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 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.
@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.
@joland@TDCN yeah but if you borrow your car to someone they could also just total it in an accident and die, and in that case they also won’t be able to give it back to you and you definitely won’t get paid for the car.
This is just one more reason to not borrow your car to people you don’t trust 100%.
@sldrant@TDCN@threedaymonk as a Dane, I like the law. Most debate in Denmark has been revolving about all the “what if?” cases. What if it’s a loaned car? Or leased?
Personally I think it’s great that responsibility is also on the owner. If you lend your car to a reckless driver, you always risk losing it. Either because he crashes, or now, because it’s confiscated. So make your own precautions.
@mhgottlieb@sldrant@TDCN@threedaymonk As a Canadian who lives in Denmark, I also like the law. If you engage in reckless endangerment of other person’s lives, you should lose your favourite playtoy. If you walk around downtown swinging a machete over your head, and then you hop in your car and drive away at 200 km/h, you should lose the machete and the car.
An argument over whether the machete was borrowed or not are exceptions that can be dealt with in court.
@mhgottlieb@sldrant@TDCN@threedaymonk It would, however, be nice if the car companies could align with the expectations of the speed limits. On both of our cars, the minimum possible cruise control speed is 30 km/h. However, there are more than a couple of 20 km/h speed limits in the area.
I know that, of all the things I could complain about in life, this one is well down on the list. However, it’s also not a difficult problem to solve.
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 replacing car with gun or riffle makes it even more absurd. You saying that if I lend a riffle to someone on a hunt, I should bear the consequences for their actions if they miss and hit something? Thankfully the law in rest of Scandinavia isn’t as insane…
There’s a significant difference between an accident and deliberately being wrekless
@TDCN There is nothing about being “wreckless” when borrowing something to someone else. If person has a valid driving license that is all that matters. We ain’t even taking about lending a car to a obviously drunk idiot which is punishable.
But the law will definitely make me think twice before lending my car to anyone.
@TDCN And it is outright harmful to the environment, car pooling is a thing.
@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.
@joland @TDCN it’s the same as if you crash a borrowed car while doing something that invalidates the insurance, eg racing.
@joland @TDCN
There is only a problem when the car was stolen from the owner.
@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%.
deleted by creator
@joland @TDCN I think it’s good. Don’t lend your car to friends that you know don’t respect the law
@TDCN @threedaymonk exemption for stolen cars?
@sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk yes. Stolen cars are returned to the owner, not confiscated.
@mhgottlieb @TDCN @threedaymonk 👍 would have assumed so.
Sounds like a pretty sensible law. No excuse for reckless driving
@sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk as a Dane, I like the law. Most debate in Denmark has been revolving about all the “what if?” cases. What if it’s a loaned car? Or leased?
Personally I think it’s great that responsibility is also on the owner. If you lend your car to a reckless driver, you always risk losing it. Either because he crashes, or now, because it’s confiscated. So make your own precautions.
@mhgottlieb @sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk As a Canadian who lives in Denmark, I also like the law. If you engage in reckless endangerment of other person’s lives, you should lose your favourite playtoy. If you walk around downtown swinging a machete over your head, and then you hop in your car and drive away at 200 km/h, you should lose the machete and the car.
An argument over whether the machete was borrowed or not are exceptions that can be dealt with in court.
@mhgottlieb @sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk It would, however, be nice if the car companies could align with the expectations of the speed limits. On both of our cars, the minimum possible cruise control speed is 30 km/h. However, there are more than a couple of 20 km/h speed limits in the area.
I know that, of all the things I could complain about in life, this one is well down on the list. However, it’s also not a difficult problem to solve.