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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
People on a budget can just slow the fuck down. Speeding tickets are not cheap.
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.
Yep. Need tickets proportional to income to solve that, and photo radar to solve acab interactions.
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.
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.
Sure would be a shame if they ended up homeless, then in prison as free labor for any number of companies!
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”
Could always live in a city. Rural areas (I include american type suburbs here too) are for fat and dumb people.
All cities have fantastic public transit at all times, this is known. /s
Also what’s with the rural hate outta nowhere?
What happened to “don’t do the crime, if you can’t do the time,” or, “shoulda thought of that before breaking the law”?
You tell me. How do you feel about those rules?
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.
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).
John could just follow the law. I love these discussions, because drivers get so angry when I call out their criminal behavior.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
… make money to pay taxes and buy products…
And pay rent for a home and to buy food and clothes
But sure make it sound dumb and silly 🥳
I’m out of silly.