“Instead of using traffic calming to slow cars or designing cities properly so that people don’t need to drive in the first place, let’s violate people’s privacy and property rights to forcibly install a tracking and speed governor device in their car because even when we’ve already suspended their license it’s still somehow unreasonable to actually stop them from driving! Car-dependency and car-supremacy, fuck yeah!”
Everything about this is comprehensively despicable.
We do need some cars, for sure. And with that roads and rules. When those rules say that they highest speed in the country is, say, 120pkh, then why the hell is even the shitties car able to somewhat easily reach 200 or better cars even up to the high 200s?we don’t need cars that can reach those speeds, because nobody is allowed to drive at those speeds, so why the hell can just about all cars reach those speeds?
Just make it forbidden for any car to exceed 130kph to begin with.
Then also indeed design your damned roads correctly
If you do want to drive over 120, go drive on a race tracking cars that are now allowed on the streets
While I agree in principle, this change is a win and I hope more states legalize this method.
We give breathalyzer lockouts to DUI convicted citizens. Why? Because they’ll drive anyway. You can pull licenses all you want, but when driving is required to live, the people will drive. And they’ll do it even when they’re a raging alcoholic.
A speed monitor / limiter is a tool for a judge to use. Judges don’t have the power to pull city, state, and federal money and force building better street designs. I don’t believe they should have that power as political issues should not be addressed by a single branch of government. That’s how we got here after all: cities dictating minimum parking, civil engineers pushing terrible designs and refusing to change them, fire departments mandating minimum lane widths, etc.
However, judges do have the power to remove a person’s property and privacy rights. Ergo a good judge will restrict a convicted person’s rights in a way that could feasibly prevent societal harm.
Judges can remove a person’s right to drive too, as can doctors and other civil servants, but that usually ends in death. Literally.
We give breathalyzer lockouts to DUI convicted citizens. Why? Because they’ll drive anyway. You can pull licenses all you want, but when driving is required to live, the people will drive. And they’ll do it even when they’re a raging alcoholic.
Frankly, if we’re going to be fucking with people’s property rights anyway, I think it would actually be better public policy to confiscate the whole car. First of all, it forcibly creates another pedestrian, and therefore increases public support for non-car infrastructure. Second, asserting this right to control parts of people’s property and prohibiting them from modifying it without taking it away completely creates this weird “in-between” kind of ownership that leads to creeping expansion of infringement and has bad implications for things like Right to Repair, etc. I mean, you proved my point yourself: (paraphrased) “we already do it for breathalyzer lockouts, so that must mean it’s okay.” When does it end?
Judges can remove a person’s right to drive too
That has never been a right, except on private land that the driver owns. Driving in public has always been a privilege.
I think it would actually be better public policy to confiscate the whole car.
This is what Denmark does for egregious speeding. Doesn’t matter if it isn’t your car or it’s registered in another country. That car was driving way too fast? State property now.
Frankly, if we’re going to be fucking with people’s property rights anyway, I think it would actually be better public policy to confiscate the whole car.
I agree and would happily vote yes for any measure adding such language to our state and federal laws.
Property seizure, especially with cars, is already a big part of many (all?) state’s law for unpaid taxes and debts. All we would need to do is tack on speeding ticket/points/whatever to allow the state to quickly and easily seize cars.
When does it end?
When we can get our act together to pass and enforce such laws. Until then I’ll take any legislative actions that restrict car drivers.
We can be angry about proposed laws not going far enough, but trying to stop good progress in the name of perfection will allow drivers to continue terrorizing the streets. This is especially true in purple and red states, but it’ll be a fight everywhere (California is desperately in love with cars).
That has never been a right, except on private land that the driver owns. Driving in public has always been a privilege.
That’s why I pointed out a doctor and other civil servants have the same power. We can argue about semantics, but the answer remains the same: a judge can revoke your driver’s license and is empowered for much more, like confiscating your property, sending you to jail, and removing your ability to vote.
I highly recommend reading the link I left in my earlier comment. It seems you haven’t read it. Although perhaps I should include a trigger warning: traffic violence by a driver in a brand new truck who had their license revoked multiple times by a doctor and a judge.
“Instead of using traffic calming to slow cars or designing cities properly so that people don’t need to drive in the first place, let’s violate people’s privacy and property rights to forcibly install a tracking and speed governor device in their car because even when we’ve already suspended their license it’s still somehow unreasonable to actually stop them from driving! Car-dependency and car-supremacy, fuck yeah!”
Everything about this is comprehensively despicable.
Absolutely but…
We do need some cars, for sure. And with that roads and rules. When those rules say that they highest speed in the country is, say, 120pkh, then why the hell is even the shitties car able to somewhat easily reach 200 or better cars even up to the high 200s?we don’t need cars that can reach those speeds, because nobody is allowed to drive at those speeds, so why the hell can just about all cars reach those speeds?
Just make it forbidden for any car to exceed 130kph to begin with.
Then also indeed design your damned roads correctly
If you do want to drive over 120, go drive on a race tracking cars that are now allowed on the streets
While I agree in principle, this change is a win and I hope more states legalize this method.
We give breathalyzer lockouts to DUI convicted citizens. Why? Because they’ll drive anyway. You can pull licenses all you want, but when driving is required to live, the people will drive. And they’ll do it even when they’re a raging alcoholic.
A speed monitor / limiter is a tool for a judge to use. Judges don’t have the power to pull city, state, and federal money and force building better street designs. I don’t believe they should have that power as political issues should not be addressed by a single branch of government. That’s how we got here after all: cities dictating minimum parking, civil engineers pushing terrible designs and refusing to change them, fire departments mandating minimum lane widths, etc.
However, judges do have the power to remove a person’s property and privacy rights. Ergo a good judge will restrict a convicted person’s rights in a way that could feasibly prevent societal harm.
Judges can remove a person’s right to drive too, as can doctors and other civil servants, but that usually ends in death. Literally.
Frankly, if we’re going to be fucking with people’s property rights anyway, I think it would actually be better public policy to confiscate the whole car. First of all, it forcibly creates another pedestrian, and therefore increases public support for non-car infrastructure. Second, asserting this right to control parts of people’s property and prohibiting them from modifying it without taking it away completely creates this weird “in-between” kind of ownership that leads to creeping expansion of infringement and has bad implications for things like Right to Repair, etc. I mean, you proved my point yourself: (paraphrased) “we already do it for breathalyzer lockouts, so that must mean it’s okay.” When does it end?
That has never been a right, except on private land that the driver owns. Driving in public has always been a privilege.
This is what Denmark does for egregious speeding. Doesn’t matter if it isn’t your car or it’s registered in another country. That car was driving way too fast? State property now.
I agree and would happily vote yes for any measure adding such language to our state and federal laws.
Property seizure, especially with cars, is already a big part of many (all?) state’s law for unpaid taxes and debts. All we would need to do is tack on speeding ticket/points/whatever to allow the state to quickly and easily seize cars.
When we can get our act together to pass and enforce such laws. Until then I’ll take any legislative actions that restrict car drivers.
We can be angry about proposed laws not going far enough, but trying to stop good progress in the name of perfection will allow drivers to continue terrorizing the streets. This is especially true in purple and red states, but it’ll be a fight everywhere (California is desperately in love with cars).
That’s why I pointed out a doctor and other civil servants have the same power. We can argue about semantics, but the answer remains the same: a judge can revoke your driver’s license and is empowered for much more, like confiscating your property, sending you to jail, and removing your ability to vote.
I highly recommend reading the link I left in my earlier comment. It seems you haven’t read it. Although perhaps I should include a trigger warning: traffic violence by a driver in a brand new truck who had their license revoked multiple times by a doctor and a judge.
When does it end?