Norway's Transport Ministry is drafting legislation that would allow the state to confiscate and auction vehicles used in serious traffic violations, even when the owner wasn't driving. The proposal has sparked fierce debate about whether innocent third parties should pay for crimes they didn't commit. Source: Norwegian Government - Act on Professional Transport by Motor Vehicle.
Under the proposed law, car owners could lose their vehicles if someone else commits offenses like reckless driving, street racing, or drunk driving while using their car. This includes shared cars, rental vehicles, lease cars, loaner cars from mechanics, company fleet vehicles, and cars lent to family or neighbors.
"It's completely unreasonable that an innocent third party should be hit by such an intrusive measure as losing their vehicle," says Janne Pedersen, senior advisor at NAF (Norwegian Automobile Federation). "You become a victim as a car owner because another adult has abused your trust."
Danish model inspires Norwegian crackdown
Norway is following Denmark's lead. Danish police have seized nearly 3,000 vehicles under similar "reckless driving" laws over three years. The Danish policy gained momentum after a police officer was killed on Copenhagen's Langebro bridge by someone driving recklessly in a leased vehicle.
Norway's traffic police (UP) and road safety organization Trygg Trafikk support the proposal. "Vehicle confiscation must be considered a necessary and reasonable response given the seriousness of these violations," UP stated in their consultation response. They argue owners should bear responsibility for who they lend their cars to.
But the policy creates obvious problems. Rental company Hyre warns of "notable economic losses for car rental companies." NHO Reiseliv, representing tourism businesses, calls it an "unreasonable and unnecessary economic risk for third parties."
Family cars at risk
The most controversial scenario involves family vehicles. If a teenager takes the family car and commits a serious traffic offense, parents could lose their primary means of transportation and a major household asset.
"A car often has great value and is, alongside housing, the major capital item in many households," Pedersen explains. "It's clearly severe to be deprived of the car for those who are affected."
NAF supports confiscation only when owners show negligence, such as lending to someone with known substance abuse or traffic violation history. But they oppose punishing owners who had no reason to suspect wrongdoing.
Statens vegvesen (Norwegian Public Roads Administration) backs the proposal, noting many cases where "the car is registered to father or mother while the son usually drives and has permanent use of the car." They see this as closing a loophole where families try to shield assets from consequences.
Revenue motive raises suspicions
The proposal allows confiscated vehicles to be sold for state revenue, raising questions about financial incentives. One reader comment captured public skepticism: "The state wants to enrich itself even more. It probably won't be long before they find a reason to take a paid-off house too."
Progress Party transport committee leader BÃ¥rd Hoksrud opposes third-party confiscation entirely. "It is the person driving the car who is responsible for their actions. Confiscation of vehicles belonging to others than the driver must be rejected in the strongest terms."
A survey by Elbil24 found Norwegian opinion split: 42% support confiscation when the driver owns the car, but only 23% support it regardless of ownership. The remaining 35% oppose the policy entirely.
Expect Stortinget to water down the proposal before passage, likely adding stronger protections for genuinely innocent owners while preserving the tool for obvious cases of family asset-shifting.
Read more: Norway Oil Fund Loses $40B as Tech Bet Backfires.
Read more: Norway Submarine Base Faces Power Grid Rejection Crisis.