That’s big-brothery. Like OP said just take away their license and make the penalties for driving without a license so astronomical that the problem will fix itself?
This is crazy. Why don't you just take their car ?
Submitted 1 day ago by Yasoxi@sh.itjust.works to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/0627cba2-a7a1-4b6f-8fe3-f3a0aaf6314e.png
Comments
Reygle@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
baller_w@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
Is this even that big of a problem?
If so, take away their license and plates. Bus pass or bike from now on.
Mangoholic@lemmy.ml 16 hours ago
Because a seized car does not generate speeding ticket fines.
Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
And a car that cannot speed can? You might not have thought that one through.
Mangoholic@lemmy.ml 4 hours ago
Its a speed limiting device, unless its gps tracking tech it will just have a maximum of 60-80 mph. So you can still speed in a 50 or 30 zone.
core@leminal.space 14 hours ago
How is the device going to detect what the speed limit is to be able to limit it? A speed limit isn’t the same everywhere.
Reygle@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
That’s a great question but I imagine it will be similar to my Honda- its lane sensing camera “reads” speed limit signs and displays the current speed limit on my speedometer. Flashes it if I’m doing a certain amount over the limit, which I can customize up to 10 over.
Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
GPS Data. Most dedicated navigation systems have the speed limit data in their maps for the last decade or so. They’re probably also going to add the Road sign information systems that newer cars have.
unabart@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
They already do this with people who keep getting caught driving hammered. Just slow the fuck down, Andretti. Would be a non-issue. You take the car, they can’t go to work like good little indentured servants. 🤣
IWW4@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
The only answer I can come up with is, if you take their license than they just drive with no license.
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
That’s a very serious crime though. If you get pulled over without a license, it’s a several thousand dollar fine.
gustofwind@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Cool so how are they supposed to ever get a job a home and live?
Should we just jail them for life to make it simple?
ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
And the rich will just pay it and continue, it’s the poors that will suffer. But yeah it would be their fault because this would only be used after a number of offences that they could have just slowed down.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
Some places don’t enforce this very well.
flandish@lemmy.world 1 day ago
they’ll charge folks for the usage of this too. profit will be had.
also if the normal fine is affordable by rich folk, something like this is worthy of consideration except that rich folk typically have lawyers.
thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I would say that this directly targets the people that can already clearly afford the fines easily enough that they keep speeding enough to get caught. Someone that is severely hurt by the fines are already likely to be deterred from speeding by the fines. This addresses the people that eat the fines and keep speeding again and again.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
BINGO
The fines aren’t even the expensive part, it’s the increase in insurance.
As a former… assertive driver as a young adult, my insurance increased to insane levels. That got me to re-think my driving and turned me into the person everyone cusses for driving like grandpa.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Is the plan to store these cars they’re seizing in your plan somewhere? To sell them?
How much is the cost of seizing and storing a vehicle? How much is the cost of building a place to house these seized vehicles?
Who pays that cost?
Where is such a facility going to be built?
Even if you did sell the vehicles, who gets the proceeds? What stops the person from suing the state or municipality for selling items that don’t belong to them?
That’s even before we think about the economic impact of these people living in a very car dependant place where that vehicle makes the difference between being able to have access to food and transportation to get to work.
Is the state going to provide shuttles to get these people groceries and to and from work? Who pays for that?
I have a lot of questions about why you’d want it to be okay to seize the property of a person just because they broke the law.
Police can and do already seize and sell assets whether you have committed a crime or not. Usually people want to end such overreach but now you’re all the sudden siding with the gestapo in order to seize people’s assets because you feel self righteous?
The math doesn’t math on this.
purplemonkeymad@programming.dev 1 day ago
I don’t necessarily disagree with your point. But:
Is the state going to provide shuttles to get these people groceries and to and from work? Who pays for that?
Typically most places call these buses.
I think that most of your point could be alleviated with more and better public transport. Then removal can be a realistic punishment without preventing people from living.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Buses cost money to run, and rural upstate New York (just like a lot of rural areas that are car dependant) do not necessarily have the infrastructure to implement them. Which is exactly why I said shuttles, not buses.
Public transit isn’t going to pop out of the ether to fix the problem so that we can just take away people’s personal property because they broke the law as if they no longer own it. Civil forfeiture is already a broken law without us making it worse for poor people while rich people continue to get a pass.
They’ll buy new vehicles. You can legally purchase a car without a driver’s license in most states. You just have to have someone who can legally drive it off the lot of deliver it. Which is simple for a rich person, but not for a poor person.
Like it could be if we were willing to spend the amount of money it would cost to build and upkeep that infrastructure. But that would also likely mean civil forfeiture of land. Because bus stops and side walks and depots don’t just show up because you want to take people’s cars away.
The cost of all that, plus the cost of implementing the ability to store or sell these vehicles is going to be problematic and more costly than the proposal, which is more fair than the alternative because it treats people regardless of the economic situation the same.
I don’t like the proposal, but I can certainly understand why it’s being proposed as a better way to fix the problem.
TastyWheat@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Down here in Straya, sometimes they crush the car and make em watch it being done
atrielienz@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
That’s wonderful. Would not that cost be better spent designing roads that deter speeding by design?
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Because ticketing is a revenue stream.
What, you thought police ticket people to… protect the general public?
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I knew someone who ran a similar program for DUIs.
It probably wouldn’t be a revenue stream for the government.
A private company would buy the equipment and charge the government AND the speeder for the costs, maintenance and monitoring.
Usually when there is a big push for these kinds of enforcement systems, the person pushing for it already has a friend of family member who just happens to do exactly that.
sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Oh.
Wonderful.
Even better.
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 1 day ago
This scheme would reduce ticket revenue, though. And if criminal scofflaws have to pay, good, fuck ‘em. The New York taxpayers shouldn’t take on the burden. They could avoid the cost trivially.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
But it would be offset by the massive and recurring income from installing and maintaining the devices by a third party.
Let’s see who the companies providing these services are owned by.
Like when ticket cameras in vans became a thing 25 years ago: 80% of the “ticket” went to the camera van company. I say “ticket” because in many US jurisdictions only a police officer can issue a ticket, so these were unenforceable as tickets.
States had to update their laws to add “civil fees” as a thing just for such cameras.
faltryka@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This doesn’t seem unreasonable, it’s like interlock devices for repeat drunk drivers.
Cevilia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
How about just installing speed limiter devices by default? Never having to worry about being caught accidentally speeding sounds like an absolute win for me.
AlexLost@lemmy.world 1 day ago
When you can just buy a new one why bother! They’ll find a way around this too, there is always a loop hole to exploit if rich
Mangoholic@lemmy.ml 16 hours ago
The way around is to ignore the speeding detection, you are rich, the law doesn’t apply to you. Just pay the fine with 0.001% of the itrest from yesterday.
gustofwind@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You can’t take people’s cars away or they will have no way to make money and live in America
Just the truth sorry
ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
And speed is highly correlated to the lethality of car wrecks. Also, it sounds like the devices wosuld be installed in the cars of people who… speed frequently.
So, it is directly addressing the problem without asset seizure or jail time. Sounds like an ideal solution, actually.
hypna@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Revoking drivers licenses would probably be more appropriate than seizing vehicles. The upside to that is revoking licenses, I’d wager, is a whole lot cheaper than installing and monitoring speed trackers. So long as the person with the speeding problem is paying for that I guess it’s acceptable. But then we have yet another example of people without much money getting a raw deal. Means testing? Everything gets complicated when it gets to the implementation details.
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Sure would be a shame if they ended up homeless, then in prison as free labor for any number of companies!
Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Especially in New York City! How would you ever get anywhere on time without a car in New York City?!
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Yeah but in the suburbs of Buffalo and Albany? Or in the New York portion of the Appalachians or whatever their other mountains are called? New York is a geographically large state by northeast standards
Nastybutler@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This would apply to the whole state. New York is more than just one city
Greddan@feddit.org 1 day ago
Could always live in a city. Rural areas (I include american type suburbs here too) are for fat and dumb people.
Alabaster_Mango@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
All cities have fantastic public transit at all times, this is known. /s
Also what’s with the rural hate outta nowhere?
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 1 day ago
What happened to “don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time,” or, “shoulda thought of that before breaking the law”?
Alabaster_Mango@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I think “the time” should fit “the crime” though. Taking away someone’s vehicle could negatively impact their ability to earn money for things like food and shelter. Also getting the food to the shelter becomes more difficult too, especially if public transit is poor or not an option. Stuff like this has a greater impact on lower income individuals too, and they already have it bad enough.
To me, revoking a license or seizing vehicles is a consequence where punishment is the goal. A speed limiting device has more room for rehabilitation I think. Whenever it comes to punishment vs rehabilitation I’m always on the rehab side.
gustofwind@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You tell me. How do you feel about those rules?
Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 1 day ago
… make money to pay taxes and buy products…
gustofwind@lemmy.world 1 day ago
And pay rent for a home and to buy food and clothes
But sure make it sound dumb and silly 🥳