Hacker News Reader

Comment by falcolas | Hacker News Reader

Now go after the buyers. A nice big “deterrent” fine would suffice.

Deterrent fine?!

Spraying a thick cloud of exhaust on people next to a road might fit the legal definition of "assault", "reckless driving", "wanton endangerment".

This is not some innocent prank.

Whatever gets those vehicles off the road or compliant.

As a cyclist, rolling coal is a real and present danger.

Sadly, at this point, being a human is sufficient. They don’t care much who they smog. They’re doing it, as it were, for the lulz.

No, revoke their ability to be the registered owner of a motor vehicle

It is appropriate, and should be done, but it will ultimately be ineffective: they'll just circumvent that by registering in someone else's name.

They'll "just" get someone else to take legal responsibility for their vehicle, when that person knows it will be driven by someone who flouts the rules enough to get that kind of penalty?

That's ... still a pretty big impediment, and countermeasures don't have to be perfect.

Agree. Fine them as well, impound the car and crush it (send them the video), and tell them they can't own a car anymore. All of the above.

I think simply seizing the vehicle would be sufficient. I’d be willing to bet most of the people doing this can’t easily afford another one.

Taking someone’s toy away hurts way more than a fine or suspension that can be ignored.

Edit: Also, if you just take the truck and issue a fine, it saves another person from needlessly being turned into a criminal.

NYC at least tried for a bit to seize drunk driver's cars but it was quickly thrown out in court.

Contrast that with civil asset forfeiture ,which still seems to be the law(lesness) of the land...

Civil asset forfeiture only continues to be legal because the enforcement agencies are smarter than to apply it with the same breadth they apply DUI law and whatnot.

It’s crazy how this is seen as such an unacceptable move and yet for virtually any other licensed activity where you had committed such an offence it would be the first action.

It's ill-advised.

We do this for repeat DUI offenders, but you need a car to get around most of America-- so even when suspended or unlicensed, people drive anyway.

At that that point they are both (a) uninsurable and (b) illegally operating, and now have more reasons to flee the scene of an accident than they do to remain. If it's some rich kid perpetrator, there won't even be a manslaughter charge if the victim dies.

All arbitrary license revocation does is make the roads twice as dangerous for everyone else.

So why have a license at all if it’s not possible to revoke?

Because it's one of the closest things to a UUID in American life, and is the keystone to various well architected surveillance nets.

Remember, drivers licenses were originally born out of law enforcement complaints that the automobile made their lives so much harder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com