5 ms·

Repeat offenders should not be allowed to drive. In the UK we have 12 points, and lose them for various offences. You get a fine, usually with the alternative

Repeat offenders should not be allowed to drive. In the UK we have 12 points, and lose them for various offences. You get a fine, usually with the alternative of a course the first time. Speed again within 12 months and you get a fine and a minimum of three points (more if you are well above the limit). Speed again within four years and you will lose more points, and AFAIK pretty much guaranteed to be more than the minimum. Get caught speeding more than once an year and you are guaranteed to lose your license. I think this is necessary. I say this as someone who complains about some of the speed limits in my area as they are too low (20mph zones seem a bit random) - I still follow them!

dabeeeenster 2y ago
The only problem is a decent percentage of people plead to the courts that they need their vehicle to work and hence get let off
- graemep 2y ago
  That is true, but they should still face fines, lost points and higher insurance costs.
  - ChoGGi 2y ago
    You're assuming they have insurance. I think it's something like 1-5 don't have insurance in Texas.
    - Leynos 2y ago
      Interesting. It's illegal to drive without insurance in the UK.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        It's illegal to drive without insurance in Texas as well. It's also illegal to murder someone and yet people still do it from time to time. Stealing is illegal and yet stuff gets stolen. Drunk driving is illegal and yet people drive drunk. Turns out just making something illegal doesn't completely stop the action. When we build our societies where you need to drive to function it's not surprising people will continue to drive when they shouldn't. Maybe we should build our societies so people don't have to drive just to live.
        bookofjoe 2y ago
        >Approximately 17% of drivers on California roads are uninsured, according to statistics from 2022 presented by the Insurance Information Institute. This means nearly 6 million drivers in California may be unable to compensate those injured in accidents.
        vel0city 2y ago
        /s/may be unable to/almost definitely unable to/g
        graemep 2y ago
        What are the consequences? About 1% of cars do not have insurance in the UK at any given time. > When we build our societies where you need to drive to function it's not surprising people will continue to drive when they shouldn't. Maybe we should build our societies so people don't have to drive just to live. In cities, definitely. In rural areas?
        vel0city 2y ago
        What are the consequences? For most drivers most of the time, they save a few hundred bucks a month. If caught, they'll issue a ticket with a fine that's about a month or two of insurance. Maybe their car will get impounded (unlikely). Maybe they'll face jail time with enough repeat offenses, but once again its unlikely they'll get pulled over in the first place. We'll just continue crushing the poor. The consequences for those they harm are pretty severe. Having your car destroyed can be lifechangily expensive for someone who is barely scraping by. Adding healthcare costs on top of that are pretty bad. Even with health insurance injuries from a car accident could get expensive fast, and add to the fact the single most expensive thing you owned just got destroyed while you're now unable to work. Too many people forget about the costs of driving they impose on others, thinking "that won't happen to me, I just won't hit anyone". Driving without insurance is an incredibly reckless and selfish act. > In cities, definitely. In rural areas? Most people don't live in these "rural areas". And even then, I'd argue those "rural areas" could do quite a bit to reduce car dependence. Once again, how can these places solve transportation issues for those who can't afford insurance?
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        It's all but illegal in the US too but the feedback loop of increased cost, increased regulation, increased mandates for insurance has driven up the cost enough that the baseline cost of compliance is so high that unless you're solidly in the middle class driving expired/unregistered beaters with no insurance and abandoning them to impound every now and then and/or pleading financial hardship with the courts is preferable. And when most people running expired or no reg are just everyday working stiffs and most of them can't afford huge fines it's neither useful as a pretext for fishing nor revenue so the harassment by cops stops happening. And the rhetoric of the voting public has pretty firmly against the cops harassing the crap out of people recently too. No amount of screeching about how these people should be stomped by the jackboot for noncompliance will make the economics of that pencil out for the state. You force these people to pay up either to the state or the insurers and they won't be able to live at their current economic level and they'll just turn right back around and be on the section 8 and welfare rolls which is probably worse for the public good. It's just a shitty situation no matter how you cut it.
ensignavenger 2y ago
Most US states have similar point systems.
donatj 2y ago
Many places in the United States use speed traps as revenue streams, and in many of the same places in the US it's nigh impossible to get around without a vehicle. Taking someone's license away for getting caught doing 5 over a few too many times on the freeway where literally everyone is always doing 5 over and you are more of a danger by not going the speed of traffic doesn't in any way serve the public interest as far as I can tell. It's a death sentence for a victimless crime. Aggressive driving, reckless driving, major speed infractions (15 mph+ over), etc are far more dangerous and worthy of major penalties.
- shlant 2y ago
  > Taking someone's license away for getting caught doing 5 over a few too many times on the freeway where literally everyone is always doing 5 over and you are more of a danger by not going the speed of traffic doesn't in any way serve the public interest as far as I can tell. It's a death sentence for a victimless crime. What percentage of people who would be effected by this do you think match this description?
  - donatj 2y ago
    I would imagine most. In my experience, laws intended to catch specific bad actors usually end up being enforced mostly against the easiest-to-catch mild offenders. For example: one of my neighbors speeds like an idiot through our neighborhood — easily doing 60 mph and often blowing right through the stop sign at the end of the block. He’s a real danger. The neighborhood complained to city hall. Their solution? They lowered the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph. It changed nothing. He still speeds. He still blows stop signs. He doesn’t get caught — there usually aren't any cops hanging around our sleepy end of town. Meanwhile, I have seen people get pulled over for doing the previously legal, entirely reasonable, 30 mph — which is still the limit for most of the city.
  - tmerc 2y ago
    The example above is bad but not by much. In the parts of NY outside the city, we have 65mph roads (state max speed limit) between large areas and 55mph roads between smaller areas. Doing 10 over in both is common with speeds being 65 and 75 respectively. Doing 15 over in a 55 is safe in many areas that I have driven and is 70mph, which is a safe speed to most states. Now, at 71 mph, you officially trigger the 15+mph rule mentioned to be a super speeder. Based on anecdotal experience from numerous trips between NY and Ohio, I would estimate that minimum 1 in 5 cars are doing 80+ in a 65. So, at least 20% by my obviously flawed and biased observations. For an actual estimate, in 1988 during the national 55mph speed limit era, an observed 85% of drivers in NY were above the speed limit. For more context, I have paced many law enforcement vehicles (usually state troopers) doing 10 over with regular traffic.
artursapek 2y ago
In the UK you also have police visit you over shitposts, and you receive incessant mail demanding you pay a license for owning a TV
khaki54 2y ago
Yes, they already have this type of point system in VA. What is the point of allowing this device when they will suspend or revoke your license after a few infractions. Additionally, you'd need to have generational wealth to afford the insurance at that point. On top of that, they have an extensive bus system in the northern VA area and biking routes so it would be pretty hard for someone to say they have some hardhip where you need to keep driving. I think this will just be another thing leading us to full surveillance state.
ryao 2y ago
In NY, we operate on a 11 point system. Gain 11 points and lose your license.
gosub100 2y ago
This is a rare case I support civil asset forfeiture: sue the car (in addition to criminal proceedings). Impound the car until fines are paid - which go into uninsured motorist funds - or else sell the car at auction and do the same. Will other parties' vehicles get impounded? Yes and that sucks. But either don't lend them your car, or else let the people closest to the offender pay the consequences more often than the current situation where random people in traffic pay financially or with life and limb for reckless drivers.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  I hope you don't wonder why civil asset forfeiture persists. It's like you're laying one brick on the road to hell. Multiply by everyone else and their pet issues and the whole damn thing gets paved. What even is the point of principals if you don't stand by them?
  - bluecalm 2y ago
    What other "pet issue" kills 40k people a year and injures 50-100x of that? It's a huge issue which warrants radical steps.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    > Multiply by everyone else and their pet issues and the whole damn thing gets paved. Slippery slope fallacy. Why don't you refute the central point of what I suggested?
    - vel0city 2y ago
      You don't have to have civil asset forfeiture to impound the car.
      - gosub100 2y ago
        then call it something euphemistic with many more words, but "suing the car" is ultimately what it would entail.
afavour 2y ago
The problem with this model is that in a lot of places (especially in the US) public transit isn't a viable alternative to owning a car. So if your ability to drive gets taken away a lot of people just end up driving illegally. It's either that or lose your job, income and possibly home etc etc. IMO a forced maximum vehicle speed is a useful middle ground option.
- xandrius 2y ago
  More people (and not just the poorer) needing to use the public transport will definitely have a positive impact on how much money it gets. And if it is being more strict with people who break driving laws, I don't see why that shouldn't happen.
  - afavour 2y ago
    "make people depend on the thing and that will incentivize the government to make it better" feels like logic that doesn't play out in reality.
    - tremon 2y ago
      It only works in places where the government works for the people.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    You'd think, but that is largely not the way that political winds are blowing. There are very high rates of people who are driving vehicles illegally in states that consistently vote against public transit projects. This is because there is a perception among many of lower socioeconomic status that "spending more will raise my taxes, and I already can't afford car insurance", and that public transit projects will not be built to their benefit.
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
      >there is a perception among many of lower socioeconomic status I don't think this is it at all. In the US we don't enforce social norms. The public transit experience in the US is dominated by an extreme antisocial minority ("crazy" bums, drug users, bluetooth speakers, etc). This is the true killer of public transit in America.
_fat_santa 2y ago
I will say this as a car guy, Virgina has an exceedingly bad reputation among gear heads. If you look at virtually any east coast rally, they will all route around Virginia to avoid driving through it. - VA is the only state to ban radar detectors - It has the lowest interstate speed limit in the country - It has some of the stiffest super speeder and reckless driving laws in the country. In most places if you go like 30 over that's just a bad ticket but in VA that's criminal reckless driving. - And many other anti-car related laws. I will be the first to say, don't speed, don't street race and if you have that itch to go a track but also, VA is a horrible place to be if you're a car person. It's not in the least bit surprising that they are the first to pursue such legislation.
- zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
  Sounds good to me. People shouldn't be driving 30 over. Reckless driving should be taken seriously. These don't sound anti-car. They're pro-life and safety.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    The public doesn't take "reckless driving" seriously because it is not defined in a serious manner. It encompass people who are going 60/65/75 (depending on state) in a 55 on the interstate that's actually a 45 because of an inactive construction zone and also people who are going 60mph on 30mph city streets (probably genuinely reckless per common usage of the word). They're two very different degrees of misconduct and the former vastly outnumbers the latter and everyone knows it and political will for penalties is based off this. You wanna see reckless driving taken seriously the first step is to stop advocating for definitions of reckless that include behavior the general public doesn't see as reckless.
    - zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
      "You wanna see reckless driving taken seriously the first step is to stop advocating for definitions of reckless that include behavior the general public doesn't see as reckless." Where was I advocating that? Also, just because the general public believes something doesn't mean it's true.
lenerdenator 2y ago
> Get caught speeding more than once an year and you are guaranteed to lose your license. I'm not overly familiar with British transportation outside of its major city centers, but in the US, we also yank licenses, but people drive without them anyways, mainly because there's no real alternative. Even those convicted of DUI in my area can make a plea to the judge for a "hardship" license that effectively allows them to operate a motor vehicle only for emergencies and going to-and-from work. It's so hard to live without a car in the area that you could possibly make an Eighth Amendment case against pulling the license of a drunk.
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  Around me so many areas were built to even be hostile towards anything other than a car. The business park I work in has no pedestrian/bike access without going through a few "take your life in your hands" intersections.
maccard 2y ago
I agree with everything you’ve said. But, the sort of person who gets 12 points isn’t exactly the sort of person who you would expect to actually stop driving once they’ve got there. They’ve already been in court for speeding (or worse) at least twice, possibly 4 times. Maybe more if they were offered a speed awareness course the first time. If the goal is to stop them speeding then these devices might actually do it…
- xandrius 2y ago
  And if you get caught, you get jail time. What's the issue?
- ryao 2y ago
  In NY, the limit is 11 points and being caught at 40mph above the speed limit will give you 11 points in 1 offense. The term super speeder tends to be used for these.
- graemep 2y ago
  Not in court - most are fixed penalties. Yes, the devices might help, but I also think cars can be seized etc. I believe the UK and the EU already require speed limiters be installed on all new cars. https://www.parkers.co.uk/car-advice/speed-limiters-what-they-mean-for-you/ https://www.parkers.co.uk/car-advice/speed-limiters-what-the...
seneca 2y ago
Totally agree. Vehicles are incredibly dangerous, and operating hundreds of them in concert with each other requires responsible participants. Allowing them to be used like toys for simpletons to play out some racing fantasy with is a serious danger to people just going about their lives. At a certain point, aggressive driving and speeding should be treated like negligently swinging about a weapon. It should be treated seriously.
fortran77 2y ago
I'm always amazed that people are allowed to drive again. I had a friend who was killed by an impaired driver. The driver got a 3 year sentence, no jail time. I followed the case closely, all the public records on the hearings, etc. A few months after the incident, while still on probabation, she got her driving privileges back. The judge agreed it would have been an undue hardship on her not to drive.
lillecarl 2y ago
I really think there has to be more context to "speeding". I'm all against speeding, but being X over on a road (only motor vehicles) VS speeding in an are which is accessible by walking or biking should be treated differently imho
thebruce87m 2y ago
> In the UK… > You get a fine, usually with the alternative of a course the first time. Note that the course isn’t currently an option in Scotland: https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/speed-awareness-courses/ https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/speed-awareness-courses/
EasyMark 2y ago
This is similar to the system some states have. The USA is a hodge podge of car laws and policies

dabeeeenster 2y ago

The only problem is a decent percentage of people plead to the courts that they need their vehicle to work and hence get let off

graemep 2y ago
That is true, but they should still face fines, lost points and higher insurance costs.
- ChoGGi 2y ago
  You're assuming they have insurance. I think it's something like 1-5 don't have insurance in Texas.
  - Leynos 2y ago
    Interesting. It's illegal to drive without insurance in the UK.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      It's illegal to drive without insurance in Texas as well. It's also illegal to murder someone and yet people still do it from time to time. Stealing is illegal and yet stuff gets stolen. Drunk driving is illegal and yet people drive drunk. Turns out just making something illegal doesn't completely stop the action. When we build our societies where you need to drive to function it's not surprising people will continue to drive when they shouldn't. Maybe we should build our societies so people don't have to drive just to live.
      - bookofjoe 2y ago
        >Approximately 17% of drivers on California roads are uninsured, according to statistics from 2022 presented by the Insurance Information Institute. This means nearly 6 million drivers in California may be unable to compensate those injured in accidents.
        vel0city 2y ago
        /s/may be unable to/almost definitely unable to/g
      - graemep 2y ago
        What are the consequences? About 1% of cars do not have insurance in the UK at any given time. > When we build our societies where you need to drive to function it's not surprising people will continue to drive when they shouldn't. Maybe we should build our societies so people don't have to drive just to live. In cities, definitely. In rural areas?
        vel0city 2y ago
        What are the consequences? For most drivers most of the time, they save a few hundred bucks a month. If caught, they'll issue a ticket with a fine that's about a month or two of insurance. Maybe their car will get impounded (unlikely). Maybe they'll face jail time with enough repeat offenses, but once again its unlikely they'll get pulled over in the first place. We'll just continue crushing the poor. The consequences for those they harm are pretty severe. Having your car destroyed can be lifechangily expensive for someone who is barely scraping by. Adding healthcare costs on top of that are pretty bad. Even with health insurance injuries from a car accident could get expensive fast, and add to the fact the single most expensive thing you owned just got destroyed while you're now unable to work. Too many people forget about the costs of driving they impose on others, thinking "that won't happen to me, I just won't hit anyone". Driving without insurance is an incredibly reckless and selfish act. > In cities, definitely. In rural areas? Most people don't live in these "rural areas". And even then, I'd argue those "rural areas" could do quite a bit to reduce car dependence. Once again, how can these places solve transportation issues for those who can't afford insurance?
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      It's all but illegal in the US too but the feedback loop of increased cost, increased regulation, increased mandates for insurance has driven up the cost enough that the baseline cost of compliance is so high that unless you're solidly in the middle class driving expired/unregistered beaters with no insurance and abandoning them to impound every now and then and/or pleading financial hardship with the courts is preferable. And when most people running expired or no reg are just everyday working stiffs and most of them can't afford huge fines it's neither useful as a pretext for fishing nor revenue so the harassment by cops stops happening. And the rhetoric of the voting public has pretty firmly against the cops harassing the crap out of people recently too. No amount of screeching about how these people should be stomped by the jackboot for noncompliance will make the economics of that pencil out for the state. You force these people to pay up either to the state or the insurers and they won't be able to live at their current economic level and they'll just turn right back around and be on the section 8 and welfare rolls which is probably worse for the public good. It's just a shitty situation no matter how you cut it.

ensignavenger 2y ago

Most US states have similar point systems.

donatj 2y ago

Many places in the United States use speed traps as revenue streams, and in many of the same places in the US it's nigh impossible to get around without a vehicle. Taking someone's license away for getting caught doing 5 over a few too many times on the freeway where literally everyone is always doing 5 over and you are more of a danger by not going the speed of traffic doesn't in any way serve the public interest as far as I can tell. It's a death sentence for a victimless crime. Aggressive driving, reckless driving, major speed infractions (15 mph+ over), etc are far more dangerous and worthy of major penalties.

shlant 2y ago
> Taking someone's license away for getting caught doing 5 over a few too many times on the freeway where literally everyone is always doing 5 over and you are more of a danger by not going the speed of traffic doesn't in any way serve the public interest as far as I can tell. It's a death sentence for a victimless crime. What percentage of people who would be effected by this do you think match this description?
- donatj 2y ago
  I would imagine most. In my experience, laws intended to catch specific bad actors usually end up being enforced mostly against the easiest-to-catch mild offenders. For example: one of my neighbors speeds like an idiot through our neighborhood — easily doing 60 mph and often blowing right through the stop sign at the end of the block. He’s a real danger. The neighborhood complained to city hall. Their solution? They lowered the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph. It changed nothing. He still speeds. He still blows stop signs. He doesn’t get caught — there usually aren't any cops hanging around our sleepy end of town. Meanwhile, I have seen people get pulled over for doing the previously legal, entirely reasonable, 30 mph — which is still the limit for most of the city.
- tmerc 2y ago
  The example above is bad but not by much. In the parts of NY outside the city, we have 65mph roads (state max speed limit) between large areas and 55mph roads between smaller areas. Doing 10 over in both is common with speeds being 65 and 75 respectively. Doing 15 over in a 55 is safe in many areas that I have driven and is 70mph, which is a safe speed to most states. Now, at 71 mph, you officially trigger the 15+mph rule mentioned to be a super speeder. Based on anecdotal experience from numerous trips between NY and Ohio, I would estimate that minimum 1 in 5 cars are doing 80+ in a 65. So, at least 20% by my obviously flawed and biased observations. For an actual estimate, in 1988 during the national 55mph speed limit era, an observed 85% of drivers in NY were above the speed limit. For more context, I have paced many law enforcement vehicles (usually state troopers) doing 10 over with regular traffic.

artursapek 2y ago

In the UK you also have police visit you over shitposts, and you receive incessant mail demanding you pay a license for owning a TV

khaki54 2y ago

Yes, they already have this type of point system in VA. What is the point of allowing this device when they will suspend or revoke your license after a few infractions. Additionally, you'd need to have generational wealth to afford the insurance at that point. On top of that, they have an extensive bus system in the northern VA area and biking routes so it would be pretty hard for someone to say they have some hardhip where you need to keep driving. I think this will just be another thing leading us to full surveillance state.

ryao 2y ago

In NY, we operate on a 11 point system. Gain 11 points and lose your license.

gosub100 2y ago

This is a rare case I support civil asset forfeiture: sue the car (in addition to criminal proceedings). Impound the car until fines are paid - which go into uninsured motorist funds - or else sell the car at auction and do the same. Will other parties' vehicles get impounded? Yes and that sucks. But either don't lend them your car, or else let the people closest to the offender pay the consequences more often than the current situation where random people in traffic pay financially or with life and limb for reckless drivers.

potato3732842 2y ago
I hope you don't wonder why civil asset forfeiture persists. It's like you're laying one brick on the road to hell. Multiply by everyone else and their pet issues and the whole damn thing gets paved. What even is the point of principals if you don't stand by them?
- bluecalm 2y ago
  What other "pet issue" kills 40k people a year and injures 50-100x of that? It's a huge issue which warrants radical steps.
- gosub100 2y ago
  > Multiply by everyone else and their pet issues and the whole damn thing gets paved. Slippery slope fallacy. Why don't you refute the central point of what I suggested?
  - vel0city 2y ago
    You don't have to have civil asset forfeiture to impound the car.
    - gosub100 2y ago
      then call it something euphemistic with many more words, but "suing the car" is ultimately what it would entail.

afavour 2y ago

The problem with this model is that in a lot of places (especially in the US) public transit isn't a viable alternative to owning a car. So if your ability to drive gets taken away a lot of people just end up driving illegally. It's either that or lose your job, income and possibly home etc etc. IMO a forced maximum vehicle speed is a useful middle ground option.

xandrius 2y ago
More people (and not just the poorer) needing to use the public transport will definitely have a positive impact on how much money it gets. And if it is being more strict with people who break driving laws, I don't see why that shouldn't happen.
- afavour 2y ago
  "make people depend on the thing and that will incentivize the government to make it better" feels like logic that doesn't play out in reality.
  - tremon 2y ago
    It only works in places where the government works for the people.
- kube-system 2y ago
  You'd think, but that is largely not the way that political winds are blowing. There are very high rates of people who are driving vehicles illegally in states that consistently vote against public transit projects. This is because there is a perception among many of lower socioeconomic status that "spending more will raise my taxes, and I already can't afford car insurance", and that public transit projects will not be built to their benefit.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    >there is a perception among many of lower socioeconomic status I don't think this is it at all. In the US we don't enforce social norms. The public transit experience in the US is dominated by an extreme antisocial minority ("crazy" bums, drug users, bluetooth speakers, etc). This is the true killer of public transit in America.

_fat_santa 2y ago

I will say this as a car guy, Virgina has an exceedingly bad reputation among gear heads. If you look at virtually any east coast rally, they will all route around Virginia to avoid driving through it. - VA is the only state to ban radar detectors - It has the lowest interstate speed limit in the country - It has some of the stiffest super speeder and reckless driving laws in the country. In most places if you go like 30 over that's just a bad ticket but in VA that's criminal reckless driving. - And many other anti-car related laws. I will be the first to say, don't speed, don't street race and if you have that itch to go a track but also, VA is a horrible place to be if you're a car person. It's not in the least bit surprising that they are the first to pursue such legislation.

zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
Sounds good to me. People shouldn't be driving 30 over. Reckless driving should be taken seriously. These don't sound anti-car. They're pro-life and safety.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  The public doesn't take "reckless driving" seriously because it is not defined in a serious manner. It encompass people who are going 60/65/75 (depending on state) in a 55 on the interstate that's actually a 45 because of an inactive construction zone and also people who are going 60mph on 30mph city streets (probably genuinely reckless per common usage of the word). They're two very different degrees of misconduct and the former vastly outnumbers the latter and everyone knows it and political will for penalties is based off this. You wanna see reckless driving taken seriously the first step is to stop advocating for definitions of reckless that include behavior the general public doesn't see as reckless.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 2y ago
    "You wanna see reckless driving taken seriously the first step is to stop advocating for definitions of reckless that include behavior the general public doesn't see as reckless." Where was I advocating that? Also, just because the general public believes something doesn't mean it's true.

lenerdenator 2y ago

> Get caught speeding more than once an year and you are guaranteed to lose your license. I'm not overly familiar with British transportation outside of its major city centers, but in the US, we also yank licenses, but people drive without them anyways, mainly because there's no real alternative. Even those convicted of DUI in my area can make a plea to the judge for a "hardship" license that effectively allows them to operate a motor vehicle only for emergencies and going to-and-from work. It's so hard to live without a car in the area that you could possibly make an Eighth Amendment case against pulling the license of a drunk.

Workaccount2 2y ago
Around me so many areas were built to even be hostile towards anything other than a car. The business park I work in has no pedestrian/bike access without going through a few "take your life in your hands" intersections.

maccard 2y ago

I agree with everything you’ve said. But, the sort of person who gets 12 points isn’t exactly the sort of person who you would expect to actually stop driving once they’ve got there. They’ve already been in court for speeding (or worse) at least twice, possibly 4 times. Maybe more if they were offered a speed awareness course the first time. If the goal is to stop them speeding then these devices might actually do it…

xandrius 2y ago
And if you get caught, you get jail time. What's the issue?
ryao 2y ago
In NY, the limit is 11 points and being caught at 40mph above the speed limit will give you 11 points in 1 offense. The term super speeder tends to be used for these.
graemep 2y ago
Not in court - most are fixed penalties. Yes, the devices might help, but I also think cars can be seized etc. I believe the UK and the EU already require speed limiters be installed on all new cars. https://www.parkers.co.uk/car-advice/speed-limiters-what-they-mean-for-you/ https://www.parkers.co.uk/car-advice/speed-limiters-what-the...

seneca 2y ago

Totally agree. Vehicles are incredibly dangerous, and operating hundreds of them in concert with each other requires responsible participants. Allowing them to be used like toys for simpletons to play out some racing fantasy with is a serious danger to people just going about their lives. At a certain point, aggressive driving and speeding should be treated like negligently swinging about a weapon. It should be treated seriously.

fortran77 2y ago

I'm always amazed that people are allowed to drive again. I had a friend who was killed by an impaired driver. The driver got a 3 year sentence, no jail time. I followed the case closely, all the public records on the hearings, etc. A few months after the incident, while still on probabation, she got her driving privileges back. The judge agreed it would have been an undue hardship on her not to drive.

lillecarl 2y ago

I really think there has to be more context to "speeding". I'm all against speeding, but being X over on a road (only motor vehicles) VS speeding in an are which is accessible by walking or biking should be treated differently imho

thebruce87m 2y ago

> In the UK… > You get a fine, usually with the alternative of a course the first time. Note that the course isn’t currently an option in Scotland: https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/speed-awareness-courses/ https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/speed-awareness-courses/

EasyMark 2y ago

This is similar to the system some states have. The USA is a hodge podge of car laws and policies