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.

This would apply to the whole state. New York is more than just one city

Yeah but in the suburbs of Buffalo and Albany? Or in the New York portion of the Appalachians or whatever their other mountains are called? New York is a geographically large state by northeast standards

And pay rent for a home and to buy food and clothes

But sure make it sound dumb and silly 🥳

And the rich will just pay it and continue, it's the poors that will suffer. But yeah it would be their fault because this would only be used after a number of offences that they could have just slowed down.

Cool so how are they supposed to ever get a job a home and live?

Should we just jail them for life to make it simple?

Some places don't enforce this very well.

Oh.

Wonderful.

Even better.

But it would be offset by the massive and recurring income from installing and maintaining the devices by a third party.

Let's see who the companies providing these services are owned by.

Like when ticket cameras in vans became a thing 25 years ago: 80% of the "ticket" went to the camera van company. I say "ticket" because in many US jurisdictions only a police officer can issue a ticket, so these were unenforceable as tickets.

States had to update their laws to add "civil fees" as a thing just for such cameras.

Buses cost money to run, and rural upstate New York (just like a lot of rural areas that are car dependant) do not necessarily have the infrastructure to implement them. Which is exactly why I said shuttles, not buses.

Public transit isn't going to pop out of the ether to fix the problem so that we can just take away people's personal property because they broke the law as if they no longer own it. Civil forfeiture is already a broken law without us making it worse for poor people while rich people continue to get a pass.

They'll buy new vehicles. You can legally purchase a car without a driver's license in most states. You just have to have someone who can legally drive it off the lot of deliver it. Which is simple for a rich person, but not for a poor person.

Like it could be if we were willing to spend the amount of money it would cost to build and upkeep that infrastructure. But that would also likely mean civil forfeiture of land. Because bus stops and side walks and depots don't just show up because you want to take people's cars away.

The cost of all that, plus the cost of implementing the ability to store or sell these vehicles is going to be problematic and more costly than the proposal, which is more fair than the alternative because it treats people regardless of the economic situation the same.

I don't like the proposal, but I can certainly understand why it's being proposed as a better way to fix the problem.

That's wonderful. Would not that cost be better spent designing roads that deter speeding by design?

Completely agree. I live in central NY and public transit is so gutted it’s basically nonexistent. I think there’s a way to increase demand though…

BINGO

The fines aren't even the expensive part, it's the increase in insurance.

As a former... assertive driver as a young adult, my insurance increased to insane levels. That got me to re-think my driving and turned me into the person everyone cusses for driving like grandpa.

Its a speed limiting device, unless its gps tracking tech it will just have a maximum of 60-80 mph. So you can still speed in a 50 or 30 zone.