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.
That 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.
Well 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.
@TDCN@joland here in the Netherlands the fine for a traffic violation is already up to the owner to sort out. They don’t give AF who drove the car. Your car. Your responsibility. Your problem.
@TDCN@joland replacing car with gun or riffle makes it even more absurd. You saying that if I lend a riffle to someone on a hunt, I should bear the consequences for their actions if they miss and hit something? Thankfully the law in rest of Scandinavia isn’t as insane…
@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.
Normally 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.
@TDCN@GBU_28 i’m genuinely missing how the state keeping the car versus giving it back to the leasing agency is a reasonable choice. Why does the owner of the car, if it is not the violator, get to get fucked by this?
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.
@GBU_28 play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Driving a car is not a right. Especially in Denmark where public transport is an perfectly viable alternative for most of the population.
@GBU_28
I’ve found that people are big fans of government action against people with little or no due process, until it happens to them. @JegVilleSeShitposts
@GBU_28
That really, *really* shouldn’t matter. One of the biggest problems around the world today are people checking for labels and group membership before considering otherwise valid points.
For what it’s worth, I’ve found this behavior exhibited by all groups.
@GBU_28@JegVilleSeShitposts , all property is owned at the whim of someone else !
The person that chooses to work for you, the customer that chooses to buy your goods, the person that chooses to sell their house, etc …
You’re just a care taker for a short while and if you’re mistreating that privilege it should be able to be revoked!
Fines are fine. I understand at the end of the day they behave similarly. But the value of the car may not be the right amount for the fine, and the citizen may be able to get the best sale price for the car.
@GBU_28@TDCN Think of the car as a “dual use” item - i.e. you can use it as transport or to (potentially) get other people injured or killed.
The law aims at the second (mis)use. Even though I’m a car-loving German I really second that part of the Danish law and I honestly wish we would have something similar.
@GBU_28@TDCN this is basically an income adjusted fine for breaking the law in egregious ways. Are you also opposed to fines for other bad behavior?
I also appreciate that it gets more people thinking about ways to move without a car. that is more doable in Denmark then in the US, but cars are dangerous, and if you put other at risk so casually I have little sympathy.
For the sake of conversation, let’s consider some other owned object. I’m grasping here but say you had your computer seized for anti government speech. (I know, not the same as endangering people with a car).
It wouldn’t be right to lose a multi thousand dollar device simply because the government willed it. Certainly not without compensation.
@GBU_28 skip any example that doesn’t routinely involve the single biggest cause of child death in the US. There is no reason for a person to be exceeding the speed limit by double. That’s just gambling with others life and limb.
I think a multi-thousand dollar, income adjusted fine should be the minimum in that case.
@GBU_28@TDCN, really??
You happily can endanger other people’s lives but can’t have your means to do so taken away?
Same for CEOs of companies going bankrupt: you can take away others livelihood by your decisions but nobody can touch your hording.
That sounds like rich person’s privilege syndrome!
I 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
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.
@TDCN
That 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.
@joland @TDCN it’s the same as if you crash a borrowed car while doing something that invalidates the insurance, eg racing.
Well 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.
@TDCN @joland here in the Netherlands the fine for a traffic violation is already up to the owner to sort out. They don’t give AF who drove the car. Your car. Your responsibility. Your problem.
I like that actually
@TDCN @joland replacing car with gun or riffle makes it even more absurd. You saying that if I lend a riffle to someone on a hunt, I should bear the consequences for their actions if they miss and hit something? Thankfully the law in rest of Scandinavia isn’t as insane…
There’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.
Normally 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.
@TDCN @GBU_28 i’m genuinely missing how the state keeping the car versus giving it back to the leasing agency is a reasonable choice. Why does the owner of the car, if it is not the violator, get to get fucked by this?
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.
As long as it then goes swiftly through the court system to confirm this. Otherwise it is theft, like US asset forfeiture.
@GBU_28 play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Driving a car is not a right. Especially in Denmark where public transport is an perfectly viable alternative for most of the population.
Totally agree, which I said in my comment.
But owning property is owning it outright. You don’t own it at the whim of someone else.
I in general do not agree with government seizure of property without compensation.
I agree with losing your license, losing the privilege to drive and use public roads, etc.
@GBU_28
I’ve found that people are big fans of government action against people with little or no due process, until it happens to them.
@JegVilleSeShitposts
I don’t know if you’re aligned with me or not
@GBU_28
That really, *really* shouldn’t matter. One of the biggest problems around the world today are people checking for labels and group membership before considering otherwise valid points.
For what it’s worth, I’ve found this behavior exhibited by all groups.
I have no clue what you’re talking about,
I essentially said “I don’t understand the wording of your comment”
@GBU_28 Forfeiture of property involved in committing a crime is standard practice.
So is police brutality.
I’m allowed to have opinions not codified in existing standards
@GBU_28 @JegVilleSeShitposts 🤡 Welcome to society.
Childish reply
@GBU_28 @JegVilleSeShitposts , all property is owned at the whim of someone else !
The person that chooses to work for you, the customer that chooses to buy your goods, the person that chooses to sell their house, etc …
You’re just a care taker for a short while and if you’re mistreating that privilege it should be able to be revoked!
Wrong! You challenge bodily autonomy if you disrespect physical property.
Do you disrespect a person’s bodily autonomy?
@GBU_28 @JegVilleSeShitposts do you also oppose confiscation of guns from murderers?
I do, with compensation. Obviously I am not suggesting there isn’t incarceration happening
@GBU_28 @JegVilleSeShitposts How do you feel about steep fines for drunk driving? How is this different?
Fines are fine. I understand at the end of the day they behave similarly. But the value of the car may not be the right amount for the fine, and the citizen may be able to get the best sale price for the car.
@GBU_28 @TDCN In Australia we have a law that lets the police make you watch while they crush your car.
@GBU_28 @TDCN Think of the car as a “dual use” item - i.e. you can use it as transport or to (potentially) get other people injured or killed.
The law aims at the second (mis)use. Even though I’m a car-loving German I really second that part of the Danish law and I honestly wish we would have something similar.
@GBU_28 @TDCN
Then don’t drink and speed.
Done.
Where did I say consequences shouldn’t exist? Massive ones?
You have the reading comprehension of a child
@GBU_28 @TDCN this is basically an income adjusted fine for breaking the law in egregious ways. Are you also opposed to fines for other bad behavior?
I also appreciate that it gets more people thinking about ways to move without a car. that is more doable in Denmark then in the US, but cars are dangerous, and if you put other at risk so casually I have little sympathy.
For the sake of conversation, let’s consider some other owned object. I’m grasping here but say you had your computer seized for anti government speech. (I know, not the same as endangering people with a car).
It wouldn’t be right to lose a multi thousand dollar device simply because the government willed it. Certainly not without compensation.
@GBU_28 skip any example that doesn’t routinely involve the single biggest cause of child death in the US. There is no reason for a person to be exceeding the speed limit by double. That’s just gambling with others life and limb.
I think a multi-thousand dollar, income adjusted fine should be the minimum in that case.
The point is I selected an example that had no relation to cars or driving, and no safety context.
The point of the example was ownership, and dealings with the government.
Critical thinking 101
I made clear in earlier comments that I’m aware driving is a privilege and reckless driving is a serious crime
It also makes people think twice before lending their car to any random friend
@GBU_28 @TDCN
If leasing companies face no loss, they can continue to lease supercars to morons.
Why are you @'ing everyone? You replied, we will see it.
Leases are not ownership
@GBU_28 @TDCN, really??
You happily can endanger other people’s lives but can’t have your means to do so taken away?
Same for CEOs of companies going bankrupt: you can take away others livelihood by your decisions but nobody can touch your hording.
That sounds like rich person’s privilege syndrome!
My dude, I said take the car away! Fine them! Take the driving privileges! Just pay them for their property or allow them to sell it!
Man you can’t hold more.thwn one thought at a time huh
@TDCN @GBU_28 no! If you know the consequences beforehand, not a problem!! As the old saying goes, if you can’t serve the time, don’t do the crime.
Sorry I won’t budge on property rights.
Driving is a privilege, and the government can absolutely bar you from using public services (roads) but ownership is a serious thing to me