I feel like the better option is to have local government foot the bill - but the driver owes the value of the device if it’s lost or damaged. In theory, insurance would have to cover at least some of this and they can still use their car. AND if they drive safely, they should owe nothing long-term.
That’s idealistic though. I’m sure the “tough on crime” crowd would want the individual to foot the bill.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Pattern of excessive speeding and low income doesn’t seem like it’s going to have a lot of overlap.
Those tickets add up and insurance rates spike so if they are a low income driver they’re already wasting far more money on their bad driving havens than what this device is going to cost.
stickly@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Sounds like someone has never had to beat traffic to get to a second job… or a doctor’s appointment because your boss kept you late… or pick the kids up from school on time because you can’t afford childcare/after school activities… or get home to let a spouse drive the car because you can’t afford two cars or…
Being poor is expensive, time consuming and dangerous.
Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 hours ago
This is not targeted at people who have been caught speeding once or twice. It’s targeting habitual and wreckless drivers. If they can afford the cost of these tickets to keep their license from being suspended, they can afford this device.