court.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 do you have breathalyzer tests that actually work in normal use here? because if not this is just stealing cars, lol
I don’t understand what you mean, of course they work and then if its high they verify with a blod sample to verify and to give you the benefit of the doubt
@TDCN oh i’m just from a country that uses breathalizers as evidence on their own and they don’t actually work
Damn that’s shity… I feel sorry for you.
@TDCN @Showroom7561
💚 💚 💚
i want this for all of 🇪🇺
@TDCN @Showroom7561 Perfect timing, netherlands is planning a law to ban cash transaction over 3000 so you both just meet in germany and voila cheap cars for the cartells and you have regular traffic laws, so people stay in denmark.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 So if it is leased, do they sell the car and pay off the lease? Or do you have to pay for insurance that covers the lease holder if this happens? I guarantee you the banks that finance leases are not just eating that.
Here in the USA it is almost routine for the drunk who finally causes a fatal accident to have six DUIs, a .15 BAC, and a revoked license at the time of the mishap.
Tbh I have no idea how it works in practice but I’d assume the leasing companies will just pass on the cost to the offender
@TDCN @mike805
I think in the US, car leasing is more common than in Europe.
it also looks like to me that it is more acceptable to put someone in jail for a prolonged period of time even for minor offenses, than to confiscate material stuff for similar offenses.
@elCelio @TDCN This is true when it comes to car type violations. You can easily get yourself jailed for unpaid traffic tickets or street racing. It’s just about guaranteed for DUI - there are a lot of anti-DUI pressure groups. But you will still have the car when you get out and lots of people drive without a license. That gets you jailed too, but in large parts of the USA not having a license is basically house arrest anyway.
Drug and money offenses get property seized. Especially cash.
@TDCN @mike805 I know that rental agencies remind you that you will be liable for the full cost of the car if it is confiscated.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 it’s very nice as an idea, but I doubt it’s constitutional, I fear that a good lawyer would be able to get back your car. You would need the money to hire a good lawyer though.
Nope, doesn’t work like that here. We don’t have constitutions the way you do on the US. Many cases have been tried in court and the offender lost in many cases
@TDCN @Showroom7561 wow this is incredible! Now definitely this becomes one of my favourite laws too, while admittedly I never considered I could have any such favourite list.
@TDCN what is 2‰? I am not familiar with the notation. Is that 0.2%?
You got it.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 😍
@TDCN @Showroom7561
Yes! More of this. ESPECIALLY taking BMWs and Mercedes away from rich douchenozzles.
We need this in the US so badly.
A Norwegian rich man went to Germany and bought a brand new supercar for millions and got stoped for driving 228 kmh on the highway in Denmark on the way home so the confiscated his car and he didn’t get it back. Fucking love that story. Article below but in Norwegian. Thanks to @atlefren@snabelen.no for the link https://www.nrk.no/rogaland/shakhwan-ameen-ble-tatt-i-fartskontroll-i-danmark-_-far-ikke-tilbake-sin-splitter-nye-lamborghini-1.16446941
deleted by creator
@floris @TDCN @atlefren
They’re thinking they’re better than the rest of us - that the rest of us do not matter.
They think they’re royalty. Ordained by god to suffer no consequences for putting others at literally grave risk.
It is immoral for anyone - ANYONE - to hoard enough wealth to afford a multi-million-dollar/euro car.
So fuck 'em. Take their toy, sell it, & use the money to feed & house people fleeing poverty & oppression.
deleted by creator
@atlefren @TDCN
OMG, I think I peed a little… but in Swedish.
The law works because if he was just slapped with a fine that’s just like saying "yes you can drive like a maniac as long as you just pay and he can clearly afford it. This way he’s stopped properly and will probably never be speeding again in dk
deleted by creator
@TDCN @Showroom7561 Fascinating. Here the police can only confiscate for 28 days, but getting the car back is not straightforward.
@TDCN @Showroom7561
Two examples from Australian states:
https://www.police.vic.gov.au/hoon-laws
https://www.police.wa.gov.au/Traffic/Cameras/Speed/Hoon-driving
Just a few days ago the news carries pictures of a vintage Holden muscle car being crushed because the owner had been driving at 250 Kph in a 110 Kph zone.
I do t agree on the crushing aspect of this law. It’s environmental iresponsibil and stupid. Just sell/auktion the car and spend the money on making better traffic safety
@TDCN @Showroom7561 We have to do something in Amer. about this terrible problem. The laws we have now are pretty tough, but these morons who like to drink and drive just AREN’T getting it. Think Denmark is too tough ? Ask the families of the dead victims that have been murdered by drunk drivers !! This crap has got to stop !!
@TDCN @Showroom7561 I assume they keep the car, so they get to steal innocent people’s cars (belonging to people who committed no crimes) and keep them for profit.
@immibis @TDCN @Showroom7561 I rather suspect there are ways for the owner to petition it’s return, or get damages from the perpetrator
@TDCN Solid plan. Property seizure as an outcome of breaking the law seems completely reasonable in these circumstances, in the same way other items used to commission crimes of violence would be confiscated.
deleted by creator
@TDCN @Showroom7561 I think you mean blood/alcohol level of .2% - at 2% you would be long dead. And .2% is not driving drunk, that’s driving practically passed out. To be that drunk a 50kg dude would need to have 7 drinks in an hour. That person needs detox, not a car.
https://www.healthline.com/health/alcohol/blood-alcohol-level-chart
@Z_Zed_Zed @TDCN @Showroom7561 2‰ = 0.2%. The per-thousand sign isn’t used often in informal English, but if someone took the effort to select the character, they probably meant it. 🙂
Exactly. In Danish we exclusively use promill (per thousands) for blood alcohol level so it’s a habit for me to use ‰ or more commonly the written form promille
@deFractal @TDCN @Showroom7561 good call. Totally missed it.
@TDCN in Brazil if you are driving with ANY level of alcohol (limit is ZERO) you are arrested, and in case of accident you are most likely the guilt part.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 The law seems inspired by the Swiss. They have had proportional fines for long (e.g. I recall the wealthy Finn racing in CH in his sports car and had to pay a fortune). Car removal is probably common in CH as well.
@stahlbrandt @TDCN @Showroom7561
Lithuania also has a similar law (so it clearly doesn’t conflict with any EU human rights legislation), they were donating the confiscated vehicles of DUI offenders to the war effort in Ukraine…
@stahlbrandt @TDCN @Showroom7561
UK has speeding fines partly proportional to income (albeit with maximum of about £1500 or £2000, so still not a deterrent to superrich) and strong penalties for DUI (min 12 months driving ban + fine and 11 years of higher insurance premiums), but vehicles are only confiscated (usually temporarily) for Section 59 offences which normally involve deliberate anti-social driving (doughnuts, drifting, making noise in public areas with illegal exhaust mods) >>
@stahlbrandt @TDCN @Showroom7561
the problem with 20mph zones in some parts of UK is resources aren’t always put into enforcement; which requires either “boots on the ground” and/or cameras - both aren’t cheap and they are often in middle class residential areas where folk get paranoid about any CCTV camera; even if it is clearly there for traffic enforcement purposes…
@vfrmedia @stahlbrandt @TDCN @Showroom7561 In the USA we call those sudden low limit areas “speed traps” and the purpose is revenue collection.
@mike805 @stahlbrandt @TDCN @Showroom7561
in England most of these areas are far from sudden, there are plenty of prominent speed limit signs. Also cops aren’t allowed to directly keep the revenue from speed camera fines, they go to a “road safety partnership” which is a mix of public sector organisations; and are reinvested in road safety measures. in a well designed 20mph (or 30mph) zone there are usually other physical traffic calming measures such as road narrowing, bollards etc
@vfrmedia@social.tchncs.de @mike805@noc.social @stahlbrandt@infosec.exchange @TDCN@feddit.dk @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca yeah, speed traps are something very different from an area that should have a low speed limit.
so the classical form of speed trap in the US is a small town along a state or US route - not many people live there, there’s not much of an economy at all (the one nearest me doesn’t have any grocery store, even, you have to go a few miles to the next town over), but they have a well-staffed police department, and they may or may not have decent public services for the few people and businesses that are there. this is because the police department’s job is to bring money into the town, from traffic offenses. they don’t keep all of it, but because they, not the tax department, are the primary revenue source for the town, they get what they want. to maximize revenue, they have to induce offenses.
usually this means a couple strategies: speed limit reductions that are more severe than expected or in places that they’re not expected, and trying to hide the speed limit signs (behind overgrown tree branches is a common strategy). in my state, the typical way you enter a municipality is, you reduce from the 55 MPH speed limit that most 2-lane rural roads use, to 35 MPH at the municipal limits which typically coincide with where things get built up, and 25 MPH in downtown or on residential side streets. a common speed trap pattern is to have the village limits far away from where things get built up, and drop the speed limit to 25 MPH at the limits (or, more insidiously, post 55 MPH at the village limit sign which overrides the 35 MPH default within municipal limits, then drop it to 25 a bit later. bonus points if the 25 MPH sign is hidden. and you know there’s a cop hiding right after that.)
there was actually an extreme case of that in my state where a speed trap town’s entire government was one family that also ran the police department and the village traffic court, and the police department was doing classic bastard shit like pulling people over, smashing their tail light with a baton, and then ticketing them for the tail light being broken. they were also doing shit like calling in false police chases to the highway patrol, and it actually got to the point where the highway patrol publicly said they wouldn’t continue any chases that this village’s police started, as long as you were down to the speed limit by the time you got out of village limits. IIRC the state ended up passing laws to make that village illegal, and then dissolved it.
@vfrmedia@social.tchncs.de @Showroom7561@lemmy.ca @TDCN@feddit.dk @mike805@noc.social @stahlbrandt@infosec.exchange also there’s the whole thing with cameras in the US, which could be a great tool to improve safety (as a band-aid until infrastructure can be fixed)
problem is that most of them are privately-run, the private company collects the fine and kicks back a portion to the municipality, and the private company expects a return on their investment, and the municipality is asked to ensure that there’s enough offenses to justify the camera. this means that dangerous road designs that encourage excessive speed become desirable, and things like yellow light timing are reduced to legal minimums (or in some cases, below legal minimums) to encourage red light running. (IIRC what ends up happening in US municipalities that deploy privatized cameras, is that T-bone crashes and fatalities do actually go down, but rear-end crashes go up significantly because of people going for sudden full brake applications on yellow lights to try to avoid a fine, due to how short the yellows are.)
(the solution here isn’t to get rid of cameras necessarily, it’s to prohibit private ownership and fine collection from the cameras, and to direct revenue properly to avoid perverse incentives.)
@bhtooefr @TDCN @stahlbrandt @Showroom7561 @vfrmedia You had small town abuses like that where they were planting weed and seizing cars too. Small towns can get absurdly corrupt because only a few people control everything and they all know each other. This was the original purpose of the FBI before it too got corrupted by DC politics.
@vfrmedia @stahlbrandt @TDCN @Showroom7561 The better solution for that isn’t enforcement, but changing road layout in a way that makes 20 mph the maximum that one would like to drive. Still that takes investment and time.
@meijerjt @stahlbrandt @TDCN @Showroom7561
in many parts of England we do have speed reducing layouts (for both 20 and 30 mph roads) such as road narrowing with pedestrian refuges every few hundred metres, and most 20mph streets have parked cars either side.
Even so, there are still those sociopathic motorists who will flout the limits, some even see it as a “protest” similar to environment activists but from the other side. Maybe UK has more of these than other Northern European countries?
@TDCN @Showroom7561 QP ☝️ this! We want this!
@TDCN @Showroom7561 (reading the answers I’m once again struck by the similarity of European car lovers arguments with the NRA arguments. “What if I am running from 40 amok wild boars?”)
@TDCN @Showroom7561
I love the reactions to this post so much
“Wut ? And the right to own a car”
@TDCN @Showroom7561
In France, a judge can confiscate your car if you exceed the speed limit by 50km/h… (but only if you are the vehicle owner)
https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F21887
@TDCN @chris That explains the insane amount of bicycles in Copenhagen?! 🙏🏼🙌🏼 Indeed a creative law.
@seb_tmg @TDCN @chris No, we just love our bikes in Denmark (not only in Copenhagen). The confiscation law is only a couple of years old.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
@TDCN @chris @seb_tmg the bikes were there way before the law. So not related.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 Personally, I think banning.someone from driving hurts them harder than loosing a vehicle, as one can’t just get a new driving license - the loophole that allowed one to just make a new license in another EU member state has been closed for those barred from (re)issue of a license.
Trust me they are still banned from driving for a year or more if this law triggeres
@TDCN that’s quite low.
People speeding 100% over limit usually get barred for life from attaining any permit unless they get medically certified to be able to drive.
And even then they’d likely not face charges for speeding alone but literally charges for attempted homicide by gross neglect and recklessness.
I mean if one’s driving like 100km/h on regular city roads they don’t just loose their license but face serious jailtime.
And I think that’s more than justified.
I said “or more” because I don’t know the details. Depending on what you did you can get banned for much longer or even face jail time if it’s very severe. It’s individual and depends on the offence
@TDCN Like there’s difference between “driving fast” and "being an antisocial asshole and seemingly wanting to commit vehicular assault against any random person that happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 that being said penalites should always be proportional to one’s total aggregated income.
@TDCN @Showroom7561 I really like this law in principle, but without *free* rehab, or really any other drug recovery assistance, and without a good social safety net, it does inordinately punish poor people. Yes, if the person is a rich asshole, 300% take *all* their cars. But sometimes the person is poor and using alcohol to just feel less shitty about their life and need the car to be able to have a job. Not that that’s good, but it *is* a reason to not take their car…
@neonregent @TDCN @Showroom7561 It’s Denmark. Country with functional public transport system. Country, where you really don’t need to own a car to have a job…
@kytkosaurus @TDCN @Showroom7561 and in Denmark, this is an excellent law! In the US, it absolutely isn’t. But people see it working (I assume?) in Denmark and think “yeah,we should do that here!” and don’t think about the disparate consequences for poor people in places where a car isn’t just a commodity but a prerequisite for living on par with (and arguably more so) a house or apartment that often people can’t afford to replace once lost.
@neonregent @TDCN @Showroom7561 True. Although any place, where it is necessary to own a car to get work is in deep problems and should immediately think about how it got into this stupid situation and how to get from it as quickly as possible.
It will make them much more livable and bring an important part of freedom to their citizens.
@TDCN @Showroom7561
that is 1 car a year per 5.800 of the population.
In Germany, I guess 1 per 1000 drive like that - and they rarely notice changes in laws and policies.
@Showroom7561 @TDCN all the “but they need a car” people in the comments should also take a look at the amazing public transit options in Denmark and think about how that could make their life great (especially us USians)
Also… Just drive the speed limit and noone takes your car away from you
@TDCN
You should promote this lovely law to our German government. Our #Autobahn would be empty within short time. 😂
#GermanAutobahn
#idiots
@Showroom7561 @briankrebs
@TDCN @Showroom7561 like most fines, this just makes it legal for rich folk and potentially life-destroying for poor folk.
If this happens to a taxi driver, they might end up homeless. If it happens to a rich playboy they’ll just go buy a new car and carry on speeding.
The taxi driver could also… Just hear me out… Drive the speed limit and not drive like a maniac. Then he’s fine and noone takes his car.
@TDCN sure, unless it was the car owner’s friend, or kid, or crack addict neighbour who took their car and then committed the crime.
Regardless, the issue is not whether crimes should be punished, but whether it makes sense to have punishments that only affect the poor.
Just don’t lend the car out to anyone you don’t fully trust. Take responsibility of your vehicle and make it clear to the borrower that he/she should drive properly regardles of that being your mom or your best friend. If the car is taken without your consent it’s theft and grounds for the exceptions in the law so you get it back.
@TDCN again, why is personal responsibility only for poor people? That’s the key point but you keep glossing over it.
Okay hers the thing. It’s naive to think that it’s just “nothing” for rich people. You have to take the rest of the law into consideration. They obviously don’t just take the car from the owner as the only thing with this kind of extream offence (obviously, otherwise it’ll be a dumb law). On top there’s a huge (and I mean huge) fine for the driver and they take your lisence and you are completely banned from driving for X amount of years. After the ban you have to pay for a completely new drivers license which is really expensive but more importantly really time-consuming in Denmark. We are talking weeks of training and mandatory tests, first aid exam and hours of theory and practical lessons. There are payments to a fond that raises money for traffic victims and for multiple offenses or if you drove exceptionally wreklessly there’s possibly jail time. Even if you are rich this is not just “pocket money” there’s more context than you think.
@nicklockwood @TDCN @Showroom7561 you’re right. Mandatory speed limiters are a much better option. They’re cheap, easy and avoid having to fine people.
@jessta @TDCN @Showroom7561 it’s almost as if speeding fines are more about creating a revenue stream for the government than they are about preventing speeding 🤔
@nicklockwood @TDCN @Showroom7561 no, it’s just politically impossible to mandate speed limiters. Governments tried 50yrs ago and haven’t tried again since. Car manufacturers want people to know they can speed. It’s all over their marketing.
@jessta @TDCN @Showroom7561 if they really wanted to they could use the traffic camera network that already tracks numbers plates to do average speed checks on every car and issue fines automatically. I suspect they don’t because then traffic would grind to a halt.
Why would it grind to a haltm I see no reason for this. People just need to drive the speed limit. In Norway for example they have cameras at the begining of long stretches of highway and a camera at the end and if your average speed is higher than allowed it automatically sends you a fine. Those stretches of road are soooo nice to drive because everyone are driving the same speed and it’s so smooth
@Eomerj
@TDCN @Showroom7561 it obviously shouldn’t be proportional to your income, it should be set to the actual negative externality cost. this is a failure to understand basic economics. If we can save more statistical lives with the money from the tax then the statistical expected loss, then we want these people speeding and paying for it.
deleted by creator
Thats nuts…
In a good way yes.