• GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • threedaymonk@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • TDCN@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Jeppe Øland@sfba.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          @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.

          • TDCN@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Sheean Spoel@hachyderm.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              @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.

            • Alfred M. Szmidt@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              @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@feddit.dk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s a significant difference between an accident and deliberately being wrekless

                • Alfred M. Szmidt@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  @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.

                  • TDCN@feddit.dk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    But the law will definitely make me think twice before lending my car to anyone.

    • TDCN@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • JB@mastodon.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        @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?

        • TDCN@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Crisps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As long as it then goes swiftly through the court system to confirm this. Otherwise it is theft, like US asset forfeiture.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why are you @'ing everyone? You replied, we will see it.

        Leases are not ownership

    • rus@layer8.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      @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.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • rus@layer8.space
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          @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@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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

      • TDCN@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It also makes people think twice before lending their car to any random friend

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Where did I say consequences shouldn’t exist? Massive ones?

        You have the reading comprehension of a child

    • Joe@mastodon.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      @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!

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

    • :thilo:@fromm.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @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.