Hacker News Reader

Comment by graemep | Hacker News Reader

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!

View on HN

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

It only works in places where the government works for the people.

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.

>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.

Those things keeps the middle class from using it (outside of a couple of cities) or from voting for more public transit -- but it isn't the reason that poor people are driving without license/insurance -- which was what I was commenting on. Many of the poor in this country live in places that aren't well served by public transit, and probably won't be well served by any marginal investment in public transit. Most places in the US are generations behind in the investment that would need to be made both in terms of transit infrastructure and the housing infrastructure that would be necessary for viable public transit for the poor. Suburban sprawl is a huge challenge.

It's the killer of public transit everywhere. The ability to avoid such people is a huge benefit of individual transportation. Nobody sane wants to be subjected to stuff like that. Anyone saying otherwise is virtue signalling.

I’d argue not everywhere, it just requires a critical mass of “normal” (anti-anti-social?) people to use it.

Like in NYC. Most assuredly there are anti social people on the subway but they’re a tiny minority of overall passengers so people still use the system. But it’s a self-reinforcing thing that has danger of collapse, the more people drop off the more the ratio will change… and more will drop off.

In many places it's just not a big enough problem. And, either way, it's a perception issue usually.

I mean yeah, subway homeless people make you feel unsafe. But you're not actually unsafe. Just by taking the subway you're a few orders of magnitude less likely to die during your journey.

I never felt "unsafe", but as soon as I could afford to drive to work, I chose that.

was it convenience?

“Why should my tax dollars go to criminals who lost their driving privileges?”

Lets stop pretending that speeding is the most dangerous drivers do

I see - every day - near misses from missing exits, dangerous lane changes, and aggressive driving/brake checks - and all these infractions go unpoliced

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.

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

That is true, but they should still face fines, lost points and higher insurance costs.

You're assuming they have insurance. I think it's something like 1-5 don't have insurance in Texas.

Interesting. It's illegal to drive without insurance in the UK.

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.

>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.

/s/may be unable to/almost definitely unable to/g

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?

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?

You seem to have somehow interpreted what I said as defending driving without insurance? Did you read my other comments (particularly the ancestor to this)?

I meant consequences for those who are caught - i.e. is there a real deterrent?

Why do some of the US states mentioned have such high rates of lack of insurance.

> Most people don't live in these "rural areas".

but many do

> And even then, I'd argue those "rural areas" could do quite a bit to reduce car dependence

Depends how rural they are. In an edge of town/close to town location (such as I live in) a huge difference would be made by more frequent bus services. Righ

I mean, what, are we going to start executing people because they were poor and decided to pay rent instead of their car insurance bill to get groceries? Give them some poverty-inducing fine they can't discharge in bankruptcy? That'll really teach them to be poor!

Most people not bothering to pay for car insurance aren't wealthy. They're doing so because being asked to pay several hundred bucks a month just so they can go to a $12/hr job and eat is a stretch too far, and chances are nothing will happen on any random day of them driving without insurance. Meanwhile on the unlucky day they massively harm someone else and will probably flee the scene and end up continuing on without consequences. And even if they do, they'll once again probably just get a fine, maybe get some kind of judgement against them which will be like getting blood from a stone.

The consequences are most of the time they'll be fine. Otherwise they'll get a fine. If they keep doing it and they keep getting caught their car will get impounded and they'll go to jail. Then they'll get out, scrape together enough to buy a car, and the cycle continues. But that requires actually getting caught many times which the whole "getting caught" part is pretty lacking.

hundreds? what!?

why is it so expensive? :0

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.

Most US states have similar point systems.

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.

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?

What other "pet issue" kills 40k people a year and injures 50-100x of that?

It's a huge issue which warrants radical steps.

> 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?

You don't have to have civil asset forfeiture to impound the car.

then call it something euphemistic with many more words, but "suing the car" is ultimately what it would entail.

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…

And if you get caught, you get jail time. What's the issue?

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.

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-the...

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

> 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/

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.

It’s not 30 over, it’s 30 over the limit, or anything over 80 mph. They tried to nail me for reckless driving for going 82 on an empty interstate, when the speed limit was 70. Then, because I have a common name, the dumbass lawyer I hired showed up to the court date of a different person with the same name as me who was also charged with reckless driving, no one showed up to my court date, and I was threatened with jail time.

I was eventually able to clear everything up thanks to a sympathetic judge, but overall Virginia is not a serious state.

§ 46.2-862. Exceeding speed limit. A person is guilty of reckless driving who drives a motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of 20 miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit or (ii) in excess of 85 miles per hour regardless of the applicable maximum speed limit.

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodefull/title46.2/chapter8/a...

I looked it up, in Virginia the highest interstate speed limits are 70MPH. They're 65 in New York, (and in other states), so it's patently untrue that they have the lowest interstate speed limits. Source: https://www.iihs.org/topics/speed/speed-limit-laws

It likely depends on the part of the state. There are famous parts of Virginia where the interstate is limited to 50mph and the police are some of the most productive in the country at giving tickets. These parts are connected to the parts that are 70mph, which causes people who did not notice the speed limit change to be ticketed. If they are so much as 1mph over 70mph when the speed limit changes to 50mph, it is a misdemeanor charge for reckless driving.

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

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.

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

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.

> 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?

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.

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.

Read the article.

The highest speed limit for Virginia is 70mph. Their bill gives judges the option of offering this for people who drive >100mph, as an alternative to license recovation.

The DC bill gives people whose license the judges are already suspending or revoking for speed-related offenses an alternative - drive with this limiter enabled for one year.

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2024/02/08/d-c-to-dangerous-driv...

Georgia is working on a similar bill for people convicted of street racing.

https://visionzeronetwork.org/accelerating-safety-states-cha...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com