• gustofwind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      And speed is highly correlated to the lethality of car wrecks. Also, it sounds like the devices would 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month 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.

        • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 month 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 month 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.

          • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            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 (given it’d be wired into the car) 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 despite it making everyone safer.

            • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 month ago

                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)

          • yesman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            People on a budget can just slow the fuck down. Speeding tickets are not cheap.

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • Ellvix@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 month ago

                Yep. Need tickets proportional to income to solve that, and photo radar to solve acab interactions.

        • ThePantser@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

        • nogooduser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • thejml@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

  • Dr. Unabart@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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. 🤣

  • Reygle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    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?

    • stickly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      USA is so dystopian that not having a car can very easily fuck your life up. Tbh the big brother solution is still a better idea than cutting off a person (or even a household) from transportation to jobs/groceries/healthcare.

  • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    Because ticketing is a revenue stream.

    What, you thought police ticket people to… protect the general public?

    This will be another revenue stream, where the serial speeders have to pay for the install of the device, and likely an ongoing monthly fee for its continued operation.

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month 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.

  • atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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.

    What if the car doesn’t belong to them? Are we going to suddenly start seizing the assets of someone who leant them the vehicle?

    Much better to spend tax payer money to design and implement road features that inhibit speeding.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s wonderful. Would not that cost be better spent designing roads that deter speeding by design?

  • faltryka@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    This doesn’t seem unreasonable, it’s like interlock devices for repeat drunk drivers.

  • flandish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month 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.

  • AlexLost@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month 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.

      • Mangoholic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month 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.

        • Tudsamfa@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          The article states that the “Intelligent Speed Assistance devices” are supposed to prevent drivers from driving more than 5 mph over the speed limit. So I’m fairly certain GPS and/or Road Sign Information systems will be used.

  • Cevilia (they/she/…)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month 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.