5 ms·

Austria to 'Super-Speeders': We're Taking Your Car

28 points by felurx 2y ago

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
The issue always is, who keeps the proceeds from sale of the forfeited vehicle. If it is the police that issued the ticket, this amounts to a license for police to commit highway robbery. If not a problem now in Austria, it eventually will be.
- piva00 2y ago
  It's not a problem in Switzerland. Where are you from?
- shkkmo 2y ago
  Given that, as the article states, police have to prove the violation before they can permanently confiscate the property, that is not an accurate description. It is only when you allow police to sieze anything and then require you to disprove the allegations (such as is currently the case in much of the USA), that you legalize highway robbery.
  - unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
    Those are good points, but I'm not sure the article is crystal on the details and anyway if a little exaggeration can net the police a big gain, this would invite public suspicion as, for example, in Menifee, Arkansas [1]. See generally https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/frequently-asked-questions-about-civil-forfeiture/ https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/freq... [1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-arkansas-town-banned-from-writing-speed-tickets-after-writing-too-many https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-arkansas-town-banned-fro...
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      I think the size also makes a difference. Each speeding ticket is a small sum that isn't worth the travel to fight. Losing an entire car is several orders of magnitude more expensive. Since Austria already has speeding tickets, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The issue in Menifee is that tickets were issued for speeding violations that were in the "acceptable" speeding range of less than 10mph over. No exaggeration was required because speeding small amounts was ubiquitous. Personally I like people to drive the actual speed limit and don't think consistent minor speeding should be as socially acceptable as it is. However, the article explains to the new law only applies in cases of extreme speeding and only when there is documented proof of such. Personally, I think criminal charges, jail time and permanent license revocation are also called for when someone goes 135 on a 80 mph road (barely sufficient to warrant permanent vehicle confiscation under the Austrian law under discussion.) As I alluded to, civil forfeiture is very different in that you have you prove your innocence rather than having the presumption of innocence.
- rowbin 2y ago
  Why would the police keep the money? It doesn't get to keep other confiscated money, does it? Wouldn't the state be the "default" recipient?
  - dmoy 2y ago
    > Why would the police keep the money? It doesn't get to keep other confiscated money, does it? Wouldn't the state be the "default" recipient? That really depends on the jurisdiction. Many police departments in the US self fund via confiscations, sometimes even not as a penalty for breaking the law. In a big city, that's a small part of the budget. In some more rural counties, it can be a surprisingly large amount of the budget. See "civil asset forfeiture"
  - infecto 2y ago
    There are unfortunately states within the US that do allow civil forfeiture. Its become quite well known where people will get pulled over with larger amounts of cash $10k+ and the cops don't like the answer of why they have money and they take it. It then becomes the burden of the owner to prove they lawfully own that money. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8909133/civil-forfeiture-states-map https://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8909133/civil-forfeiture-states...
    - RajT88 2y ago
      Usually way less than 10k in cash: https://www.propublica.org/article/police-say-seizing-property-without-trial-helps-keep-crime-down-a-new-study-shows-theyre-wrong https://www.propublica.org/article/police-say-seizing-proper...
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    That sounds the same. It seems surprising to take the car. If I kill someone I don't have to give the state my house, or even my pen. Possessions - unless illegal goods - are not the state's to take.
- Arrath 2y ago
  Who should the proceeds go to? The offending owner? The local municipality in which the offence occurred? The regional government coffers? Per the article you would have to be exceeding the speed limit by a very sizable margin to be eligible for this seizure, I find it hard to imagine the police engineering situations in which to take advantage of this.
- VS1999 2y ago
  I don't have any tolerance for people who put everyone else at risk. Take their license, take their cars, send them to prison if they try driving again.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
baxtr 2y ago
That’s the norm in Switzerland. >Officials said they drew inspiration from neighboring Switzerland, which has been confiscating cars owned by extreme speeders for more than a decade.
- bouvin 2y ago
  It was introduced a few years ago in Denmark with good results, too. Companies that lease out cars complained a bit, but I suppose they have since learned to be more careful when issuing vehicles to punters. This, of course, also applies to people who just lend out their cars – you really want to ensure that it will be driven responsible.
standardUser 2y ago
There are so many things we could do in the US to reduce the tens of thousands of road deaths every year. The odd thing is, we seem to be choosing to do none of them. I think the problem is that a meaningful number of assholes, I mean Americans, truly think they have a right to zip down freeways at 100mph, swerving form one lane to the next with no blinker. We see it every day. As far as I'm concerned, driving like that is akin to a violent crime and should come with a prison sentence.
- avalys 2y ago
  That’s already illegal. The problem is enforcement. Ever since the pandemic and the “defund the police” nonsense I’ve hardly seen the highway patrol on the roads at all, much less pulling anyone over.
  - 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
    You don't need highway patrol at all for enforcement, we have cameras and radar. Just send them a ticket in the mail and impound their car after that (the same as Austria and Switzerland). We don't enforce it because we don't want to.
  - infecto 2y ago
    This feels so true. I don't see enforcement across any of the portions of the US I travel. I rarely if ever see cars pulled over. It is a contrast to what I felt growing up.
  - thot_experiment 2y ago
    You may be surprised to learn that we did not in fact defund the police. :thonking_face_emoji:
    - hobotime 2y ago
      Seattle sure did. And it sucks. We lost 70% of the officers to other jurisdictions that don't hate them.
  - 2y ago
kettleballroll 2y ago
I'm not sure HN isnthe right place to discuss political issues, but this is a horribly toothless law. > The law applies when a driver within a city is going 60-plus kilometers per hour over the speed limit. Outside the city, the vehicle must be going 70 or more kph (44 mph) over the limit. But at that level, the vehicle is only confiscated for two weeks. For repeat offenders, as well as for those who go 80-plus kph (50 mph) over the speed limit in a city or 90-plus kph (56 mph) outside a city, the vehicle is permanently confiscated and sold. Doing 110 kpm in a 50s zone is willingly putting people's life at risk. It's beyond reckless driving, and might be considered as a super weak form of attempted murder (and suicide) even. And you get your car taken away for 2 weeks. Unless you're doing the Autobahn max Speed in a 50s zone or be a repeat offender for it to actually trigger.. What the hell? Even better, if the racer doesn't own the car, there's (as they admit themselves) nothing they can do. Why is this so weak? Is there some ethical concern about taking someone's car, or is this a political maneuver?
- alwa 2y ago
  They did mention that someone was apprehended and punished under the law by 3 AM on the first day the law came into effect. Maybe it’s a case of starting with the most egregious and noncontroversial cases and considering broader approaches from there.
- stavros 2y ago
  Maybe they want to start lenient and make it stricter later.
- citrin_ru 2y ago
  > Doing 110 kpm in a 50s zone is willingly putting people's life at risk If 50 km/h limit is appropriate for a given road. I would expect speed limits to be reasonable in AT but if an organization which sets speed limits can profit from fines and forfeiture it creates an incentive to set the limit as low as possible. In Russia I've seen a road going around the city (but formally still in the city) with the speed limit 60 km/h. With a central reservation and a large distance between traffic lights 80-90 km/h would be reasonable but guess police wanted to profit from fines. May be the speed limit has been increased eventually, don't know.
0xbadcafebee 2y ago
The US is pretty permissive about speeding. In many states there are highways on the outskirts of cities where the average speed of cars is 20mph higher than the speed limit. We've abandoned automatic speed cameras because people want to be able to speed. In South Florida you can take your traffic ticket to The Ticket Clinic, lawyers who for $80 guarantee to get the points against your license removed or your money back. We have so many technological fixes for it too. Modern cars can actually read speed limit signs, yet they don't have a feature to limit the speed of the vehicle to that limit. Some cars have a feature to limit the speed limit depending on whose car keys are in the car, but the owner has to enable it. Even if sometimes you have to speed for some extraordinary circumstance, the car could limit it to <85mph after 30 seconds (the fastest public road speed limit in the US is 85mph). And to reduce the number of drunk driving incidents, all cars could have a built-in breathalyzer. But we don't do these things for the same reason people refused to wear masks during the pandemic: fear of an attack on personal liberty. We care much more about our ability to do terrible things than our responsibility to not do harm. Humans suck. But culturally, some do more than others.
- consp 2y ago
  > Modern cars can actually read speed limit signs Mine only tells me and often picks up the signs for wet weather (reduced to 90kph) and sometimes from the parallel road which usually is either 50 or 80. Sounds like a bad idea (though limiting to the countries max is reasonable and safe).
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 2y ago
This sounds stupid and pointless. Just take their licenses and fine them, and if they keep doing it, put them in prison. This is being goofy for media attention. If one guy drives a shitty souped up car and one guy drives an expensive car, it's simply arbitrary. Austrians think voters are stupid, or know it from experience. This is a standard waste of time designed to make useless politicians look active.
OutOfHere 2y ago
Austria is basically a money-thieving country. It's about money, not about safety. What about dangerously changing lanes, jumping red lights, and tailgating? These actions can be more hazardous than orderly speeding, but there is no such punishment for them. If speeding is such a danger, why even allow car makers to sell vehicles that can drive so fast? Because the money supply from fines will dry out fast; that's why.
xnx 2y ago
I would be fully in support of something like "broken glass" roadway policing: speeding, expired/invalid plates, lights out, overtinted glass, poor emissions, obstructed windows, etc. You get a warning, then you get a fine. A few offenses and your car and or license is confiscated.

28 points by felurx 2y ago

The issue always is, who keeps the proceeds from sale of the forfeited vehicle. If it is the police that issued the ticket, this amounts to a license for police to commit highway robbery. If not a problem now in Austria, it eventually will be.

piva00 2y ago
It's not a problem in Switzerland. Where are you from?
shkkmo 2y ago
Given that, as the article states, police have to prove the violation before they can permanently confiscate the property, that is not an accurate description. It is only when you allow police to sieze anything and then require you to disprove the allegations (such as is currently the case in much of the USA), that you legalize highway robbery.
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  Those are good points, but I'm not sure the article is crystal on the details and anyway if a little exaggeration can net the police a big gain, this would invite public suspicion as, for example, in Menifee, Arkansas [1]. See generally https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/frequently-asked-questions-about-civil-forfeiture/ https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/freq... [1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-arkansas-town-banned-from-writing-speed-tickets-after-writing-too-many https://www.thedrive.com/news/small-arkansas-town-banned-fro...
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    I think the size also makes a difference. Each speeding ticket is a small sum that isn't worth the travel to fight. Losing an entire car is several orders of magnitude more expensive. Since Austria already has speeding tickets, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The issue in Menifee is that tickets were issued for speeding violations that were in the "acceptable" speeding range of less than 10mph over. No exaggeration was required because speeding small amounts was ubiquitous. Personally I like people to drive the actual speed limit and don't think consistent minor speeding should be as socially acceptable as it is. However, the article explains to the new law only applies in cases of extreme speeding and only when there is documented proof of such. Personally, I think criminal charges, jail time and permanent license revocation are also called for when someone goes 135 on a 80 mph road (barely sufficient to warrant permanent vehicle confiscation under the Austrian law under discussion.) As I alluded to, civil forfeiture is very different in that you have you prove your innocence rather than having the presumption of innocence.
rowbin 2y ago
Why would the police keep the money? It doesn't get to keep other confiscated money, does it? Wouldn't the state be the "default" recipient?
- dmoy 2y ago
  > Why would the police keep the money? It doesn't get to keep other confiscated money, does it? Wouldn't the state be the "default" recipient? That really depends on the jurisdiction. Many police departments in the US self fund via confiscations, sometimes even not as a penalty for breaking the law. In a big city, that's a small part of the budget. In some more rural counties, it can be a surprisingly large amount of the budget. See "civil asset forfeiture"
- infecto 2y ago
  There are unfortunately states within the US that do allow civil forfeiture. Its become quite well known where people will get pulled over with larger amounts of cash $10k+ and the cops don't like the answer of why they have money and they take it. It then becomes the burden of the owner to prove they lawfully own that money. https://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8909133/civil-forfeiture-states-map https://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8909133/civil-forfeiture-states...
  - RajT88 2y ago
    Usually way less than 10k in cash: https://www.propublica.org/article/police-say-seizing-property-without-trial-helps-keep-crime-down-a-new-study-shows-theyre-wrong https://www.propublica.org/article/police-say-seizing-proper...
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  That sounds the same. It seems surprising to take the car. If I kill someone I don't have to give the state my house, or even my pen. Possessions - unless illegal goods - are not the state's to take.
Arrath 2y ago
Who should the proceeds go to? The offending owner? The local municipality in which the offence occurred? The regional government coffers? Per the article you would have to be exceeding the speed limit by a very sizable margin to be eligible for this seizure, I find it hard to imagine the police engineering situations in which to take advantage of this.
VS1999 2y ago
I don't have any tolerance for people who put everyone else at risk. Take their license, take their cars, send them to prison if they try driving again.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

baxtr 2y ago

That’s the norm in Switzerland. >Officials said they drew inspiration from neighboring Switzerland, which has been confiscating cars owned by extreme speeders for more than a decade.

bouvin 2y ago
It was introduced a few years ago in Denmark with good results, too. Companies that lease out cars complained a bit, but I suppose they have since learned to be more careful when issuing vehicles to punters. This, of course, also applies to people who just lend out their cars – you really want to ensure that it will be driven responsible.

standardUser 2y ago

There are so many things we could do in the US to reduce the tens of thousands of road deaths every year. The odd thing is, we seem to be choosing to do none of them. I think the problem is that a meaningful number of assholes, I mean Americans, truly think they have a right to zip down freeways at 100mph, swerving form one lane to the next with no blinker. We see it every day. As far as I'm concerned, driving like that is akin to a violent crime and should come with a prison sentence.

avalys 2y ago
That’s already illegal. The problem is enforcement. Ever since the pandemic and the “defund the police” nonsense I’ve hardly seen the highway patrol on the roads at all, much less pulling anyone over.
- 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
  You don't need highway patrol at all for enforcement, we have cameras and radar. Just send them a ticket in the mail and impound their car after that (the same as Austria and Switzerland). We don't enforce it because we don't want to.
- infecto 2y ago
  This feels so true. I don't see enforcement across any of the portions of the US I travel. I rarely if ever see cars pulled over. It is a contrast to what I felt growing up.
- thot_experiment 2y ago
  You may be surprised to learn that we did not in fact defund the police. :thonking_face_emoji:
  - hobotime 2y ago
    Seattle sure did. And it sucks. We lost 70% of the officers to other jurisdictions that don't hate them.
- 2y ago

kettleballroll 2y ago

I'm not sure HN isnthe right place to discuss political issues, but this is a horribly toothless law. > The law applies when a driver within a city is going 60-plus kilometers per hour over the speed limit. Outside the city, the vehicle must be going 70 or more kph (44 mph) over the limit. But at that level, the vehicle is only confiscated for two weeks. For repeat offenders, as well as for those who go 80-plus kph (50 mph) over the speed limit in a city or 90-plus kph (56 mph) outside a city, the vehicle is permanently confiscated and sold. Doing 110 kpm in a 50s zone is willingly putting people's life at risk. It's beyond reckless driving, and might be considered as a super weak form of attempted murder (and suicide) even. And you get your car taken away for 2 weeks. Unless you're doing the Autobahn max Speed in a 50s zone or be a repeat offender for it to actually trigger.. What the hell? Even better, if the racer doesn't own the car, there's (as they admit themselves) nothing they can do. Why is this so weak? Is there some ethical concern about taking someone's car, or is this a political maneuver?

alwa 2y ago
They did mention that someone was apprehended and punished under the law by 3 AM on the first day the law came into effect. Maybe it’s a case of starting with the most egregious and noncontroversial cases and considering broader approaches from there.
stavros 2y ago
Maybe they want to start lenient and make it stricter later.
citrin_ru 2y ago
> Doing 110 kpm in a 50s zone is willingly putting people's life at risk If 50 km/h limit is appropriate for a given road. I would expect speed limits to be reasonable in AT but if an organization which sets speed limits can profit from fines and forfeiture it creates an incentive to set the limit as low as possible. In Russia I've seen a road going around the city (but formally still in the city) with the speed limit 60 km/h. With a central reservation and a large distance between traffic lights 80-90 km/h would be reasonable but guess police wanted to profit from fines. May be the speed limit has been increased eventually, don't know.

0xbadcafebee 2y ago

The US is pretty permissive about speeding. In many states there are highways on the outskirts of cities where the average speed of cars is 20mph higher than the speed limit. We've abandoned automatic speed cameras because people want to be able to speed. In South Florida you can take your traffic ticket to The Ticket Clinic, lawyers who for $80 guarantee to get the points against your license removed or your money back. We have so many technological fixes for it too. Modern cars can actually read speed limit signs, yet they don't have a feature to limit the speed of the vehicle to that limit. Some cars have a feature to limit the speed limit depending on whose car keys are in the car, but the owner has to enable it. Even if sometimes you have to speed for some extraordinary circumstance, the car could limit it to <85mph after 30 seconds (the fastest public road speed limit in the US is 85mph). And to reduce the number of drunk driving incidents, all cars could have a built-in breathalyzer. But we don't do these things for the same reason people refused to wear masks during the pandemic: fear of an attack on personal liberty. We care much more about our ability to do terrible things than our responsibility to not do harm. Humans suck. But culturally, some do more than others.

consp 2y ago
> Modern cars can actually read speed limit signs Mine only tells me and often picks up the signs for wet weather (reduced to 90kph) and sometimes from the parallel road which usually is either 50 or 80. Sounds like a bad idea (though limiting to the countries max is reasonable and safe).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pessimizer 2y ago

This sounds stupid and pointless. Just take their licenses and fine them, and if they keep doing it, put them in prison. This is being goofy for media attention. If one guy drives a shitty souped up car and one guy drives an expensive car, it's simply arbitrary. Austrians think voters are stupid, or know it from experience. This is a standard waste of time designed to make useless politicians look active.

OutOfHere 2y ago

Austria is basically a money-thieving country. It's about money, not about safety. What about dangerously changing lanes, jumping red lights, and tailgating? These actions can be more hazardous than orderly speeding, but there is no such punishment for them. If speeding is such a danger, why even allow car makers to sell vehicles that can drive so fast? Because the money supply from fines will dry out fast; that's why.

xnx 2y ago

I would be fully in support of something like "broken glass" roadway policing: speeding, expired/invalid plates, lights out, overtinted glass, poor emissions, obstructed windows, etc. You get a warning, then you get a fine. A few offenses and your car and or license is confiscated.