• threedaymonk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    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.

            • Magnus H. Gottlieb@mastodon.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              @sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk as a Dane, I like the law. Most debate in Denmark has been revolving about all the “what if?” cases. What if it’s a loaned car? Or leased?

              Personally I think it’s great that responsibility is also on the owner. If you lend your car to a reckless driver, you always risk losing it. Either because he crashes, or now, because it’s confiscated. So make your own precautions.

              • ggmartin@mastodon.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                @mhgottlieb @sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk As a Canadian who lives in Denmark, I also like the law. If you engage in reckless endangerment of other person’s lives, you should lose your favourite playtoy. If you walk around downtown swinging a machete over your head, and then you hop in your car and drive away at 200 km/h, you should lose the machete and the car.

                An argument over whether the machete was borrowed or not are exceptions that can be dealt with in court.

                • ggmartin@mastodon.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  @mhgottlieb @sldrant @TDCN @threedaymonk It would, however, be nice if the car companies could align with the expectations of the speed limits. On both of our cars, the minimum possible cruise control speed is 30 km/h. However, there are more than a couple of 20 km/h speed limits in the area.

                  I know that, of all the things I could complain about in life, this one is well down on the list. However, it’s also not a difficult problem to solve.