7 ms·

I think the point is that we should aim to solve it without surveillance / sacrificing rights. So in this case, increasing the fines / jail time is at least one

I think the point is that we should aim to solve it without surveillance / sacrificing rights. So in this case, increasing the fines / jail time is at least one alternative.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
nelox 1y ago
Seriously? It is logically no different from drink driving. No one has the right to drive. You need to qualify, be tested, licensed and competent. If you break the law repeatedly, then you should be restricted from driving by any means necessary to protect you from yourself and others.
_Algernon_ 1y ago
Not sure in how incarceration can be considered a smaller sacrifice of rights than vehicle tracking.
- pc86 1y ago
  Not sure how incarcerating people who are guilty of a crime is unconscionable but monitoring everyone all the time and eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately is totally fine and no problem whatsoever.
  - shlant 1y ago
    > monitoring everyone all the time and eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately is totally fine and no problem whatsoever. Is that what the bill proposes? everyone's vehicle is now monitored all the time?
    - pc86 1y ago
      It's a much bigger leap to go from "punish people for speeding" to "physically prevent their car from going past a certain speed" than it is to go from "prevent this car from going past a certain speed" to "prevent all cars from going past a certain speed."
      - shlant 1y ago
        your slippery slope argument is not very convincing. What do you suggest be done (that isn't already) about people who regularly speed, putting themselves and those around them in danger?
        pc86 1y ago
        Judges already have the power to permanently revoke people's license to drive, the problem is they don't. It's a very simple problem with a very simple solution. If someone proves multiple times they won't follow the rules of the road, revoke their ability to legally drive. Most states go to jail time on the first or second offense of driving without a valid license. This whole argument smacks of "let's not make things too hard on these people willfully violating our laws over and over and over again."
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - pixxel 1y ago
      [dead]
    - bookofjoe 1y ago
      That ship has sailed. >I drove 300 miles in rural Virginia, then asked police to send me their public surveillance footage of my car. Here’s what I learned. https://cardinalnews.org/2025/03/28/i-drove-300-miles-in-rural-virginia-then-asked-police-to-send-me-their-public-surveillance-footage-of-my-car-heres-what-i-learned/ https://cardinalnews.org/2025/03/28/i-drove-300-miles-in-rur...
  - toss1 1y ago
    >>monitoring everyone all the time and eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately That is a 100% strawman argument. NO ONE is proposing such measures No proposal, even the blanket EU requirements eliminate privacy in travel. The devices all work entirely locally with GPS to monitor speed vs local limits, and upon exceeding local limits, output an audio/tactile alert and/or limit accelerator input. I have never seen any mention of reporting speeds or positions, and would be very alarmed if I had; if you've seen any, please provide citations. Again, no one is proposing monitoring everyone all the time. The proposal is only for temporary monitors/limiters to be placed on cars of people convicted o related offenses after due judicial process, and only for the time of their sentence. Again, if you have citations on more extensive restrictions, please post them.
    - ryao 1y ago
      Do you apply the same logic to backdoors in encryption? I am sure you could say no one is proposing implementing and using back doors on the general public as a whole, as they would only be for criminal elements. The reason that people oppose this is because the shift from only affecting criminal elements to affecting everyone is so easy to do that nothing would stop it once the infrastructure is in place.
      - _Algernon_ 1y ago
        It is extremely difficult to have a backdoor for encryption that only applies to some people, and no proposal for encryption backdoors AFAICT differentiate based on whether the subject has previously committed a crime. They are always blanket backdoors.
        ryao 1y ago
        There is no difference between applying this to only criminals and applying it to everyone else. Vehicles are already being made with software speed limiters that users can control (e.g. Tesla vehicles). Once the state controls these, there is no technical barrier preventing it from only being applied to criminals. The only real difference is that old vehicles need to be retrofitted, while the hardware and software needed to do this is largely already present in new vehicles (or soon will be in the remaining exceptions on the market).
  - raincom 1y ago
    Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are used by every state in the US. They already have algorithms on top of these ALPRs to pull out suspects for possible drug mules.
    - pc86 1y ago
      Sorry what does that have to do with anything?
  - _Algernon_ 1y ago
    This is specifically about a judge mandating tracking as a punishment for a crime. The comment I responded to suggested incarceration as a lesser sacrifice to rights.
    - afavour 1y ago
      And in no world is incarcerating a person a lesser sacrifice of rights than installing a speed limiter on their car.
  - wpm 1y ago
    > eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately Driving a car on public roads has not resembled this phrase for over a century in most of the world. Walking is free. Pretty private too. Lace up.
pclmulqdq 1y ago
Raise the speed limits on major highways to match the speed of traffic, and strict enforcement will have a lot more support.
- paddy_m 1y ago
  I'm as anti-car/pro urbanist as they come. I would totally support this. Speeding on highways doesn't bother me and is relatively safe. Speeding in cities endangers pedestrians and sees no enforcement. Stop signs aren't even obeyed any more (they require a complete stop, in case you forgot).

I think the point is that we should aim to solve it without surveillance / sacrificing rights. So in this case, increasing the fines / jail time is at least one alternative.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

nelox 1y ago

Seriously? It is logically no different from drink driving. No one has the right to drive. You need to qualify, be tested, licensed and competent. If you break the law repeatedly, then you should be restricted from driving by any means necessary to protect you from yourself and others.

_Algernon_ 1y ago

Not sure in how incarceration can be considered a smaller sacrifice of rights than vehicle tracking.

pc86 1y ago
Not sure how incarcerating people who are guilty of a crime is unconscionable but monitoring everyone all the time and eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately is totally fine and no problem whatsoever.
- shlant 1y ago
  > monitoring everyone all the time and eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately is totally fine and no problem whatsoever. Is that what the bill proposes? everyone's vehicle is now monitored all the time?
  - pc86 1y ago
    It's a much bigger leap to go from "punish people for speeding" to "physically prevent their car from going past a certain speed" than it is to go from "prevent this car from going past a certain speed" to "prevent all cars from going past a certain speed."
    - shlant 1y ago
      your slippery slope argument is not very convincing. What do you suggest be done (that isn't already) about people who regularly speed, putting themselves and those around them in danger?
      - pc86 1y ago
        Judges already have the power to permanently revoke people's license to drive, the problem is they don't. It's a very simple problem with a very simple solution. If someone proves multiple times they won't follow the rules of the road, revoke their ability to legally drive. Most states go to jail time on the first or second offense of driving without a valid license. This whole argument smacks of "let's not make things too hard on these people willfully violating our laws over and over and over again."
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - pixxel 1y ago
    [dead]
  - bookofjoe 1y ago
    That ship has sailed. >I drove 300 miles in rural Virginia, then asked police to send me their public surveillance footage of my car. Here’s what I learned. https://cardinalnews.org/2025/03/28/i-drove-300-miles-in-rural-virginia-then-asked-police-to-send-me-their-public-surveillance-footage-of-my-car-heres-what-i-learned/ https://cardinalnews.org/2025/03/28/i-drove-300-miles-in-rur...
- toss1 1y ago
  >>monitoring everyone all the time and eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately That is a 100% strawman argument. NO ONE is proposing such measures No proposal, even the blanket EU requirements eliminate privacy in travel. The devices all work entirely locally with GPS to monitor speed vs local limits, and upon exceeding local limits, output an audio/tactile alert and/or limit accelerator input. I have never seen any mention of reporting speeds or positions, and would be very alarmed if I had; if you've seen any, please provide citations. Again, no one is proposing monitoring everyone all the time. The proposal is only for temporary monitors/limiters to be placed on cars of people convicted o related offenses after due judicial process, and only for the time of their sentence. Again, if you have citations on more extensive restrictions, please post them.
  - ryao 1y ago
    Do you apply the same logic to backdoors in encryption? I am sure you could say no one is proposing implementing and using back doors on the general public as a whole, as they would only be for criminal elements. The reason that people oppose this is because the shift from only affecting criminal elements to affecting everyone is so easy to do that nothing would stop it once the infrastructure is in place.
    - _Algernon_ 1y ago
      It is extremely difficult to have a backdoor for encryption that only applies to some people, and no proposal for encryption backdoors AFAICT differentiate based on whether the subject has previously committed a crime. They are always blanket backdoors.
      - ryao 1y ago
        There is no difference between applying this to only criminals and applying it to everyone else. Vehicles are already being made with software speed limiters that users can control (e.g. Tesla vehicles). Once the state controls these, there is no technical barrier preventing it from only being applied to criminals. The only real difference is that old vehicles need to be retrofitted, while the hardware and software needed to do this is largely already present in new vehicles (or soon will be in the remaining exceptions on the market).
- raincom 1y ago
  Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are used by every state in the US. They already have algorithms on top of these ALPRs to pull out suspects for possible drug mules.
  - pc86 1y ago
    Sorry what does that have to do with anything?
- _Algernon_ 1y ago
  This is specifically about a judge mandating tracking as a punishment for a crime. The comment I responded to suggested incarceration as a lesser sacrifice to rights.
  - afavour 1y ago
    And in no world is incarcerating a person a lesser sacrifice of rights than installing a speed limiter on their car.
- wpm 1y ago
  > eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately Driving a car on public roads has not resembled this phrase for over a century in most of the world. Walking is free. Pretty private too. Lace up.

pclmulqdq 1y ago

Raise the speed limits on major highways to match the speed of traffic, and strict enforcement will have a lot more support.

paddy_m 1y ago
I'm as anti-car/pro urbanist as they come. I would totally support this. Speeding on highways doesn't bother me and is relatively safe. Speeding in cities endangers pedestrians and sees no enforcement. Stop signs aren't even obeyed any more (they require a complete stop, in case you forgot).