4 ms·

In Saskatchewan, Canada, they no longer require yearly insurance stickers on plates because the information is automatically checked by plate scanners on cop ca

In Saskatchewan, Canada, they no longer require yearly insurance stickers on plates because the information is automatically checked by plate scanners on cop cars (to the best of my knowledge). The officer will still require proof of registration when pulled over.

fyfy18 9y ago
Same with road tax in the U.K. since 2014. The government used this as an opportunity to start enforcing the rule that vehicle excise duty is not transferable after a sale. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/abolition-of-paper-car-tax-disc-why-are-drivers-being-fined-and-having-vehicles-towed-away-10171919.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/abolition-of-paper-car-...
doikor 9y ago
We've had this since 1997 for car tax stickers in Finland when they decided it was easier to just install a computer in every cop car that has the db. Same db also has info on insurance and inspections and also the check has been recently made automatic on the camera when previously the officer had to manually enter the plate. I wouldn't be surprised if the data about the scans goes the other way too. Proof of registration was made electronic in 2016 and again checked on the computer. Driving a car isn't a right but a privilege so I'm on with this.
- syrrim 9y ago
  >Driving a car isn't a right but a privilege so I'm ok with this That's an interesting perspective. I get it in the sense of safe driving - if you are swerving all about the road, you shouldn't be on the road - but it doesn't work so well for registration and tracking. Bare minimum, people should have a right to get around. So much of what people want to do in their life is beyond walking distance, that some method of transport is necessary to get there. This isn't a political right, but rather a pratical right - something that people need to be able to do to live a full life. At the extreme, house arrest involes banning a person from going anywhere, and is clearly a (perhaps necessary) breach of their rights. In particularly rural areas, banning someone from owning a car would amount to banning them from going anywhere. So I think it makes sense to say someone has a right to own a car. We ban poor drivers from the road merely because other rights are more important than driving is. For example, my right to safety is more important than your right to drive. If your dangerous driving puts my safety in question, than you should be taken off the road. However, if you manage to drive without infringing other's rights, than the government shouldn't be able to stop you from driving.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    The difference is that the roads are built by the government and are government property. The government can quite reasonably control what happens in its property without implicating peoples’ rights in the same way as when its regulating what happens on private property. As to rural areas—people who live there make a choice to live somewhere that requires them to travel on government property to get anywhere.
- bradbatt 9y ago
  > Driving a car isn't a right but a privilege so I'm on with this. The right to privacy IS a right and NOT a privilege. So I'm not down with this.

fyfy18 9y ago

Same with road tax in the U.K. since 2014. The government used this as an opportunity to start enforcing the rule that vehicle excise duty is not transferable after a sale. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/abolition-of-paper-car-tax-disc-why-are-drivers-being-fined-and-having-vehicles-towed-away-10171919.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/abolition-of-paper-car-...

doikor 9y ago

We've had this since 1997 for car tax stickers in Finland when they decided it was easier to just install a computer in every cop car that has the db. Same db also has info on insurance and inspections and also the check has been recently made automatic on the camera when previously the officer had to manually enter the plate. I wouldn't be surprised if the data about the scans goes the other way too. Proof of registration was made electronic in 2016 and again checked on the computer. Driving a car isn't a right but a privilege so I'm on with this.

syrrim 9y ago
>Driving a car isn't a right but a privilege so I'm ok with this That's an interesting perspective. I get it in the sense of safe driving - if you are swerving all about the road, you shouldn't be on the road - but it doesn't work so well for registration and tracking. Bare minimum, people should have a right to get around. So much of what people want to do in their life is beyond walking distance, that some method of transport is necessary to get there. This isn't a political right, but rather a pratical right - something that people need to be able to do to live a full life. At the extreme, house arrest involes banning a person from going anywhere, and is clearly a (perhaps necessary) breach of their rights. In particularly rural areas, banning someone from owning a car would amount to banning them from going anywhere. So I think it makes sense to say someone has a right to own a car. We ban poor drivers from the road merely because other rights are more important than driving is. For example, my right to safety is more important than your right to drive. If your dangerous driving puts my safety in question, than you should be taken off the road. However, if you manage to drive without infringing other's rights, than the government shouldn't be able to stop you from driving.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The difference is that the roads are built by the government and are government property. The government can quite reasonably control what happens in its property without implicating peoples’ rights in the same way as when its regulating what happens on private property. As to rural areas—people who live there make a choice to live somewhere that requires them to travel on government property to get anywhere.
bradbatt 9y ago
> Driving a car isn't a right but a privilege so I'm on with this. The right to privacy IS a right and NOT a privilege. So I'm not down with this.