• ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    And speed is highly correlated to the lethality of car wrecks. Also, it sounds like the devices would be installed in the cars of people who… speed frequently.

    So, it is directly addressing the problem without asset seizure or jail time. Sounds like an ideal solution, actually.

    • hypna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Revoking drivers licenses would probably be more appropriate than seizing vehicles. The upside to that is revoking licenses, I’d wager, is a whole lot cheaper than installing and monitoring speed trackers.

      So long as the person with the speeding problem is paying for that I guess it’s acceptable. But then we have yet another example of people without much money getting a raw deal. Means testing? Everything gets complicated when it gets to the implementation details.

      • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        Both options are potentially bad for low-income earners. If you force them to pay for a speed limiter they lost the money for that, which they might not able to afford. If you take away their license they will have difficulty getting around and might lose their job.

        So from that perspective the speed limiter might be the less dangerous choice.