On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 3:47:57 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> I remember "sheriff's departments" being mentioned, rather
> than police. (Are sheriffs more independent? not under mayors?)
> I think, for different states, the problems were either sheriffs
> who stretched the law or clearly violated the law; or laws that
> were arguably unconstitutional. Quick Googling didn't help me
> here -- I guess this must have been resolved.

It's counties that have sheriffs, so they're not _under_ mayors,
more like alongside them. They're elected, too.

In more rural areas, it's the county sheriff's department that
provides the regular policing for the communities, rather
than separate police departments.

One sometimes sees Hudson County Sheriff vehicles Over Here,
but not long ago in NYC I saw a vehicle that was labeled for a
city sheriff. But I don't remember whether it was for one of the
five counties, or for the city as a whole. (Each NYC county has
its own District Attorney, for instance, but there's one Board of
Elections for the whole city.)

On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 4:01:04 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 06:21:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >What's the difference between "disqualified from driving" and
> >"license suspended"?
>
> My imagination suggests that "disqualified" might say,
> "Only during daytime hours" or "for work."
>
> >We can get a license suspended for a multiplicity of moving
> >violations (three, maybe?), and also a weird thing called "points
> >on your license," which I have no idea what they are, but they
> >make your insurance premium go up.
>
> The seriousness of the offense determines how many points
> get added to your running total (three years, IIRC, in Pa.).
> You lose your license when you hit some total. I don't know
> what determines when you get the license back. My imagination
> further suggests that taking some courses (driving; anger
> management) might reduce the total
>
> For ordinary speeding, points for three or four offenses are
> probably cost you your license. Offenses don't all score the
> same points - recklessness and drunkenness probably
> penalize more than speeding

Tx. All that stuff isn't in the "Rules of the Road" books they
quiz you on!

> Oh - on losing your license - Some states have started using
> Loss of Drivers License as a penalty for teen-aged drinking
> or doping, regardless of an automobile being involved. This
> seems to be a penalty that teens take seriously when
> parents will pay fines and jail time is unlikely.

Good!

On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 15:47:49 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:26:03 +0100, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <taq0dq$2qgaa$1@dont-email.me>,
>>news2012adn@gmail.com says...
>>>
>
>>>
>>> Not quite ignored: "In 1991, the governments of England and Wales tried
>>> out day-fines, only to abandon them after criticism from the media."
>>>
>>>
>>> In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation in cases
>>> of "insane driving" (defined as going more than 100% over the speed
>>> limit (if that brings you over 100 km/h), going more than 200 km/h,
>>> or driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 2?)
>>>
>>> One case was a Norwegian who had been to Germany to buy a Lamborghini
>>> Huracán for 2 mio kr (~ 300.000 €), and was clocked in at 236 km/h
>>> trying to make his ferry. He was ?a little annoyed? when the car was seized.
>>>
>>> <https://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/danish-police-confiscate-luxury-sports-car-caught-speeding-80472264>
>>>
>>> /Anders, Denmark
>>
>> In UK, Police can seize and crush the vehicle.
>>
>> <https://www.nationalworld.com/lifestyle/cars/police-
>>crush-56000-cars-as-uninsured-driving-soars-3385075>
>>
>> "Police forces around the UK have crushed more than
>>56,000 cars seized from uninsured drivers in the last two
>>years, in the face of rising offender numbers.
>>
>>According to the latest figures, a total of 100,983
>>drivers were caught driving without insurance in 2020 and
>>102,387 vehicles seized from offenders."
>>
>> (Many uninsured drivers are driving a stolen car or old
>>banger so worthless they don't care if it gets crushed.)
>>
>> Drunk or dangerous insured drivers whose vehicle is
>>seized by police, only have to pay a penalty to get it
>>back. The vehicle crushing penalty doesn't apply to those
>>who pay up.
>>
>The US sells impounded vehicles. I had not heard of crushing them.

Oh, yes. The tow yard can file for the title of an unclaimed vehicle.
If the vehicle's value is such the tow yard can sell the vehicle, they
do. If the scrap value is higher than the resale value, they tow yard
will take re-sellable parts and crush the chassis for scrap weight
value.

Many cars that are impounded are unclaimed. The towing and storage
charges are often higher than the value of the vehicle to the owner.

In Florida, tow yards accept only cash. Credit cards are not
accepted. Coming up with a couple of hundred dollars in cash can be
impossible for some low income people, so the storage costs continue
to mount.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 16:00:55 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 06:21:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>What's the difference between "disqualified from driving" and
>>"license suspended"?
>
>My imagination suggests that "disqualified" might say,
>"Only during daytime hours" or "for work."
>
>>
>>We can get a license suspended for a multiplicity of moving
>>violations (three, maybe?), and also a weird thing called "points
>>on your license," which I have no idea what they are, but they
>>make your insurance premium go up.
>
>The seriousness of the offense determines how many points
>get added to your running total (three years, IIRC, in Pa.).
>You lose your license when you hit some total. I don't know
>what determines when you get the license back. My imagination
>further suggests that taking some courses (driving; anger
>management) might reduce the total
>
>For ordinary speeding, points for three or four offenses are
>probably cost you your license. Offenses don't all score the
>same points - recklessness and drunkenness probably
>penalize more than speeding
>
>Oh - on losing your license - Some states have started using
>Loss of Drivers License as a penalty for teen-aged drinking
>or doping, regardless of an automobile being involved. This
>seems to be a penalty that teens take seriously when
>parents will pay fines and jail time is unlikely.

Middle grandson has had his driver's license for less than a year, but
received the first moving violation by any member of our extended
family in the last 20-some years.

He was ticketed for speeding. It must have been for 15 to 19 mph over
the limit because the fine was $150. He paid the fine online, but
took some online course to avoid the 3 point penalty. (three points
are assessed for any moving violation in Florida)

Someone else, in another thread, mentioned something about the points
being "silly".

They are a major consideration to anyone paying for automobile
insurance for a male teenager. The points are reported to the
insurance carrier, and the premium will be increased dramatically at
the next renewal date if points have been assessed. The initial rate
is high to begin with when a male teenager is on the policy.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 17:35:44 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 16:00:55 -0400, Rich Ulrich
><rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 06:21:50 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>><grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>What's the difference between "disqualified from driving" and
>>>"license suspended"?
>>
>>My imagination suggests that "disqualified" might say,
>>"Only during daytime hours" or "for work."
>>
>>>
>>>We can get a license suspended for a multiplicity of moving
>>>violations (three, maybe?), and also a weird thing called "points
>>>on your license," which I have no idea what they are, but they
>>>make your insurance premium go up.
>>
>>The seriousness of the offense determines how many points
>>get added to your running total (three years, IIRC, in Pa.).
>>You lose your license when you hit some total. I don't know
>>what determines when you get the license back. My imagination
>>further suggests that taking some courses (driving; anger
>>management) might reduce the total
>>
>>For ordinary speeding, points for three or four offenses are
>>probably cost you your license. Offenses don't all score the
>>same points - recklessness and drunkenness probably
>>penalize more than speeding
>>
>>Oh - on losing your license - Some states have started using
>>Loss of Drivers License as a penalty for teen-aged drinking
>>or doping, regardless of an automobile being involved. This
>>seems to be a penalty that teens take seriously when
>>parents will pay fines and jail time is unlikely.
>
>Middle grandson has had his driver's license for less than a year, but
>received the first moving violation by any member of our extended
>family in the last 20-some years.
>
>He was ticketed for speeding. It must have been for 15 to 19 mph over
>the limit because the fine was $150. He paid the fine online, but
>took some online course to avoid the 3 point penalty. (three points
>are assessed for any moving violation in Florida)
>
>Someone else, in another thread, mentioned something about the points
>being "silly".
>
Correction: It was "a weird thing", not "silly", and it's in this
post.

>They are a major consideration to anyone paying for automobile
>insurance for a male teenager. The points are reported to the
>insurance carrier, and the premium will be increased dramatically at
>the next renewal date if points have been assessed. The initial rate
>is high to begin with when a male teenager is on the policy.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

Den 14-07-2022 kl. 23:04 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:
> [...]
> In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation in cases
> of "insane driving" (defined as going more than 100% over the speed
> limit (if that brings you over 100 km/h), going more than 200 km/h,
> or driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 2‰)

I forgot to mention what is actually the main contentious issue in this
regard: The vehicle is confiscated permanently (will be sold off at the
next available auction) *regardless of who owns it*.

> One case was a Norwegian who had been to Germany to buy a Lamborghini
> Huracán for 2 mio kr (~ 300.000 €), and was clocked in at 236 km/h
> trying to make his ferry. He was “a little annoyed” when the car was
> seized.
>
> <https://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/danish-police-confiscate-luxury-sports-car-caught-speeding-80472264>

/Anders, Denmark

On 15-Jul-22 21:07, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:46:55 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>> On 14-Jul-22 22:04, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
>>> Den 14-07-2022 kl. 22:18 skrev Sam Plusnet:
>>>> On 14-Jul-22 18:09, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do some countries have a sliding scale for fines, depending on
>>>>> weath and resources?  Shouldn't we?
>>>>>
>>>> Many European countries have them.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/
>>>>
>>>> That article also mentions "Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France,
>>>> and Switzerland" but ignores the UK (we 'do' fines on a sliding scale).
>>>
>>> Not quite ignored: "In 1991, the governments of England and Wales tried
>>> out day-fines, only to abandon them after criticism from the media."
>
> Hmm. New term. (Google)
> A day-fine, day fine, unit fine or structured fine is a unit of fine
> payment that, above a minimum fine, is based on the offender's daily
> personal income.
>
>>
>>
>> UK speeding fines are income-based.
>>
>> From
>> https://www.gov.uk › speeding-penalties
>>
>> "How are UK speeding fines calculated?
>> The amount you're fined depends on what the speed limit was and how much
>> over it you were driving. It's usually a percentage of your weekly
>> income, up to a maximum of £1,000 (£2,500 if you were driving on a
>> motorway). You could also be disqualified from driving or have your
>> licence suspended."
>
> So day-fines are back.

Absolutely not.
The fine depends upon your _weekly_ income.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 16/07/22 09:31, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 14-07-2022 kl. 23:04 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:

>> [...] In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation
>> in cases of "insane driving" (defined as going more than 100% over
>> the speed limit (if that brings you over 100 km/h), going more than
>> 200 km/h, or driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 2‰)
>
> I forgot to mention what is actually the main contentious issue in
> this regard: The vehicle is confiscated permanently (will be sold off
> at the next available auction) *regardless of who owns it*.

Even for a stolen car?

When I see newspaper reports of what I would call insane driving, the
offender is usually an unlicensed driver in a stolen car.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

In message <tastcn$35uq3$1@dont-email.me> Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Den 14-07-2022 kl. 23:04 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:
>> [...]
>> In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation in cases
>> of "insane driving" (defined as going more than 100% over the speed
>> limit (if that brings you over 100 km/h), going more than 200 km/h,
>> or driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 2‰)

> I forgot to mention what is actually the main contentious issue in this
> regard: The vehicle is confiscated permanently (will be sold off at the
> next available auction) *regardless of who owns it*.

Well, that is absurd.

>> One case was a Norwegian who had been to Germany to buy a Lamborghini
>> Huracán for 2 mio kr (~ 300.000 €), and was clocked in at 236 km/h
>> trying to make his ferry. He was “a little annoyed” when the car was
>> seized.
>>
>> <https://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/danish-police-confiscate-luxury-sports-car-caught-speeding-80472264>

I have a lot of trouble feeling even the slightest sympathy in this
case. Going 236km/hr is inexcusable outside of a racetrack or other
highly controlled environment, and is not just 'speeding' but having a
reckless disregard for the lives of people around you.

I';d be in favor of confiscating the vehicle, Suspending his driving
privileges for 5 years, AND throwing his ass in jail for a year.

--
“What’s a little boy like you doing with big boy smut like this?”

Anders Nygaard:
>> In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation in cases
>> of "insane driving"...

> I forgot to mention what is actually the main contentious issue in this
> regard: The vehicle is confiscated permanently (will be sold off at the
> next available auction) *regardless of who owns it*.

So if I want to commit this crime in Denmark, I should start by stealing
a police car? Good to know.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Where do you want Microsoft to go today?"
msb@vex.net -- Rick Ross

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Den 16-07-2022 kl. 03:32 skrev Peter Moylan:
> On 16/07/22 09:31, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
>> Den 14-07-2022 kl. 23:04 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:
>
>>> [...] In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation
>>> in cases of "insane driving" (defined as going more than 100% over
>>> the speed limit (if that brings you over 100 km/h), going more than
>>> 200 km/h, or driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 2‰)
>>
>> I forgot to mention what is actually the main contentious issue in
>> this regard: The vehicle is confiscated permanently (will be sold off
>> at the next available auction) *regardless of who owns it*.
>
> Even for a stolen car?

Good question!

IANAL, but when I read the relevant legislation, the confiscation
is described as "not without exceptions, but there should be few".
A non-exhaustive list of possible exceptions (where the car will be
impounded, but may subsequently be returned) includes stolen cars
and cars with special provisions for transporting a handicapped person.

Leased cars (which to a large extent were what provoked the legislation)
are specifically mentioned as not eligible for exemption; in such cases
the leaser will have to turn to (even sue) the leasee for compensation.

In the 18 months or so the legislation has been in effect, there have
also been cases where a teenage son has caused a parent's car to be
confiscated. No clemency has been extended there either.

> When I see newspaper reports of what I would call insane driving, the
> offender is usually an unlicensed driver in a stolen car.

That happens here too - usually with a police car in hot pursuit, which
has given rise to criticism and suggestions that they should find other,
less dangerous, ways of apprehending offenders.

But, we have also had numerous cases of leased and borrowed cars used
for road racing and other utterly reckless driving on public roads and
subsequent public bragging on social media, where the offenders have
simply shrugged when fined and continued their practices in the same
cars - even without a valid driver's license.

/Anders, Denmark

On Friday, July 15, 2022 at 5:32:45 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 15:47:49 -0400, Rich Ulrich
> <rich....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:26:03 +0100, Janet <nob...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <taq0dq$2qgaa$1...@dont-email.me>,
> >>news2...@gmail.com says...
> >>>
> >>> Not quite ignored: "In 1991, the governments of England and Wales tried
> >>> out day-fines, only to abandon them after criticism from the media."
> >>>
> >>> In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation in cases
> >>> of "insane driving" (defined as going more than 100% over the speed
> >>> limit (if that brings you over 100 km/h), going more than 200 km/h,
> >>> or driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 2?)
> >>>
> >>> One case was a Norwegian who had been to Germany to buy a Lamborghini
> >>> Huracán for 2 mio kr (~ 300.000 €), and was clocked in at 236 km/h
> >>> trying to make his ferry. He was ?a little annoyed? when the car was seized.
> >>>
> >>> <https://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/danish-police-confiscate-luxury-sports-car-caught-speeding-80472264>
> >>>
> >>> /Anders, Denmark
> >>
> >> In UK, Police can seize and crush the vehicle.
> >>
> >> <https://www.nationalworld.com/lifestyle/cars/police-
> >>crush-56000-cars-as-uninsured-driving-soars-3385075>
> >>
> >> "Police forces around the UK have crushed more than
> >>56,000 cars seized from uninsured drivers in the last two
> >>years, in the face of rising offender numbers.
> >>
> >>According to the latest figures, a total of 100,983
> >>drivers were caught driving without insurance in 2020 and
> >>102,387 vehicles seized from offenders."
> >>
> >> (Many uninsured drivers are driving a stolen car or old
> >>banger so worthless they don't care if it gets crushed.)
> >>
> >> Drunk or dangerous insured drivers whose vehicle is
> >>seized by police, only have to pay a penalty to get it
> >>back. The vehicle crushing penalty doesn't apply to those
> >>who pay up.
> >>
> >The US sells impounded vehicles. I had not heard of crushing them.
> Oh, yes. The tow yard can file for the title of an unclaimed vehicle.
> If the vehicle's value is such the tow yard can sell the vehicle, they
> do. If the scrap value is higher than the resale value, they tow yard
> will take re-sellable parts and crush the chassis for scrap weight
> value.
>
> Many cars that are impounded are unclaimed. The towing and storage
> charges are often higher than the value of the vehicle to the owner.
>
> In Florida, tow yards accept only cash. Credit cards are not
> accepted. Coming up with a couple of hundred dollars in cash can be
> impossible for some low income people, so the storage costs continue
> to mount.

Impoverished people are not always mindful of advice
(like living in places known for valuing 'social justice', like
Paris, London, NYC or Vermont) where legal and social aid
is the most efficient.

Den 16-07-2022 kl. 03:46 skrev Lewis:
> In message <tastcn$35uq3$1@dont-email.me> Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Den 14-07-2022 kl. 23:04 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:
>>> [...]
>>> In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation in cases
>>> of "insane driving" (defined as going more than 100% over the speed
>>> limit (if that brings you over 100 km/h), going more than 200 km/h,
>>> or driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 2‰)
>
>> I forgot to mention what is actually the main contentious issue in this
>> regard: The vehicle is confiscated permanently (will be sold off at the
>> next available auction) *regardless of who owns it*.
>
> Well, that is absurd.

No, it is a reaction to some real problems (see other post), and has
been subject to intense debate and deliberations about violation of
private ownership rights vs. public interest.

>>> One case was a Norwegian who had been to Germany to buy a Lamborghini
>>> Huracán for 2 mio kr (~ 300.000 €), and was clocked in at 236 km/h
>>> trying to make his ferry. He was “a little annoyed” when the car was
>>> seized.
>>>
>>> <https://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/danish-police-confiscate-luxury-sports-car-caught-speeding-80472264>
>
> I have a lot of trouble feeling even the slightest sympathy in this
> case. Going 236km/hr is inexcusable outside of a racetrack or other
> highly controlled environment, and is not just 'speeding' but having a
> reckless disregard for the lives of people around you.
>
> I';d be in favor of confiscating the vehicle, Suspending his driving
> privileges for 5 years, AND throwing his ass in jail for a year.

His driving license was Norwegian, so not under the jurisdiction of
Danish authorities. The rules include the possibility of incarceration
(up to 18 months), but for some reason they seem not to have pressed
for jail in this case.

/Anders, Denmark

On Sat, 16 Jul 2022 01:02:55 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

>On 15-Jul-22 21:07, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:46:55 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14-Jul-22 22:04, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
>>>> Den 14-07-2022 kl. 22:18 skrev Sam Plusnet:
>>>>> On 14-Jul-22 18:09, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do some countries have a sliding scale for fines, depending on
>>>>>> weath and resources?  Shouldn't we?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Many European countries have them.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/
>>>>>
>>>>> That article also mentions "Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, France,
>>>>> and Switzerland" but ignores the UK (we 'do' fines on a sliding scale).
>>>>
>>>> Not quite ignored: "In 1991, the governments of England and Wales tried
>>>> out day-fines, only to abandon them after criticism from the media."
>>
>> Hmm. New term. (Google)
>> A day-fine, day fine, unit fine or structured fine is a unit of fine
>> payment that, above a minimum fine, is based on the offender's daily
>> personal income.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> UK speeding fines are income-based.
>>>
>>> From
>>> https://www.gov.uk › speeding-penalties
>>>
>>> "How are UK speeding fines calculated?
>>> The amount you're fined depends on what the speed limit was and how much
>>> over it you were driving. It's usually a percentage of your weekly
>>> income, up to a maximum of £1,000 (£2,500 if you were driving on a
>>> motorway). You could also be disqualified from driving or have your
>>> licence suspended."
>>
>> So day-fines are back.
>
>Absolutely not.
>The fine depends upon your _weekly_ income.

Aha! - Relevant to AUE. I wasn't reading carefully enough
to spot that "day-fine" was based on "daily" income. Daily,
weekly, monthly, annual -- I don't ordinarily think of the time-
unit as having relevance, except for easy communication.

The law must go on into some detail about the units. By the way,
Google does not define the term "week-fine" like it day day-fine.

Also, I wonder at an ambiguity. Does the "maximum" describe
the size of the fine, or the size of the weekly income?

I do find a UK reference that describes fines as assessed
for "bands" A to F (usually, it says, A to C). Fines range
potentially from 25% of the weekly income to 700%.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/fines-and-financial-orders/approach-to-the-assessment-of-fines-2/2-fine-bands/

No hint there of a maximum. I didn't pursue links.

--
Rich Ulrich

In message <taup1t$3dr6f$1@dont-email.me> Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Den 16-07-2022 kl. 03:46 skrev Lewis:
>> In message <tastcn$35uq3$1@dont-email.me> Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Den 14-07-2022 kl. 23:04 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:
>>>> [...]
>>>> In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation in cases
>>>> of "insane driving" (defined as going more than 100% over the speed
>>>> limit (if that brings you over 100 km/h), going more than 200 km/h,
>>>> or driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 2‰)
>>
>>> I forgot to mention what is actually the main contentious issue in this
>>> regard: The vehicle is confiscated permanently (will be sold off at the
>>> next available auction) *regardless of who owns it*.
>>
>> Well, that is absurd.

> No,

Yes.

> it is a reaction to some real problems

Obviously, but stealing Person A's car because Person B drove it at
excessive speeds is bullshit, and nothing more than state-sanctioned
robbery.

There is a VAST gulf of difference between taking someone's property
away when they use it in a manner that causes a great deal of danger and
taking their property because someone else has abused it.

>> I have a lot of trouble feeling even the slightest sympathy in this
>> case. Going 236km/hr is inexcusable outside of a racetrack or other
>> highly controlled environment, and is not just 'speeding' but having a
>> reckless disregard for the lives of people around you.
>>
>> I';d be in favor of confiscating the vehicle, Suspending his driving
>> privileges for 5 years, AND throwing his ass in jail for a year.

> His driving license was Norwegian, so not under the jurisdiction of
> Danish authorities. The rules include the possibility of incarceration
> (up to 18 months), but for some reason they seem not to have pressed
> for jail in this case.

Can't they ban him driving in Denmark?

--
I CAN'T SEE DEAD PEOPLE Bart chalkboard Ep. BABF05

On 17/07/22 01:55, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> Den 16-07-2022 kl. 03:32 skrev Peter Moylan:

>> When I see newspaper reports of what I would call insane driving,
>> the offender is usually an unlicensed driver in a stolen car.
>
> That happens here too - usually with a police car in hot pursuit,
> which has given rise to criticism and suggestions that they should
> find other, less dangerous, ways of apprehending offenders.

These days the police here are instructed to abandon the chase if
there's a risk to bystanders, but that can take delicate judgement.

In the last such case I read about - only yesterday, I think - the
police gave up the chase, but the driver of the stolen car killed
himself anyway, by speeding through a red light. The "innocent" car was
also wrecked, but the occupants survived.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Den 17-07-2022 kl. 01:32 skrev Lewis:
> In message <taup1t$3dr6f$1@dont-email.me> Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Den 16-07-2022 kl. 03:46 skrev Lewis:
>>> In message <tastcn$35uq3$1@dont-email.me> Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Den 14-07-2022 kl. 23:04 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation in cases
>>>>> of "insane driving" (defined as going more than 100% over the speed
>>>>> limit (if that brings you over 100 km/h), going more than 200 km/h,
>>>>> or driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 2‰)
>>>
>>>> I forgot to mention what is actually the main contentious issue in this
>>>> regard: The vehicle is confiscated permanently (will be sold off at the
>>>> next available auction) *regardless of who owns it*.
>>>
>>> Well, that is absurd.
>
>> No,
>
> Yes.
>
>> it is a reaction to some real problems
>
> Obviously, but stealing Person A's car because Person B drove it at
> excessive speeds is bullshit, and nothing more than state-sanctioned
> robbery.

If person A is or should be aware that their car would be used in this
manner, they should not have allowed person B to use it.

ObAUE: "Stealing" in my book implies "unlawful". If it (as in this case)
is the law that the car should be impounded, I think it the wrong word
to use. A more relevant (and less manipulative) complaint might be that
the law is "unconstitutional".
"Robbery" is even worse - in my book it implies "under threat of
violence", which is not an issue here.

> There is a VAST gulf of difference between taking someone's property
> away when they use it in a manner that causes a great deal of danger and
> taking their property because someone else has abused it.

Yes, there is a vast difference, and as I said, the legislation was only
introduced after great hesitation and public debate, but the problem to
be solved was found to be sufficiently serious to warrant this intrusion
on private property rights.
This is not the only kind of issue where the public interest overrides
private property rights of people who have done nothing wrong.

>>> I have a lot of trouble feeling even the slightest sympathy in this
>>> case. Going 236km/hr is inexcusable outside of a racetrack or other
>>> highly controlled environment, and is not just 'speeding' but having a
>>> reckless disregard for the lives of people around you.
>>>
>>> I';d be in favor of confiscating the vehicle, Suspending his driving
>>> privileges for 5 years, AND throwing his ass in jail for a year.
>
>> His driving license was Norwegian, so not under the jurisdiction of
>> Danish authorities. The rules include the possibility of incarceration
>> (up to 18 months), but for some reason they seem not to have pressed
>> for jail in this case.
>
> Can't they ban him driving in Denmark?

I think not. I can't see how any such ban could be enforced anyway - we
mostly have no border controls where he could be stopped on entering[1],
and while he could be extra stiffly fined if stopped by the police,
they would have to have a reason to stop him, in which case it would
(in some sense) be too late.

[1] The relevant search word is "Schengen"

/Anders, Denmark

In message <tb3fg9$a7ih$1@dont-email.me> Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Den 17-07-2022 kl. 01:32 skrev Lewis:
>> In message <taup1t$3dr6f$1@dont-email.me> Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Den 16-07-2022 kl. 03:46 skrev Lewis:
>>>> In message <tastcn$35uq3$1@dont-email.me> Anders D. Nygaard <news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Den 14-07-2022 kl. 23:04 skrev Anders D. Nygaard:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> In Denmark, we have recently introduced vehicle confiscation in cases
>>>>>> of "insane driving" (defined as going more than 100% over the speed
>>>>>> limit (if that brings you over 100 km/h), going more than 200 km/h,
>>>>>> or driving with a blood alcohol level of more than 2‰)
>>>>
>>>>> I forgot to mention what is actually the main contentious issue in this
>>>>> regard: The vehicle is confiscated permanently (will be sold off at the
>>>>> next available auction) *regardless of who owns it*.
>>>>
>>>> Well, that is absurd.
>>
>>> No,
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> it is a reaction to some real problems
>>
>> Obviously, but stealing Person A's car because Person B drove it at
>> excessive speeds is bullshit, and nothing more than state-sanctioned
>> robbery.

> If person A is or should be aware that their car would be used in this
> manner, they should not have allowed person B to use it.

That is a very large 'if'.

> ObAUE: "Stealing" in my book implies "unlawful". If it (as in this case)
> is the law that the car should be impounded, I think it the wrong word
> to use.

When the action is unlawful OR WRONG it is stealing, and this is as much
stealing as the US police who stop cars and steal the occupant's cash
(something that happens a lot on Interstate-95) may be 'lawful' but it
is still stealing.

A more relevant (and less manipulative) complaint might be that
> the law is "unconstitutional".
> "Robbery" is even worse - in my book it implies "under threat of
> violence", which is not an issue here.

Robbery does not require a threat of violence. It means you are present
when your property is stolen by force (or the threat of force). The
state is definitely taking the property by force.

--
'Never build a dungeon you wouldn't be happy to spend the night in
yourself,' said the Patrician (...). 'The world would be a
happier place if more people remembered that.' --Guards! Guards!