GBU_28I 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
TDCNNormally 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.
JB
James J Malcolm@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.
Gombik 
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.
Eike Leidgens
Sebastian Elisa
Gorgeous na Shock!
Nortix@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.
IIVQ@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?
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?
RevK 
antipode77@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 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.
AGTMADCAT 🇬🇧🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼🇵🇸@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?
jsj@TDCN This makes sense in principle but living in the US where as of last year cops confiscated more property than was lost via burglary, I don’t trust the authorities not to abuse such a law.
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.
Anton Piatek@TDCN @threedaymonk exemption for stolen cars?
Magnus H. Gottlieb@mhgottlieb @TDCN @threedaymonk 👍 would have assumed so.
Sounds like a pretty sensible law. No excuse for reckless driving
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.
geoff martin@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.
Jeppe ØlandThat 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.
ThiagoWell 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.
Sheean SpoelI like that actually
supernov@supernov yeah that’s a big disadvantage of this. It would be nice if they’d at least use the value of the car to multiply the height of the fine. That is also a lot easier to implement than determining the driver and their income. And have the added bonus of deterring people from hiring a fancy car and going nuts with it.
Alfred M. SzmidtThere’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.
Yes carpooling is a thing but this law literally has nothing to do with this so I don’t get your point.
@TDCN Your literally lending a car. And if you lend it to some idiot, you have no car.
Exactly. Don’t lend your car to an idiot. It’s your car so also your responsibility. Keep it safe.
@TDCN it is a pool. You don’t know who you are lending too.
Okay then I don’t understand your way of car pooling. It’s not really thing here since it’s either impractical or public transport is way better or biking is a possibility
@TDCN look up skjustgruppen in Sweden. Denmark you can literally walk all over the place.
Björn 🌸 Starkimarm@Starkimarm @TDCN you can’t negotiate such things with a contract, law trumps whatever you write down.
@Starkimarm @TDCN because law is higher than whatever terms you put into a contract. You can’t make a contract that allows illegal results. It isn’t about just getting back they money.
@Starkimarm @TDCN which might or might not be legal to do. Not everything is valid in a contract just because is says so.
@Starkimarm @TDCN how is the law formulated that for example lending car companies can lend a car? Why do companies have a lower bar than individual citizen? If I start a company will I be able to lend my car silly niilly subverting the intent of the law? This law is beyond daft.
@Starkimarm @TDCN are you? What relevance does it even have? Your the one claiming by bullshit.
@Starkimarm @TDCN ah. Neither are you, troll.
Asbjørn Ulsberg@bitbear @TDCN is lending a knife, privately, without any company in between or prior agreement, no insurance or contract, no name (really? driving licenses have name) or even signature, to a complete (you know the background of everyone you know?), a thing anywhere in the entire Denmark? Probably not .. but normal, sane countries reason still prevails.