Yasoxi

This is crazy. Why don't you just take their car ?

https://sh.itjust.works/post/54771834

Feb 5 at 12:48pmWeb
Show threadflandishFeb 5

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.

Show threadthebestaquamanFeb 5
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.
Show threadOnomatopoeiaFeb 5

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.

Show threadDr. UnabartFeb 5
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. 🤣
Show threadgustofwindFeb 5

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

Show threadPat_RiotFeb 5
… make money to pay taxes and buy products…
Show threadgustofwindFeb 5

And pay rent for a home and to buy food and clothes

But sure make it sound dumb and silly 🥳

Show threadPat_RiotFeb 5
I’m out of silly.
Show threadpotoooooooo ✅️Feb 5
Sure would be a shame if they ended up homeless, then in prison as free labor for any number of companies!
Show threadALoafOfBreadFeb 5

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.

Show threadhypnaFeb 5
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.
Show threadThePantserFeb 5
Yup the rich will get around it by hiring a driver and paying them to speed. Or just swapping to one of their other cars that is not limited.
Show threadnogooduserFeb 5

In the UK, you can get your license revoked for speeding. You can lose your license if you’re going a lot over the speed limit. If you’re going a bit slower you can get 3 or 6 points and if you get more than 12 points you also lose your license.

It doesn’t seem to do a huge amount to discourage speeding in my experience.

Show threadthejmlFeb 5
It used to be exactly that way here in the US as well… unless it varies from state to state? I’ve lived in a few and they all seem to have this sorted with the point system.
Show threadJesus_666Feb 5

Both options are potentially bad for low-income earners. If you force them to pay for a speed limiter they lost the money for that, which they might not able to afford. If you take away their license they will have difficulty getting around and might lose their job.

So from that perspective the speed limiter might be the less dangerous choice.

Show threadALoafOfBreadFeb 5

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.

Show threadJesus_666Feb 5
Or you could go for a tiered scheme where the device is free if the owner’s income is below a certain level. There’s always options; whether or not they’re taken is another question.
Show threadALoafOfBreadFeb 5
That’s a really good point. Sliding scale payment maybe (with no cap on income - if you make a million bucks a year and are always speeding, you’re going to be paying a hefty fine)
Show threadyesmanFeb 5
People on a budget can just slow the fuck down. Speeding tickets are not cheap.
Show threadsurewhynotlemFeb 5

Flip that on its head.

Rich people can speed however much they want because who cares about a little fine?

That’s why this model sucks.

Show threadEllvixFeb 5
Yep. Need tickets proportional to income to solve that, and photo radar to solve acab interactions.
Show threadClentFeb 6

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.

Show threadsticklyFeb 7

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.

Show threadClentFeb 7
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.
Show threadITGuyLeviFeb 5
I suppose the older I get the more I can get behind this, similar to interlock devices for people that can’t control their drinking, I would imagine the offender would have to pay for it or lose their license. I know it seems crazy to force people to stay within the speed limit, but fining and tickets don’t work for some people.
Show threadageedizzleFeb 6
Plus a lot of people with revoked licenses just continue to drive anyway with a vehicle insured under someone else’s name. 
Show threadSwingingTheLampFeb 5
What happened to “don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time,” or, “shoulda thought of that before breaking the law”?
Show threadgustofwindFeb 5
You tell me. How do you feel about those rules?
Show threadSwingingTheLampFeb 5

Food is even more fundamental to survival than our four-wheeled toys, but if you habitually go to the grocery store and eat without paying, you’ll end up in jail. Shelter is more important, too, but that doesn’t mean that I can just take up residence in any house or apartment that I please. I’d go to jail for trying.

So, I really have no sympathy for the claim, “we can’t take away cars!” Take them away from people who can’t be bothered to follow the laws that let us live together in society, even though they knew the consequences. Maybe sell them off and use the funds to provide food and shelter to the homeless.

Show threadComrade_SpoodFeb 5

And if you were smart enough to use critical thinking and follow your logic to its inevitable conclusion, you’d see how that would just send people into cycles perpetually keeping them in prison and never being able to reform or reintigrate into society all over a speeding ticket. But since you aren’t, let me walk you through it.

John gets a in trouble for speeding. Maybe they give him a ticket he cant afford or maybe they just take his car away. Either way it doesnt matter, it just speeds up the cycle so lets go fast and say he loses the car. He now lacks a car so I hope his town has good public transportation! Oops it doesn’t, guess he loses his job because he cant get there on time. Now John is houseless. We all know how the houseless are treated so lets just skip to John going to prison. Lets say a year or so later he gets out. Now he will have an even harder time finding a job because he has a criminal record AND is houseless. On and on.

Now since we both understand the cycle I imagine you still think his car should be taken away but simply because youre a hateful and vengeful person who doesnt care about actually stopping crime, but just want to see people who do something wrong get punished (whether or not the punishment will have unintended consequences that cause the punishment to be way more severe than the crime).

Show threadSwingingTheLampFeb 5
John could just follow the law. I love these discussions, because drivers get so angry when I call out their criminal behavior.
Show threadComrade_SpoodFeb 5

Coulda woulda shoulda whatever, thats not reality. People break rules and punishments aren’t effective at stopping them. So come up with an effective way of stopping it without ruining people’s lives or shut the fuck up. No one deserves their life ruined over speeding, and if you think they do then I hope you get to experience the other end of the stick.

Also L+ratio

Show threadSwingingTheLampFeb 5

Hahaha, that’s what I love the most! The downvotes come flying fast ’n furious on driving-related posts. It’s so consistent, across any social media or forum site. I can only speculate, but I think it’s the cognitive dissonance, because know from extensive real-life observation that driving makes people miserable and angry, even while they claim to enjoy it. Thus, it’s really easy to make observations that puncture the illusion.

Our criminal “justice” system sucks, period. It’s about vengeance, and racism, not about rehabilitation. We should reform it from top to bottom for every crime, not simply exempt one in particular because folks wanna zoom-zoom.

Show threadComrade_SpoodFeb 6
I agree with you largely. Although I don’t think people downvote for the cognitive dissonance, at least thats not the reason I do. I live in a very rural state, and even the most industrialized cities here have dog shit public transportation and are not bike-able or walkable. I also do not want to live in a city, so I really have no options but to have a car. Personally, when I hear people say “get rid of cars” it feels very privileged because it comes off as a very blanket solution that is really only achievable in cities and other urbanized environments. Otherwise I do largely agree with boosting public transportation and other non-car centric solutions, and obviously I definitely agree with completely replacing the justice system around one of rehabilitation and addressing problems that cause crime in the first place.
Show threadAlabaster_MangoFeb 5

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.

Show threadSwingingTheLampFeb 5
Agreed. The best solution, as always, is to design streets and roads so that driving unsafely feels unsafe, so that everybody naturally slows down. Until that happens, this is a good program.
Show threadGreddanFeb 5
Could always live in a city. Rural areas (I include american type suburbs here too) are for fat and dumb people.
Show threadAlabaster_MangoFeb 5

All cities have fantastic public transit at all times, this is known. /s

Also what’s with the rural hate outta nowhere?

Show threadProprietary_BlendFeb 5
Especially in New York City! How would you ever get anywhere on time without a car in New York City?!
Show threadNastybutlerFeb 5
This would apply to the whole state. New York is more than just one city
Show threadProprietary_BlendFeb 5
Only if it’s successful.
Show threadNastybutlerFeb 6
That’s why I said “would”
Show threadcaptainlezbianFeb 6
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
Show threadProprietary_BlendFeb 6
Catskill Mountains
Show threadIWW4Feb 5
The only answer I can come up with is, if you take their license than they just drive with no license.
Show threadZoteTheMightyFeb 5
That’s a very serious crime though. If you get pulled over without a license, it’s a several thousand dollar fine.
Show threadgustofwindFeb 5

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?

Show threadZoteTheMightyFeb 5
This is why the governor’s policy will work well. It let’s drivers stay on the road until they’ve been caught with many infractions. It’s a very different story when you take someone’s license away after a few speeding tickets versus taking their license away after a few speeding tickets, then several months of well-documented continued speeding incidents every time they drove. Losing your license has serious consequences in modern society, but my sympathy for dangerous drivers has a limit.
Show thread6nk06Feb 5

how are they supposed to ever get a job

By respecting the speed limits? Wow, my idea is so novel, disruptive, and revolutionary!

Show threadgustofwindFeb 5

So if they don’t respect speed limits they should be effectively exiled from society into poverty or jail?

Tell me you are a child incapable of governance without telling me

Show threadltxrtquqFeb 5
Is this post in fuckcars? No? Well it should be. We should be investing more in public transit and building cities people can live in without necessarily owning a car. Your participation in society should not hinge on a multi-thousand dollar purchase of a car along with the yearly insurance and other maintenance costs.
Show threadgustofwindFeb 5

Yes we should and you are 100% right but that isn’t the society we live in

We live in one where you cannot live in a true survival sense in 99% of all locations without a car

Until the public transit and walkable cities exist the wrong people are being punished

Show thread6nk06Feb 5

If they are incapable of driving, and being a part of the statistics of people who kill others on the road, they must not drive. That’s easy. It’s not a death sentence. We prevent pedophiles from working with children, same thing.

Or we remove all the speed limits and seat belts being mandatory, but we know from 60 years of statistics that the numbers of people killed on the road will be multiplied by 100.

Show threadgustofwindFeb 5

You don’t prevent pedophiles from working you prevent them from working with kids

Under your own obscene pedophile analogy it’s actually much more appropriate to put speed limiters on cars than remove their cars entirely

You don’t prevent them from driving you prevent them from driving too fast

Show threadGreddanFeb 5
Take the bus moron. You can read on the bus.
Show threadgustofwindFeb 5
You must not live in America if you think most people have access to a bus
Show threadProprietary_BlendFeb 5
Have you never been to New York City where this story takes place?
Show threadProprietary_BlendFeb 5

Wow! What a slamn

Tell me you’re an embryo incapable of understanding consequences, etc.

Zing!

Give them the guillotine like the people breaking laws you agree with!

Show threadThePantserFeb 5
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.
Show threadOnomatopoeiaFeb 5

You can’t pay to not lose your license, that’s not how it works at all.

You should go sit in criminal court for a day.

The reality is many jurisdictions just don’t enforce such things very well - there are many cases around the country of people getting their 3rd, 4th, 5th DUI and not losing their license or worse as the law us defined.

And those are often as not, not “rich people”.

Frankly judges see so much worse crime in their courts constantly that I think they’re hesistant to jail someone who is a mostly functional member of society compared to 90% of everyone else coming through their court.

Then there’s also the plea-bargaining process: prosecuting attorneys are directed to plea-bargain pretty much all cases to expedite the case load - courts are largely overwhelmed. I’ve seen guys in chains accused of multiple violent assault felonies (like assaulted multiple people in one go) plea bargain down to a fucking misdemeanor.

Again, go sit in criminal court for a day and you’ll see what I mean - it’s eye opening.