Who came up with this stupid idea?! Just seize the car.
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
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.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point. But:
Is the state going to provide shuttles to get these people groceries and to and from work? Who pays for that?
Typically most places call these buses.
I think that most of your point could be alleviated with more and better public transport. Then removal can be a realistic punishment without preventing people from living.
Buses cost money to run, and rural upstate New York (just like a lot of rural areas that are car dependant) do not necessarily have the infrastructure to implement them. Which is exactly why I said shuttles, not buses.
Public transit isn't going to pop out of the ether to fix the problem so that we can just take away people's personal property because they broke the law as if they no longer own it. Civil forfeiture is already a broken law without us making it worse for poor people while rich people continue to get a pass.
They'll buy new vehicles. You can legally purchase a car without a driver's license in most states. You just have to have someone who can legally drive it off the lot of deliver it. Which is simple for a rich person, but not for a poor person.
Like it could be if we were willing to spend the amount of money it would cost to build and upkeep that infrastructure. But that would also likely mean civil forfeiture of land. Because bus stops and side walks and depots don't just show up because you want to take people's cars away.
The cost of all that, plus the cost of implementing the ability to store or sell these vehicles is going to be problematic and more costly than the proposal, which is more fair than the alternative because it treats people regardless of the economic situation the same.
I don't like the proposal, but I can certainly understand why it's being proposed as a better way to fix the problem.
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
Especially in New York City! How would you ever get anywhere on time without a car in New York City?!
This would apply to the whole state. New York is more than just one city
Only if it's successful.
That's why I said "would"
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.
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.
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.
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 (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.
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)
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.
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.
Sure would be a shame if they ended up homeless, then in prison as free labor for any number of companies!
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. 🤣
The only answer I can come up with is, if you take their license than they just drive with no license.
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.
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.
Oh.
Wonderful.
Even better.
This scheme would reduce ticket revenue, though. And if criminal scofflaws have to pay, good, fuck 'em. The New York taxpayers shouldn't take on the burden. The scumbags could avoid the cost trivially.
This doesn’t seem unreasonable, it’s like interlock devices for repeat drunk drivers.
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.
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.
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.
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that. Please post actually infuriating posts to !actually_infuriating@lemmy.world
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating. If your post better fits !Actually_Infuriating put it there.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.