• TDCN@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    In Denmark we have the lovely new law that if you drive more than 100% over the speed limit and over 100 kmh or drive over 200 kmh at all or drunk driving with over 2‰ they confiscate the car and you are not getting it back at all. They confiscate the car regadles of who owns the car (with very few exceptions) and that is also if it is leased. So far since when the law started they have confiscated over 2000 cars in two years. It’s my favourite law of all laws right now. The fine for driving crazy is also nicely proportional to your income and it removes the car so the person cannot just drive without license afterwards.

    • 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.

              • 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.

              • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

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

          Leases are not ownership

      • :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.

      • 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

        • 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

    • Lats (314 ppm)@aus.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @TDCN sounds great and would definitely be useful in #australia where there is continual news of unlicensed or habitually reckless drivers causing havoc. Maybe making owners responsible would start a shift in society where parents and friends need to their own role in this continuing drama.

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

        Lol thank for letting me know. That’s definitely interesting. I ditched Reddit so don’t really care for karma farmers. They could at least have linked to my original post but it’s Reddit after all so what can you expect. Funny it gets reposted back to lemmy

    • Adam@mastodon.me.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      @TDCN @Showroom7561 I’ll be honest I think it’s an an odd stance to take to say confiscation is wrong. The 100 kmh limit is about 60 mph, to be over 100% that means the limit is 30 mph. This limit is normally through a town, village or urban area. So if someone drives at 60 mph down the high street, that’s not just a “little bit of speeding”, that’s completely reckless

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

          Exactly. In Danish we exclusively use promill (per thousands) for blood alcohol level so it’s a habit for me to use ‰ or more commonly the written form promille

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

        Nope, doesn’t work like that here. We don’t have constitutions the way you do on the US. Many cases have been tried in court and the offender lost in many cases

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

        I just tried looking uh up and it’s still too early to say. Of course the car lobby ar criticising the law and asking why they are not year concluding anything yet but to be fair it has just been covid and 2 years is just so short to see any impact to the statistics. In my own opinion I think it must work. It’s a specific type of people who drive wreklessly and often in groups of “cool guys”. If you start to remove cars from those groups they will be more hesitant to lend each other cars. If they get impacted the story will carry more impact than a massive fine. A car is very a physical object and is more visible than a debt. If a dad find his son drove wreklessly and got the car confiscated it wil be a stronger lesson for both the father and the son. I can be unfair but we have tried fines for so long and it has not worked. We already have the some of the biggest fines for traffic violations in the world.

    • mike805@noc.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      @TDCN @Showroom7561 So if it is leased, do they sell the car and pay off the lease? Or do you have to pay for insurance that covers the lease holder if this happens? I guarantee you the banks that finance leases are not just eating that.

      Here in the USA it is almost routine for the drunk who finally causes a fatal accident to have six DUIs, a .15 BAC, and a revoked license at the time of the mishap.

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

        Tbh I have no idea how it works in practice but I’d assume the leasing companies will just pass on the cost to the offender

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

        I do t agree on the crushing aspect of this law. It’s environmental iresponsibil and stupid. Just sell/auktion the car and spend the money on making better traffic safety

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

        If you have a 20kmh zone it sounds unreasonable to get your car taken if you drive only 40 kmh. 40 is still quite slow

        • Jesse@aus.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          @TDCN @acs 5 out of 5 pedestrians will survive a collision with a car traveling at 20km/hr, only 4 out of 5 will survive a collision with a car traveling at 40km/h.
          This doesn’t include the large difference in level of injury.

          So by speeding your taking a situation where nobody should die and making it a situation where someone might.

          A 20km/h area is an area where there will be lots of people to hit so it’s even more important to stick to the speed limit in that situation

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

            You still get a massive fine of 1200 kr (175usd) in this case at 20kmh and at only 30% above you get a “cut in your license” (like a yellow card in football). 3 of those “cuts” and you have to get a new licens. 60% above the limit they outright take your licens and the fine goes up. If the speed limit is reduced due to road work the fine is doubled. And many more rules. If you are a student or pensioner you fine gets halfed for instance. Besides the fine if you go at 60% or above you also need to pay 500kr or more to a “victims” fond that raises money for the victims of traffic accidents.

    • Kevin Karhan :verified:@mstdn.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      @TDCN @Showroom7561 Personally, I think banning.someone from driving hurts them harder than loosing a vehicle, as one can’t just get a new driving license - the loophole that allowed one to just make a new license in another EU member state has been closed for those barred from (re)issue of a license.

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

        Trust me they are still banned from driving for a year or more if this law triggeres

        • Kevin Karhan :verified:@mstdn.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          @TDCN that’s quite low.

          People speeding 100% over limit usually get barred for life from attaining any permit unless they get medically certified to be able to drive.

          And even then they’d likely not face charges for speeding alone but literally charges for attempted homicide by gross neglect and recklessness.

          I mean if one’s driving like 100km/h on regular city roads they don’t just loose their license but face serious jailtime.

          And I think that’s more than justified.

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

            I said “or more” because I don’t know the details. Depending on what you did you can get banned for much longer or even face jail time if it’s very severe. It’s individual and depends on the offence

    • Trish@mas.to
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      @TDCN @Showroom7561 it’s a pity they don’t have the same law for cyclists 😂 they’re everywhere in Denmark. I was dodging them more than cars to be fair 🙈

      • sabik@rants.au
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        @melissabeartrix @TDCN @Showroom7561
        Counterpoint: some roads switch between 70km/h or 80km/h and 40km/h based on time of day; so you’re on a road engineered for 70-80km/h, there are no children anywhere because school won’t be out for another half an hour, but it’s already 75% or 100% over the speed limit if you mistake the time

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

          The law states that it has to be 100% over AND over 100 kmh fo for a 40 zone you’d have to driver over 100kmh for the car to be confiscated

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

        That’s probably the exceptions I mentioned. I’m no expert, bit of be unreasonable to the owner if the car was stolen.

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

        Also… Just drive the speed limit and noone takes your car away from you

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

        I don’t understand what you mean, of course they work and then if its high they verify with a blod sample to verify and to give you the benefit of the doubt

    • Nick Lockwood@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      @TDCN @Showroom7561 like most fines, this just makes it legal for rich folk and potentially life-destroying for poor folk.

      If this happens to a taxi driver, they might end up homeless. If it happens to a rich playboy they’ll just go buy a new car and carry on speeding.

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

        The taxi driver could also… Just hear me out… Drive the speed limit and not drive like a maniac. Then he’s fine and noone takes his car.

        • Nick Lockwood@mastodon.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          @TDCN sure, unless it was the car owner’s friend, or kid, or crack addict neighbour who took their car and then committed the crime.

          Regardless, the issue is not whether crimes should be punished, but whether it makes sense to have punishments that only affect the poor.

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

            Just don’t lend the car out to anyone you don’t fully trust. Take responsibility of your vehicle and make it clear to the borrower that he/she should drive properly regardles of that being your mom or your best friend. If the car is taken without your consent it’s theft and grounds for the exceptions in the law so you get it back.

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

                Okay hers the thing. It’s naive to think that it’s just “nothing” for rich people. You have to take the rest of the law into consideration. They obviously don’t just take the car from the owner as the only thing with this kind of extream offence (obviously, otherwise it’ll be a dumb law). On top there’s a huge (and I mean huge) fine for the driver and they take your lisence and you are completely banned from driving for X amount of years. After the ban you have to pay for a completely new drivers license which is really expensive but more importantly really time-consuming in Denmark. We are talking weeks of training and mandatory tests, first aid exam and hours of theory and practical lessons. There are payments to a fond that raises money for traffic victims and for multiple offenses or if you drove exceptionally wreklessly there’s possibly jail time. Even if you are rich this is not just “pocket money” there’s more context than you think.

          • Jesse@aus.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            @nicklockwood @TDCN @Showroom7561 no, it’s just politically impossible to mandate speed limiters. Governments tried 50yrs ago and haven’t tried again since. Car manufacturers want people to know they can speed. It’s all over their marketing.

            • Nick Lockwood@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              @jessta @TDCN @Showroom7561 if they really wanted to they could use the traffic camera network that already tracks numbers plates to do average speed checks on every car and issue fines automatically. I suspect they don’t because then traffic would grind to a halt.

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

                Why would it grind to a haltm I see no reason for this. People just need to drive the speed limit. In Norway for example they have cameras at the begining of long stretches of highway and a camera at the end and if your average speed is higher than allowed it automatically sends you a fine. Those stretches of road are soooo nice to drive because everyone are driving the same speed and it’s so smooth

    • Dustin D. Wind@mastodon.cloud
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      @TDCN @Showroom7561 Rich person drives 240kmh drunk out of their mind, loses expensive car, gets another the next day because it’s still just pocket change to them.

      Boyfriend “borrows” the old-but-working car of his abused girlfriend who’s barely making it paycheck to paycheck, drives 110kph, her car gets seized and she now has no hope of escape.

      An extreme comparison? Yes. But it illustrates that nice simple one-size-fits-all laws often have abhorrent results.

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

        There are exemptions in the law for this exact matter. It states of the punishment is unreasonably hard on the owner they can get it back

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

        I forgot to also add that they obviously don’t just take the car from the owner as the only thing with this kind of offence (obviously, otherwise it’ll be a dumb law). On top there’s a huge fine for the driver and they take your lisence and you are banned from driving for X amount of years. You have to pay for a completely new drivers license which is really expensive but mire importantly really time-consuming in Denmark we are talking weeks of training and mandatory tests, first aid exam and hours of theory and practical lessons. There are payments to a fond that raises money for traffic victims and possibly jail time if you drove exceptionally wreklessly or drunk. Even if you are rich this is not just “pocket money” there’s more context than you think.

    • Benton Greene@spacey.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      @TDCN @Showroom7561 I really like this law in principle, but without *free* rehab, or really any other drug recovery assistance, and without a good social safety net, it does inordinately punish poor people. Yes, if the person is a rich asshole, 300% take *all* their cars. But sometimes the person is poor and using alcohol to just feel less shitty about their life and need the car to be able to have a job. Not that that’s good, but it *is* a reason to not take their car…

    • Paris Lord@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      @TDCN @Showroom7561 This sounds terrific. Do you have a link to that law please. (In Danish is fine). I want to use it as an example for discussion leading up to my city’s elections next year. It will upset the many car brains who run my city. 😀

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

        It’s not a single law to say but changes to the existing law so the actual writing is spread out over a few paragraphs. Here’s a link for the entire traffic law LINK Start at §119 about confiscation and §133 about offences that causes you to loose your licens. The details can be a bit difficult to sift out. It’s law stuff I guess.

    • clay shentrup 🌐🚲@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      @TDCN @Showroom7561 it obviously shouldn’t be proportional to your income, it should be set to the actual negative externality cost. this is a failure to understand basic economics. If we can save more statistical lives with the money from the tax then the statistical expected loss, then we want these people speeding and paying for it.