YasoxiThis is crazy. Why don't you just take their car ?
gustofwindYou can’t take people’s cars away or they will have no way to make money and live in America
Just the truth sorry
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
EllvixPattern 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.
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.
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.
ageedizzlePlus a lot of people with revoked licenses just continue to drive anyway with a vehicle insured under someone else’s name.