Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: RoadKingLarry on February 24, 2012, 11:18:43 PM
-
The Oklahoma legislature is working a new law that would allow police to pull over a driver if their vehicle insurance doesn't show up on the Oklahoma online verification system.
http://www.newson6.com/story/17015584/oklahoma-bill-aims-to-crack-down-on-uninsured-drivers (http://www.newson6.com/story/17015584/oklahoma-bill-aims-to-crack-down-on-uninsured-drivers)
I'm pretty hard core about hammering drivers that don't have insurance. And I'm tentatively in favor of this proposed law but I don't know how accurate and complete the online insurance database is. I'd like to see numbers showing it to be well up in the high 90s percentage wise before I'd be willing to give the cops another fishing tool.
-
Why are you hard core about auto insurance?
-
Why, absent any other reason, would cops be checking to see if a motor vehicle had insurance coverage listed? Aren't there enough court cases telling cops they need to have something better than "It was a slow day" as the reason for pulling a car over?
And, of course, let us not forget the slippery slope that this bill seems to be perched upon. Once they have stopped you to see if you have insurance, they get to ask you if you are transporting illegal substances, or are in need of eyeglasses, or are using unlicensed unleaded gasoline.
You want to crack down on uninsured motorists? Enforce the existing penalties against operating without insurance. Make te penalties more severe, if you want to.
Somehow "innocent until proven guilty" seems to have slipped into "Everybody's guilty of something, so let's just run them through the mill until we find out what it is". Don't even have to violate some law/rule first before they start searching for something to charge you with.
stay safe.
-
Why are you hard core about auto insurance?
Have you ever been hit by an uninsured driver?
My brother was a few ears ago. He had a pretty decent truck but it was older and he was only carrying liability. The driver that ran the stop sign and hit him carried no insurance and had a suspended license.
My brother's truck was a total loss and while his injuries were pretty minor he had to cover the expenses himself. the other driver got a ticket for no insurance and suspended license, a few hundred in fines which he likely never paid anyway. My brother was out several thousand between the value of the truck, medical expenses and lost work time. The guy that hit him had nothing to sue for anyway.
I have several friends that have been hit by uninsured drivers (and a couple of "undocumented migrant workers") and experienced major financial losses because of it.
-
I agree with all the reasons for mandatory insurance, but I don't think giving the police another fishing tool is a good idea. How about just not renewing registration if there's no insurance, and requiring that the plates be turned in if the registration isn't renewed?
Although in practicality, I don't know if that's any more enforceable than the current proposal. Either way, people who flaunt the law and drive without insurance also flaunt the law and drive vehicles that aren't registered. The police can't run every license plate they see on the street, so either way there's a much better than even chance that laws wouldn't prevent what happened to Larry's brother.
-
Hawk the problem is people will go and get insurance for just long enough to register the vehicle and then not make any more payments. So they will drive 11 out of 12 months without insurance.
-
I, too, have been a victim of an uninsured driver. Luckily I keep the uninsured motorist provision on my auto policy. Personally I don't mind that kind of law. It's a law that actually does serve a constructive purpose and has a valid reasoning.
Another reason I support the law is the plethora of Buy-By-The-Day insurance policies available. Here in Texas you must have insurance to get your car inspected. There are a LOT of people who will go pop a few bucks for a short-term policy, get their inspection, then motor around the rest of the year with absolutely no insurance.
The technology for unobtrusive automatic recognition of license plates is already available and in widespread use. The local university switched to an automated plate scanning system last year. They even use it for visitors, your plate being automatically imaged and converted to data when you approach the entry station. Parking enforcment has several vehicles with imaging systems mounted on the roof. All they have to do is drive around and the system will automatically alert them to any tag it doesn't recognize.
Brad
-
Big Bother is watching.
-
Why, absent any other reason, would cops be checking to see if a motor vehicle had insurance coverage listed? Aren't there enough court cases telling cops they need to have something better than "It was a slow day" as the reason for pulling a car over?
And, of course, let us not forget the slippery slope that this bill seems to be perched upon. Once they have stopped you to see if you have insurance, they get to ask you if you are transporting illegal substances, or are in need of eyeglasses, or are using unlicensed unleaded gasoline.
You want to crack down on uninsured motorists? Enforce the existing penalties against operating without insurance. Make te penalties more severe, if you want to.
Somehow "innocent until proven guilty" seems to have slipped into "Everybody's guilty of something, so let's just run them through the mill until we find out what it is". Don't even have to violate some law/rule first before they start searching for something to charge you with.
stay safe.
Here in Alabama we have an enormous problem with uninsured drivers. The state police periodically set up road blocks to check insurance cards. I see nothing wrong with it.
Driving is a priviledge, not a "right." The state has the right to regulate insurance ownership.
-
I got pulled for not having brake lights a few months ago. Somehow, the fuse had worked loose. Minor issue. Anyway, I had neglected to place my latest insurance card with my registration, etc.
Cop wrote me a ticket, had to go down and show current proof of insurance or pay a stiff fine. I took more proof than required, having been with Geico for the last nine years. Dismissed. They ask if you had insurance prior to the ticket date. They don't require you to prove it. That little loophole needs to be addressed.
Thing is, the fine isn't stopping folks from driving without insurance. They do as others have mentioned. Pay the fine (or not, as indicated above), get a short-term policy, get registered, and then let the insurance lapse.
I have no problem with cops pulling folks over if a license plate is flagged in this manner.
-
they have cameras that scan the tags around here flag em if they come up hot
-
Wait, so you guys are in favor of a law which allows a stop because an officer has no evidence that you didn't commit a crime?
Just checking.
-
Wait, so you guys are in favor of a law which allows a stop because an officer has no evidence that you didn't commit a crime?
Just checking.
Read it again. It's not a random stop. The stop is only initiated if a check of your license plate shows you to be uninsured.
Brad
-
Wait, so you guys are in favor of a law which allows a stop because an officer has no evidence that you didn't commit a crime?
Just checking.
Brad already addressed it, but let me make it more clear... They run the plate. Plate comes back from DMV saying no proof of insurance. Driving without insurance is, in states that require insurance, at a minimum a violation. Therefore, this law allows, after the "Ding! NO INSURANCE!", the officer to initiate a traffic stop for this reason alone. It's not a fishing expedition, it's not pulling everyone over to check their insurance, it's the same as if a cop pulled in behind a stolen vehicle and ran the plate and it came back flagged stolen. They didn't have to commit another violation in order to be stopped.
-
So they don't need probable cause to run a plate?
-
Cops run random plates all the time and, no, they do not need probable cause to do so.
Brad
-
I don't think PC is needed to run a plate now anyway. Like I said before I would only support this law IF the online verification is 95+% accurate and complete. I don't think we are anywhere near that.
-
In Michigan we have compulsory auto insurance. You can't buy a license plate unless you show a proof of insurance. On it's face, sounds good huh? In reality it's not. There is no way for the state to know that the policy, even though there is a future date of expiration, is still in force at the time of purchase of plate or anytime after that before the date of expiration. The proof of insurance actually states that on the document.
Your new law is merely another way for LE to arbitrarily pull people over for no reason as means for fishing expeditions. Violates the Constitution as does every other checkpoint BS that is enacted. Fortunately in Michigan our Supreme Court declared checkpoints to be unconstitutional several years ago. "Driving is a privilege not a right" is more government BS that the public has swallowed. Driver's licensing and license plates should be what they really are, government revenue machines and nothing more than that. Government should have no right to restrict your ability to travel from here to there unmolested, period, except for grabbing the revenue.
-
I don't support laws requiring drivers to carry insurance, therefore I definitely would not support a law giving police more power to enforce those laws.
Also, what Grampster said re the whole "privilege not right" sophistry.
-
So they don't need probable cause to run a plate?
Nope. It's not a search, it's just a check with the DMV.
Now, if there is a discrepency with the plate/registration (or if the registered driver has warrents) then that's PC for a stop.
I don't support laws requiring drivers to carry insurance
So what happens when you hit me and you've got nothing for me to sue for?
-
I don't support laws requiring drivers to carry insurance, therefore I definitely would not support a law giving police more power to enforce those laws.
So you don't agree with motorist being held to a reasonable amount of economic liability should they choose to exercise the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roadways?
Your new law is merely another way for LE to arbitrarily pull people over for no reason as means for fishing expeditions.
The stop is not arbitrary, nor is it made so the LEO can go on a "fishing expedition". Quite the contrary. The stop is made for a specific infraction, and is initiated only after the plate has been run and shows to be uninsured.
Brad
-
So what happens when you hit me and you've got nothing for me to sue for?
The government garnishes your wages until you've paid your restitution. Failing that, they stick you in jail, use you for hard labor and then garnish the profits from that to pay for your restitution.
Well, at least that's how it SHOULD be.
-
they have cameras that scan the tags around here flag em if they come up hot
I'm sure that will be the next step.
-
I'm sure that will be the next step.
There's no next step involved. Some places already have them in use.
Brad
-
I don't support laws requiring drivers to carry insurance, therefore I definitely would not support a law giving police more power to enforce those laws.
Also, what Grampster said re the whole "privilege not right" sophistry.
I wholeheartedly agree. Of course, like BR and Grampster, I have, in the past, experienced the clusterf*** that is Michigan's no-fault insurance.
Now, if MI could force those damn deer to get insurance . . .
-
The best solution is to collect the fee when you register the car - ie pay your liability bill for the year at the same time as you renew registration. That stops people from running the one day scam. Governments don't like it because it makes their fees appear higher, but it's really the only way to insure the roads.
-
"Driving is a privilege not a right" is more government BS that the public has swallowed. Driver's licensing and license plates should be what they really are, government revenue machines and nothing more than that. Government should have no right to restrict your ability to travel from here to there unmolested, period, except for grabbing the revenue.
What grampster wrote. "Driving is a privilege," my *expletive deleted*ss. Also, I am in favor of doing away with license plates so that we can move anonymously along the roadways my taxes helped pay for.
-
Read it again. It's not a random stop. The stop is only initiated if a check of your license plate shows you to be uninsured.
Yeah, I can read, thanks.
So you're telling me that they're going to maintain a database of vehicles that are registered but not known to be insured. Sorry, not buying it.
What will actually happen is a database of insurance policies tied to a plate and the absence of such an association will trigger a stop. Lack of insurance is not a requirement for the stop as you seem to believe, only the state's lack of knowledge of it.
Stop it with the "might crime" nonsense and whining about wrecks with uninsured motorists (been there, too, btw). You just handed the police another pretext for a stop, and you're falling victim to the kind of useful idiocy that will make the next law much, much worse. Good luck with that.
ETA: I hate to admit it, but De Selby is right. No insurance for the renewal period of the plate = no plate. That will ensure compliance. It's impossible, but if you're going to enforce insurance requirements, it will make it fair.
-
So you're telling me that they're going to maintain a database of vehicles that are registered but not known to be insured. Sorry, not buying it.
Nothing to "buy". Chances are they already do it via notification from your insurance company, just not on a proactively enforced basis.
Also, I am in favor of doing away with license plates so that we can move anonymously along the roadways my taxes helped pay for.
Um, you realize that the revenue from those plates/tags funds a not insignificant part of those roadways, right?
Brad
-
via notification from your insurance company
Which is instantaneous and always accurate, I assume. I can be insured on any arbitrary vehicle in about ten minutes, and I doubt the state knows that before Monday morning. So now you suggest a stop, or let's take it to the next obvious step and go for an automated plate read, and I'm ticketed. While insured.
And yes, they do already do it. That's how we are able to renew registration online here. They are not always accurate, and I've seen that personally.
-
There is only one way to insure compliance with having liability insurance in force for the vehicle license period. That is requiring drivers to pay in full for the entire period for which the the license is valid and prove it. Also the Insurance company must have the ability to refuse to cancel the policy and refund unused premium unless the plate and registration is surrendered to the insurance company and then turned over to the state.
If this process was implemented your BS new law would not be necessary. Of course the bleeding hearts would never stand for it because the Po Folks can't afford to pay for the entire period the plate is valid.
-
So what happens when you hit me and you've got nothing for me to sue for?
You're screwed.
Kind of like how you are anyway if I'm un-/under-insured. Or if the insurance companies don't play nice. Or if I'm a deer. Or if I cause you damage or injury in any way when I'm not wrapped in car.
In other words, it is ridiculous to require by law that people limit their risk of being financially ruined by a lawsuit, but it is impossible to effectively require by law that people limit their risk of being ruined by bad stuff happening to them. Even if the bad stuff happens when they're in a car.
*expletive deleted*it happens. If you want to limit your risk of *expletive deleted*it happening to you, be careful. Buy insurance--for your risk, or for your risk of liability, whichever. If you want to avoid clogging up the courts with auto accidents, then sure, limit those cases. And people can buy insurance to cover their risk. But to pretend that no-fault laws are really good for anybody who isn't an insurance company is ridiculous.
Governments should not be in the business of telling people which products they must buy from private companies.
-
Um, you realize that the revenue from those plates/tags funds a not insignificant part of those roadways, right?
Relative to fuel taxes, it is insignificant. Remove the cost to administer licence plates and the delta is even tinier.
-
You're screwed.
LOLWTF? So you ran the redlight and wrecked my truck (my BABY!) and I'm supposed to take it in the shorts?
-
LOLWTF? So you ran the redlight and wrecked my truck (my BABY!) and I'm supposed to take it in the shorts?
Life is risky, suck it up. Or buy insurance to cover your risk.
-
LOLWTF? So you ran the redlight and wrecked my truck (my BABY!) and I'm supposed to take it in the shorts?
Agreed. If I damage someone's property, I'm prepared to take responsibility for it. Is it outlandish to expect other folks to assume the same responsibility?
-
Agreed. If I damage someone's property, I'm prepared to take responsibility for it. Is it outlandish to expect other folks to assume the same responsibility?
Not at all.
But it is outlandish to expect gov't to mandate that other people buy commercial products to ensure that they are able to do so at minimal personal risk, and to expect that system to really work effectively.
-
What would you do if someone destroyed something else of yours that is expensive?
-
Governments should not be in the business of telling people which products they must buy from private companies.
Not sure if I agree with that, considering the likely alternative is the government (you and I) paying for the consequences of an accident...perhaps 100's of thousands in medical, disability, SSI and whatnot.
-
Nothing to "buy". Chances are they already do it via notification from your insurance company, just not on a proactively enforced basis.
Um, you realize that the revenue from those plates/tags funds a not insignificant part of those roadways, right?
Brad
Oklahoma started just such a verification database a few years ago. I think our "Tag Agents" (OKs version of DMV) can access it when you renew your registration.
-
Life is risky, suck it up. Or buy insurance to cover your risk.
But YOU caused the damage and didn't take responsibility for it in that case. It is not on ME to cover that. It is on you to cover it either through insurance or direct payment to me.
Now, if I cause a wreck, then it's on me to pay for it, again either through insurance or direct cash. Since I don't exactly have hundreds of thousands of dollars lying around, I have insurance. Just like I have insurance for aviation because again, I don't have personal $$$ to cover an incident.
-
But YOU caused the damage and didn't take responsibility for it in that case. It is not on ME to cover that. It is on you to cover it either through insurance or direct payment to me.
Yes, but YOU can buy insurance to cover that risk. It is often called uninsured driver insurance.
If I severly damage your house through my negligence (non-automotive), do you expect me to have insurance to cover that? Would you ask the government to mandate that everyone have personal liability insurance that covers all acts of negligence?
-
In other words, it is ridiculous to require by law that people limit their risk of being financially ruined by a lawsuit, but it is impossible to effectively require by law that people limit their risk of being ruined by bad stuff happening to them. Even if the bad stuff happens when they're in a car.
It's not intended to limit your financial risk. It's intended to keep you from screwing some other poor schlep out of their financial life just because you don't like being responsible enough to have proper liability coverage.
And, yes, bad stuff does happen in a car so let's break that down... 1) By direct association the operation of an automobile means that said bad stuff will be happening on public roadways. 2) Public roadways are normally also crowded with other motorists in their automobiles. 3) Operation of an automobile means said bad things will involve large masses moving at speeds that can exceed 70 mph, and in a potentially uncontrolled manner. 4) Motor vehicle accidents routinely involve large expenses, ranging from thousands to tens of thousands in non-injury accidents, and amounts from tens of thousands to millions in the case of injuries. 5) Insurance and accident data unequivocally shows persons with the highest accident rate also generally represent the group most likely not only to be uninsured, but also to be involved in incidents averaging a higher claim amount and/or involving injury to others.
In other words the operation of an automobile represents a known potential hazard to members of the general public, a hazard which involves significant threat to life, limb, and/or livelihood. That being the case it goes to reason that operation of a motor vehicle involves the inherent moral and ethical obligation of taking reasonable precautions to shield others from negligence in the event you are the at-fault party. Unfortunately those most most statistically likely to be involved in an acccident are also those most likely to willfully disregard that obligation, choosing to drive uninsured and representing a significant financial threat to others on the roadway and representing a statistically higher threat of both injury and financial loss. That being the case the states have enacted, and ligitimately so, the requirement for mandatory liability coverage
Also there's this...
If you want to limit your risk of *expletive deleted* happening to you, be careful. Buy insurance--for your risk, or for your risk of liability, whichever. If you want to avoid clogging up the courts with auto accidents, then sure, limit those cases.
Translation: Don't blame the person who caused the accident, or expect them to be responsible enough to have liability against their actions. Blame the victim and force them to bear the financial burden. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Relative to fuel taxes, it is insignificant. Remove the cost to administer licence plates and the delta is even tinier.
From the TXDOT FY2007 budget statement:
Revenue source / percent of total (dollar amount)
State Motor Fuel Tax / 21.2 ($1670.33 million)
(adjusted to account for the roughly 25% of total fuel tax revenues that go to public education. Total before adjustment was $2227.1 million)
Vehicle Registration / 12.6 ($969.8 million)
Registration revenues are less than fuel tax revenues, true, but hardly "insignificant" in relative terms.
Oklahoma started just such a verification database a few years ago. I think our "Tag Agents" (OKs version of DMV) can access it when you renew your registration.
Same for Texas, but they still require you to have your physical proof of insurance. IIRC the plan is for that to become unnecessary once the system becomes fully integrated.
Yes, but YOU can buy insurance to cover that risk. It is often called uninsured driver insurance.
If I severly damage your house through my negligence (non-automotive), do you expect me to have insurance to cover that? Would you ask the government to mandate that everyone have personal liability insurance that covers all acts of negligence?
Homeowner's liability and automotive liability are not comparable issues as the kind of accidents, amounts involved, and threat to life and limb differ radically. Breaking someone's window or knocking down a section of their fence with your lawnmower is a far cry from breaking someone's neck when you knock their car off the road.
Mandating reasonable coverage for not only known but expected liabilities, liabilities that routinely include significant financial burden and loss of life and limb? Yes.
Brad
-
If I severly damage your house through my negligence (non-automotive), do you expect me to have insurance to cover that?
I expect you to pay up one way or another and make good the damage you caused. Whether you cover that out of your bank account or you have your people cover that (insurance, loan shark, whatever), is up to you.
-
I'm in strong agreement with Brad on this one.
Well, here is an idea for those that don't think compulsory auto insurance is ethical. How about this for a substitute. Either provide insurance or post a bond in an amount equal to the minimum required liability level or stay the *expletive deleted* off the road.
Or how about if you cause a loss to someone else and can't make them whole you go to jail until you pay it off out of your prison wages.
-
I'm in strong agreement with Brad on this one.
As am I
-
Here in Va we have options - buy insurance to cover damages you cause, or pay a $250 fee to drive without insurance. The fee goes into a pool that is supposed to be used to cover expenses an uninsured driver causes. If you buy a policy it is mandated to have coverage against uninsured drivers' damages.
IIRC Taxachusetts and some other states that believe in "no-fault" insurance also mandate coverage against uninsured in policies that are sold.
Drive without either and you get caught? Your license is suspended. Every year they come closer to taking away the "drive to & from work" exemption for suspended licenses, and a little bit closer to make driving without a license a jailable offense. The death of a nun last year brought them within 2 or 3 votes this year of getting the bills out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. It might make it next year. There is movement to tighten the law and take discretion out of the hands of judges when faced with someone driving without or on a suspended/revoked license. If another nun or other heartstring-puller gets killed by an illegal driving on a third or more revoked license this year I think the legislature will pass a bill allowing on-the-spot lynching through the 6th generation.
I'd rather put up with mandated coverage against the uninsured (and laws with teeth against those who get caught without coverage) than giving the cops another excuse to go fishing - because if they can stop you to check on your coverage they can go fishing for anything else, and I just do not believe they will pass up the opportunity. Why do they ask me, after writing a ticket for speeding, if I have atomic bombs or anthrax in the car? How is that related to speeding?
stay safe.
-
Hawk the problem is people will go and get insurance for just long enough to register the vehicle and then not make any more payments. So they will drive 11 out of 12 months without insurance.
Then the system is broken in some states. In my state (which I won't mention so don't ask), the insurance companies are required by law to notify the motor vehicle department if the required insurance lapses or is canceled.
-
I'm in strong agreement with Brad on this one.
Well, here is an idea for those that don't think compulsory auto insurance is ethical. How about this for a substitute. Either provide insurance or post a bond in an amount equal to the minimum required liability level or stay the *expletive deleted* off the road.
Or how about if you cause a loss to someone else and can't make them whole you go to jail until you pay it off out of your prison wages.
I was thinking along similar terms. How about 30 days in jail for every $500 in damage done while uninsured including medical. Maybe make it $1000 if that gets too high. Loophole in that if you can actually pay for the damages separate from insurance. You could also allow courts to severely garnish wages in those cases as well.
If you did that and enforced it, you might not even need a requirement for insurance at all. You just have stiff penalties and consequences if you get in a wreck without insurance.
-
I'd rather put up with mandated coverage against the uninsured (and laws with teeth against those who get caught without coverage) than giving the cops another excuse to go fishing - because if they can stop you to check on your coverage they can go fishing for anything else, and I just do not believe they will pass up the opportunity.
Agreed. The problem is that police are like lawyers -- 99 percent give the other 1 percent a bad name. We can't trust them, so we shouldn't give them any additional leverage to violate our rights.
-
How is a passive and inherently non-intrusive verification of required liability coverage a violation of rights? The only time you will be stopped under the new regulation is if you're already doing something blatantly illegal, that being driving without the required coverage.
Frankly I'd much rather the cops have an automated system that doesn't require a traffic stop. Purely based on my experience with human reaction I can see it actually lowering the potential for nuisance "wonder if" stops. Cop runs the plate and sees you're in the good. Gives them one less reason to suspect you are anything but a fine upstanding citizen. Their attention goes to someone else and you go on about your day.
Brad
-
Several of you are conflating having insurance with being required by law to have insurance. Those are not the same things. Anyone with a lien on their car would have insurance without laws mandating it. A fair portion of other people would too, because of their desire to limit their risk.
I carry renters' insurance despite not being required by law to do so. Ditto various health and life insurance products. I assume some of you guys do too, despite the absence of laws (yet) requiring you to do so.
Of course, if there weren't any laws requiring insurance, there'd be an uninsured drivers problem. Oh wait, there already is. Yes, it would be a bigger problem.
And when there was an accident with very high medical costs, some party other than the insurance company would have to pay those expenses. Oh wait, they already do, because the required insurance is, at least in MI, relatively low.
And that third party would be the gov't. Oh wait, it already is. See above. When insurance is exhausted, it is very often the gov't that pays, via medicare/caid and other mechanisms.
And because of the uninsured drivers, people would have to buy uninsured driver coverage. Oh wait, they already do.
I agree that it is very smart to have auto insurance. I just don't think the gov't should make laws requiring people to do the smart thing.
I agree that it's ethical to pay for damages one causes, either personally or by having purchased insurance to cover those damages. I agree that mandatory insurance laws increase the number of people who are able to pay, via insurance, for the damages they cause. Kind of like how carrying health insurance increases the number of people who are able to pay, via insurance, for their medical needs--and the consensus around here is that mandating health coverage is unacceptable and possibly not constitutional.
I agree that it's generally pretty irresponsible not take care of one's messes. I agree that it is and should be legal to sue to recover damages when another person negligently causes one harm, but that it has been found constitutional to place some limits on that. I'm also aware that mandatory insurance does not solve the problems that arise from auto accidents. It just changes them around them, while expanding gov't. I'm not convinced that you're better off getting in an accident with an uninsured driver who is breaking the law, as opposed to getting in an accident with an uninsured driver who is not breaking the law.
Brad: Yes, people who drive without insurance despite being required by law to do so represent a more dangerous and expensive demographic. Do you really think that if insurance was not mandatory, anyone who elected to drop their coverage would morph into an illegal alien, a chronic drunk, or a person with a terrible driving record? If it were made illegal today to wear purple, by next year, people who wear purple would demonstrate a dangerous and expensive demographic. This is an issue of how statistics work, which is completely different from how self-righteous congratulatory suburbanites think they should work, in order to prove their overall greater righteousness, intelligence, responsibility, and general awesomeness. Irony is fun.
As for jail/prison time: Certainly a more reasonable reason for jailing than non-violent drugs crimes, but I fail to see how that would somehow not cost taxpayers more money.
-
As for jail/prison time: Certainly a more reasonable reason for jailing than non-violent drugs crimes, but I fail to see how that would somehow not cost taxpayers more money.
[moses]"Soylent Green is uninsured drivers and illegal aliens!"[/moses]
-
How is a passive and inherently non-intrusive verification of required liability coverage a violation of rights? The only time you will be stopped under the new regulation is if you're already doing something blatantly illegal, that being driving without the required coverage.
Frankly I'd much rather the cops have an automated system that doesn't require a traffic stop. Purely based on my experience with human reaction I can see it actually lowering the potential for nuisance "wonder if" stops. Cop runs the plate and sees you're in the good. Gives them one less reason to suspect you are anything but a fine upstanding citizen. Their attention goes to someone else and you go on about your day.
Brad
Why should the police be authorized to actively search a database of personal information without probable cause? Knowing how police powers expand over time, I suspect that the database will widen giving the police more access to more personal information. Would you approve of a similar program for people who bicycle on the roads? Or walk on sidewalks? Afterall, they are on public roads, so they pose some risk to other drivers/cyclists/pedestrians.
I am very surprised that many people here are in favor of government-forced insurance.
-
"How is a passive and inherently non-intrusive verification of required liability coverage a violation of rights? The only time you will be stopped under the new regulation is if you're already doing something blatantly illegal, that being driving without the required coverage."
You have a great deal of faith in human nature and the ability of the State to have valid up to date records. I don't suppose you believe some LE arbitrarily, without cause, pull over folks who just left a tavern, or out late at night...say 2AM to fish for DUI's, or drivers having selected skin colors in certain neighborhoods, inter alia. A law such as being discussed in the OP is inherently coercive on its face and is an insult to the purpose of the Constitution with respect to all we hold dear. How easy it has become to order citizens into a line in the interests of "safety". Dr. Franklin had something to say about that before the ink was even dry on the Constitution.
If you want assurance that vehicles carry liability insurance at a certain level, I gave you the way in my last post (#30) without any risk to interfere with one's ability to go here and there unmolested by the State.
-
[moses]"Soylent Green is uninsured drivers and illegal aliens!"[/moses]
Plz to note: "More reasonable" is not the same thing as "reasonable" =)
-
Why should the police be authorized to actively search a database of personal information without probable cause?
The database already exists in the form of DMV/DPS/DOT/court records. That's why most police cruisers now sport laptop computers. Running random license plate checks has been routine police business for years.
Would you approve of a similar program for people who bicycle on the roads? Or walk on sidewalks? Afterall, they are on public roads, so they pose some risk to other drivers/cyclists/pedestrians.
Apples to oranges. When the average cyclist loses control they are travelling at slower speeds and carry a fraction of a vehicle's mass. If they hit you chances are you'll be wearing your coffee and have some scrapes and bruises. A driver loses control and crashes into you and you'll be wearing the steering wheel and getting intimately aqainted with your local emergency medical personnel.
"How is a passive and inherently non-intrusive verification of required liability coverage a violation of rights? The only time you will be stopped under the new regulation is if you're already doing something blatantly illegal, that being driving without the required coverage."
You have a great deal of faith in human nature and the ability of the State to have valid up to date records. I don't suppose you believe some LE arbitrarily, without cause, pull over folks who just left a tavern, or out late at night...say 2AM to fish for DUI's, or drivers having selected skin colors in certain neighborhoods, inter alia. A law such as being discussed in the OP is inherently coercive on its face and is an insult to the purpose of the Constitution with respect to all we hold dear. How easy it has become to order citizens into a line in the interests of "safety". Dr. Franklin had something to say about that before the ink was even dry on the Constitution.
If you want assurance that vehicles carry liability insurance at a certain level, I gave you the way in my last post (#30) without any risk to interfere with one's ability to go here and there unmolested by the State.
Gramps, I completely understand your position. Were this an issue of a choice that affects me and me only then I would be in full agreement. (Mandatory health care, anyone?) Unfortunately this isn't the case. Rather it's an issue of my choice having a significant and profound negative affect on others, and it being a situation which has a reasonable probability of occurance given the nature of activity. It's not a matter of infringment on personal choice. It's a matter of adequate fiscal responsibility for an actiona, one which has been forced on us by the large number of people who decided saving a couple bucks was more important than being a responsible driver.
Franklin's concern was that the goverment not try to save us from ourselves on a personal level. That is not the case here. This is an instance of the government being forced to step in when we, the driving public as a whole, proved untrustworthy when given the choice to shield others from the negative impacts of our bad decisions. I don't like it all that much either but in this case it became necessary because people's actions forced it to be.
Again, this is not a regulation that will encourage random "fishing" stops. Quite the contrary. I see it a very likely to reduce them. I covered that in post #50.
Brad: Yes, people who drive without insurance despite being required by law to do so represent a more dangerous and expensive demographic. Do you really think that if insurance was not mandatory, anyone who elected to drop their coverage would morph into an illegal alien, a chronic drunk, or a person with a terrible driving record? If it were made illegal today to wear purple, by next year, people who wear purple would demonstrate a dangerous and expensive demographic. This is an issue of how statistics work, which is completely different from how self-righteous congratulatory suburbanites think they should work, in order to prove their overall greater righteousness, intelligence, responsibility, and general awesomeness. Irony is fun.
Sorry, but bad drivers who also make overtly bad financial choices are not that way as the result of anything other than their own poor decision making. Asserting that they exist only because of statistical manipulation or outside regulatory interference is conspiratorial speculation.
Also, I don't recall pulling out the class warfare card.
Brad
-
My opinions to start.
Yes people should either have insurance or a "bond" is not a bad idea for people with money.
Court case payouts need to be capped to stop the frivolous crap.
Illegal immigrants caught driving should be immediately loaded on a plane and dropped at the southern most point of south America. At least that will slow down there reentry in to the US.
Cars should come with a plate from the factory, get rid of all the state DMV crap.
End rant.
So if they are going to build a data base why not just wait till a car pops up uninsured and send the popo to the RO address to either get prof they have insurance or pick up the tags?
Lowers the chance of high speed chases or the cops getting shot at.
-
Sorry, but bad drivers who also make overtly bad financial choices are not that way as the result of anything other than their own poor decision making. Assert that they exist only because of statistical manipulation or outside regulatory interference is conspiratorial speculation.
Haha. Hahahahahahah. Bwahahahahaha. Heheheheheh. Seriously? I become a conspiracy theorist nutball for suggesting that perhaps the group of people who can't get insurance coincides with the group of people who don't have insurance? Really? Rotflmao. Thank you for the comedy relief.
Also, I don't recall pulling out the class warfare card.
Sure ya did. I just pointed it out. I do that.
-
This is an issue of how statistics work, which is completely different from how self-righteous congratulatory suburbanites think they should work, in order to prove their overall greater righteousness, intelligence, responsibility, and general awesomeness. Irony is fun.
Sorry, but bad drivers who also make overtly bad financial choices are not that way as the result of anything other than their own poor decision making. Asserting that they exist only because of statistical manipulation or outside regulatory interference is conspiratorial speculation.
Also, I don't recall pulling out the class warfare card.
Sure ya did. I just pointed it out. I do that.
Pointing out that most people are where they are due to their own actions & decisions is not class warfare. Just reality. Part of our problem as a society is that there are not enough people of influence pointing out reality and the most prudent response to it.
Also, your idea of how statistics work is...dissimilar to what I was taught in stats courses and how they are practiced at work five days of the week.
Last, FTR, suburbanites (& non-suburbanites) who have managed to hold their marriage together, purchase a house they can afford, pay more in taxes than they absorb, and generally display impulse control and forethought do rate higher on the "general awesomeness" score than those who do not.
-
Last, FTR, suburbanites (& non-suburbanites) who have managed to hold their marriage together, purchase a house they can afford, pay more in taxes than they absorb, and generally display impulse control and forethought do rate higher on the "general awesomeness" score than those who do not.
Concur.
-
There seems to be a whole lot of lack of noticing what I actually said.
And yep, many people who have their *expletive deleted*it together are pretty great people. However, on the potential awesomeness of people who enjoy congratulating themselves on how much better they are than other people, well, my agreement on that point is somewhat more nonexistent.
Nope, Roo_ster, I'm not wrong. But from the bits you quoted, I suspect your understanding and my understanding of what I was saying are not identical. I lack the terminology to be completely clear; it's been a couple years since I worked on a specific close analogue of this issue.
The trouble I have with the whole "I didn't make this into class warfare" assertion is that, well, no, ya didn't. If one assumes that while all people are equal, middle-class people with spouses and property are substantially more equal than everyone else.
Brad pointed out how insurance is mandatory because people weren't taking responsibility for their actions. Ok, fine. But who? It hasn't historically been the case, for several reasons, but one could look at this as an assumption of risk issue just as easily as a negligence issue. It'd have to have involved some twisting stuff around some, but then, the development of various no-fault laws and cases involving car accidents have also twisted the law around to fit the circumstances. That's how it works. Perhaps it's irresponsible to drive around on a public road in a vehicle worth over say, $5000, without having taken into account the risks involved and insured against them? Of course, that doesn't address the medical expenses or wrongful death issues, but it's not a proposal, just a thought exercise: After all, I've never owned a car worth more than $4,000 or so. Don't see why anyone would. It's just irresponsible to take that kind of risk, and expect other people to pay for it, isn't it?
I mean, fine, so you want to drive your Mercedes, or two-year old Ford sub-compact, or similar luxury vehicle, knowing full well that driving is hazardous yadda yadda yadda...and you think it's ok for the gov't to mix in and force us to pay for your indiscretion and recklessness?!?! All those anti-Obamacare arguments apply, if you step out of your position for a minute and think about it. (Although with the above I was thinking of various rants on stuff like drinking, smoking, being fat, and socking it to medicare/aid for the consequences. Plenty of those arguments tie back to Obamacare.)
And there's no point in disdaining the idea of considering the position of poor people. I think it was Bill Cosby who talked about how all teenagers are broke and homeless. Everybody has to start somewhere. Perhaps it is unreasonable to require people who will not ever drive in a grossly negligent way to "ethically" ensure they can cover their liability if they are grossly negligent, which they won't be? Perhaps it would be more ethical of those people to spend that money on enough life insurance to take care of their children should some other jackass behave in a grossly negligent manner? Ethics are complicated, and come down to competing priorities. Some other dude's car, or your kid's medical expenses? The chance of some other dude getting hurt down the road, or not stiffing the doctor who treated your broken arm? Or life insurance? Or housing, food, etc?
Cue rant on how those nasty poor people all have color tv's and live on food stamps...
But note use of the term "gross negligence" above. You're only responsible for covering damage if you're negligent, and negligence involves violating a "reasonable person" standard of care to be taken in any given activity. Those filthy lawyers have ridden our society with ludicrous negligence cases, but what if we'd first killed all the lawyers? (Seriously, thought exercise only, plz.) What if we actually held people responsible for accidents that were caused by them actually not behaving in a reasonable manner? What if "reasonable manner" actually meant what it's supposed to mean--not really defined for ordinary injury/property damage cases, but in med-mal cases, it's supposed to be a level of care LESS than the average doctor in that situation. The rationale there is that docs have to meet an "average doctor" standard, half of 'em are committing malpractice just by walking into the room. That judge really should've been consulted by the people who drafted NCLB. But what then? What if it is actually reasonable to rear-end someone who brakes short in front of you? Below average level of skill sure, but not unreasonably reckless, not necessarily.
You can come up with all kinds of reasons why it's not like health care, but it only isn't like health care because legislatures say it isn't, and because your personal interests align with those laws. And sure, maybe you're right. Maybe this country is about the people who are doing ok, and protecting their interests. Or maybe not. The trouble is that when the government mixes too much, someone always gets shafted. And someone always gets a bit of an edge. And there's a whole lot of murkiness about who should get what and why. Which is why gov't shouldn't mix in much. Like by requiring people to buy insurance products regardless of any personal benefit. (Oh sure, it's about ethics...which are also not the government's business to impose.)
See, that whole small government really sucking for people who live on government handouts? Turns out, small government sucks for just about everyone, in various ways. It just sucks a bit less tyrannically. Human nature may be downright nasty, but government could avoid a whole lot of unintended consequences if it stopped intending for its actions to do something.
-
I think it's a great law. Next we should put all of our health records on a mandatory RFID chip and jam it in our butt so anyone can verify we are not walking around uninsured.
-
long oratory there br especially considering it didn't address one persons negligence bankrupting another person with medical bills. or depriving a family of their breadwinner perhaps permanently. one thing i've observed in my own life is that those of my behaviors that aren't "wrong", if we are allowed to use words like right and wrong anymore rarely need defending or justification. and those behaviors/characteristics that are "correctness challenged" inspire and require me to spend effort excusing and justifying them. its caused me to adopt a simplistic "if it feels wrong it is wrong" approach that has dramatically changed my life
-
The database already exists in the form of DMV/DPS/DOT/court records. That's why most police cruisers now sport laptop computers. Running random license plate checks has been routine police business for years.
So, since it already exists, and cops already run random checks that makes everything fine? How about we let people go about their lives in peace and only have cops investigate people when the cops have probable cause?
Apples to oranges. When the average cyclist loses control they are travelling at slower speeds and carry a fraction of a vehicle's mass. If they hit you chances are you'll be wearing your coffee and have some scrapes and bruises. A driver loses control and crashes into you and you'll be wearing the steering wheel and getting intimately aqainted with your local emergency medical personnel.
What if the cyclist hits a pedestrian? How much does a broken arm or a concussion cost? Money is not the issue. Government control of your life is the issue.
Gramps, I completely understand your position. Were this an issue of a choice that affects me and me only then I would be in full agreement. (Mandatory health care, anyone?) Unfortunately this isn't the case. Rather it's an issue of my choice having a significant and profound negative affect on others, and it being a situation which has a reasonable probability of occurance given the nature of activity. It's not a matter of infringment on personal choice. It's a matter of adequate fiscal responsibility for an actiona, one which has been forced on us by the large number of people who decided saving a couple bucks was more important than being a responsible driver.
Responsibility can not be dictated by law.
Franklin's concern was that the goverment not try to save us from ourselves on a personal level. That is not the case here. This is an instance of the government being forced to step in when we, the driving public as a whole, proved untrustworthy when given the choice to shield others from the negative impacts of our bad decisions. I don't like it all that much either but in this case it became necessary because people's actions forced it to be.
That is the case here, unless the mandatory insurance law allows people with big bank accounts to opt out.
Sorry, but bad drivers who also make overtly bad financial choices are not that way as the result of anything other than their own poor decision making.
Brad
So, punish those people individually. Our legal system already allows for that.
-
our legal system offers bupkus to the victim
-
long oratory there br especially considering it didn't address one persons negligence bankrupting another person with medical bills. or depriving a family of their breadwinner perhaps permanently.
Life has the potential to suck hard. That can't be changed by anything, even government fiat. The question before us is which sucks harder; Occasionally having a family lose a breadwinner, or allowing the gov to imperfectly dictate that we must buy things. Which will lead to people that don't buy them, and laws like the one in question to try and enforce that imperfect dictate. I strongly suspect that many folk's opinion on which sucks more will depend on which of suckage has happened to them.
BR has a good point in the middle of that tl;dr. Here:
What if we actually held people responsible for accidents that were caused by them actually not behaving in a reasonable manner? What if "reasonable manner" actually meant what it's supposed to mean--not really defined for ordinary injury/property damage cases, but in med-mal cases, it's supposed to be a level of care LESS than the average doctor in that situation. The rationale there is that docs have to meet an "average doctor" standard, half of 'em are committing malpractice just by walking into the room. That judge really should've been consulted by the people who drafted NCLB. But what then? What if it is actually reasonable to rear-end someone who brakes short in front of you? Below average level of skill sure, but not unreasonably reckless, not necessarily.
Part of this mess is the need to feel like EVERY accident has someone that needs to be made whole and someone that needs to pay. If both drivers acted "reasonably" and the accident happened anyway, then I don't see it as either's responsibility to make the other whole. Sometimes *expletive deleted*it just happens. and sometimes that *expletive deleted*it is really bad and leaves a family bankrupt. But the tear jerking consequence of very bad luck doesn't, IMO, justify ever increasing .gov intrusion into the private business agreements of it's citizens.
Even more so because it's clear that that intrusion doesn't actually stop the tear jerking consequences. After all people are still being killed and maimed everyday by people without insurance. And that brings me to my main problem with this law. It's a new law that is trying to address a situation already addressed by other laws. It's already illegal to drive without insurance, and it's been deemed too much trouble to enforce that law, and people expend quite a bit of effort to get around insuring their vehicle. This will just add another layer that will be to much trouble to enforce with anything more then lip service, and that people will spend a little more energy to get around. I doubt even the legislators that drafted it think it will WORK, it's just a law to point at and claim they DID SOMETHING. That whole "We did something nevermind it doesn't work" idea for laws is always a bad idea.
-
A free society is a messy one.
We are no longer a free society. It's too late to change it without the change being extraordinarily messy. I think the best we can hope for is that America stays in a holding pattern for a good long while. That's why it's necessary to change out the government in the fall.
Otherwise, we'll soon see "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs." as a way of life.
I swan the Progressives won't like that much either. Life is full of unintended consequences and sadly a good deal of us don't seem to grasp that notion.
-
"Anyone with a lien on their car would have insurance without laws mandating it."
Uhm... all I have to say to that is Bull and *expletive deleted*.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent someone with a car loan from canceling their insurance, letting it lapse, etc.
Just because someone has a loan on their car doesn't make them hyper responsible.
Personally, I think uninsured drives who cause injury accidents should be dealt with the same way that impaired drivers who cause injury accidents should be dealt with -- summary roadside trial and execution.
Brain piles on the sides of the road might serve as a deterrent.
-
its a good imaginary point. in real life what we have fails to address the issue. the uninsured folks lack assets to enable those injured to recover. life does suck . that might mean not driving for some . thats doable. in the real world
-
its a good imaginary point. in real life what we have fails to address the issue. the uninsured folks lack assets to enable those injured to recover. life does suck . that might mean not driving for some . thats doable. in the real world
In practice, apparently not.
ETA: For clarification: CSD, in your drunken, drug addled past how many people did you know that had licenses suspended or revoked for driving violations. Of those, how many actually stopped driving and how many threw up some lame ass justification that they needed to drive somewhere. What makes you think keeping people from driving without insurance will be any more successful?
We can pratter on about the jurisprudence and case law that driving is a privilege, but out here in CSD's vaunted real world the vast majority of people consider it a right, and don't necessarily consent to the governments right to stop them.
-
Also, but separately, why do you think it's an imaginary point? What's so crazy about not trying to hold people to the coals for the outcome of reasonable behavior? American law has plenty of places where actions are held to the "Reasonable Person" standard. Why are car wrecks so different?
-
"Why are car wrecks so different?"
Perhaps because of the entire quasi-religious cult following that automobiles have in this country?
It is odd that some would seemingly give a free pass on this issue...
Would the same be done for, say.... firearms accidents?
YOU KILLED HIM!!!
But it was an accident!
Oh, OK. Not a problem, then.
-
"Why are car wrecks so different?"
Perhaps because of the entire quasi-religious cult following that automobiles have in this country?
It is odd that some would seemingly give a free pass on this issue...
Would the same be done for, say.... firearms accidents?
YOU KILLED HIM!!!
But it was an accident!
Oh, OK. Not a problem, then.
I would use the same standard, but I would not mandate that people who own or carry firearms have personal liability insurance.
-
"I would use the same standard, but I would not mandate that people who own or carry firearms have personal liability insurance."
Between you, me, and the other weepy girls and boys attending to this topic, I don't think that's such a bad idea, actually.
-
"Why are car wrecks so different?"
Perhaps because of the entire quasi-religious cult following that automobiles have in this country?
It is odd that some would seemingly give a free pass on this issue...
Would the same be done for, say.... firearms accidents?
YOU KILLED HIM!!!
But it was an accident!
Oh, OK. Not a problem, then.
Actually, yeah.
If someone was following all the agreed upon rules of firearms safety and, for example, a bullet ricocheted out of a safe range, across a road, through a window and killed someone I don't think that the shooter, who was being safe and responsible, owes that family the dead person's life wages. Of course the VAST majority of firearms accidents are the result of what BR called "gross negligence". fail to clear a weapon that you're showing off and ND a round into your neighbors house? Yeah you're responsible. Follow all the safety rules and have an unforeseeable event happen? how were you supposed to stop that?
-
In practice, apparently not.
ETA: For clarification: CSD, in your drunken, drug addled past how many people did you know that had licenses suspended or revoked for driving violations. Of those, how many actually stopped driving and how many threw up some lame ass justification that they needed to drive somewhere. What makes you think keeping people from driving without insurance will be any more successful?
We can pratter on about the jurisprudence and case law that driving is a privilege, but out here in CSD's vaunted real world the vast majority of people consider it a right, and don't necessarily consent to the governments right to stop them.
its ironic that you would chose this
many threw up some lame ass justification that they needed to drive somewhere.
i know folks who don't think its adultery if wife doesn't catch em.
they are as confused as these folks
the vast majority of people consider it a right, and don't necessarily consent to the governments right to stop them.
i question that the "majority" consider it that. the majority of f"ups who lose their privilege? yes but i already mentioned they were f'ups. i have some exposure as you observed. i lost mine in late 1980 got it back in 97. i did drive but even as doped up as i was i was never confused enough to consider it a right but rather a scam i got away with
-
Personally, I think uninsured drives who cause injury accidents should be dealt with the same way that impaired drivers who cause injury accidents should be dealt with -- summary roadside trial and execution.
Brain piles on the sides of the road might serve as a deterrent.
I'm somewhat conflicted on this thread because on the one hand I'm entirely fed up with government intrusion in my life. On the other hand, I look at someone who would drive without insurance or means to cover their negligence, that slams into my vehicle (whether I'm in it or not), and then tells me, "tough luck, *expletive deleted* happens" the same way that I look at thieves, vandals, and people who talk at the theater.
Mike's point does not seem to have been brought up until Mike brought it up. What about the option of not tracking license plates, but severely (severely!) increasing the penalty for driving without insurance or proof of means to cover negligence? That could range from mandatory garnishment of wages to mandatory time in the pokey (though I like the the "leave their head on a pike on the roadside" theme).
One of the big reasons people drive without insurance seems to be that the penalties are all a slap on the hand or else easily circumvented, especially for the kinds of people that generally don't take responsibility for their actions and don't have much to lose in any potential civil settlement. Philosophically, I don't see much difference between a negligent and uninsured driver smashing into my car and walking away saying "tough *expletive deleted*" and someone who would walk through the front door of my home, smash my TV with a baseball bat, then walk out saying "Tough *expletive deleted*, you've got homeowner's insurance".
I'm not sure that license plate tracking is the answer, but something needs to be done, as the uninsured motorist thing is just way too common. Some less intrusive things that could help would be allowing people to post bonds (the government is self-insured, why won't they let us be if we have the means?) and, harder, reducing the litigious nature of our society. Sometimes accidents really are accidents, and instead of looking for the million dollar insurance payout, if it's 50/50, how about everyone taking responsibility for their own actions? Also if people wouldn't try to finagle the full bling paint job out of their insurance for a scrape on the door, insurance would be much more affordable. A lot more people would look at buying insurance as a better option than being scofflaws if their insurance bill was $100/yr versus $1000/yr.
-
If both drivers acted "reasonably" and the accident happened anyway,
then look up at the sky - there are probably pigs flying too. ;)
-
garnish what wages?
its like the dead beat parents who work off the books
-
garnish what wages?
its like the dead beat parents who work off the books
That is the problem as I see it, and why many talk about jail time etc. You might not get the money back, but at least the offender doesn't walk away unscathed.
-
Having lived in a metro area crawling illegal aliens as well as places where the native locals are dirt po'(1) makes me think about the practical applicability of these sorts of "creeping statist" sorts of laws.
For all practical purposes, dirt p'(2) and illegals are largely exempt form these sorts of laws(3). They can drive with anchor babies & rug rats stacked to the rafters in their extended cab pickup, not a child safety seat in sight, no insurance, no inspection, bald tires, and burning so much oil in their motor you'd swear it was coal-fired.
For various reasons, some similar & some dissimilar, po' natives and illegals get a pass many times:
1. LEO knows they are too poor to pay any sort of fine. If LEO & uninsured are local & the p' SOB driving is a decent sort, he slides on by.
2. Illegals most times engage in identity fraud, so who knows if any of the addresses on the papers is good...and how much is the fine relative to new fraudulent papers?
3. Time is less valuable than money to these folks and they will sit it out in jail instead of paying if they are cited...assuming they get nabbed for something else after never paying the fine. And the gov't cares about the money more than anything else.
4. etc., etc.
Thing is, these are the folks most likely to drive without insurance.
Lower middle class & on up take every one of these sorts of chickenshit laws in the face:
1. Insurance
2. Child safety seats
3. Inspection
4. etc...
Yet LMC & on up are the most likely to comply with the law. For an illegal or dirt po' native to get nabbed on something like this, they usually have to get liquored up and drive drunk into a tree or another auto.
So, given that the demographics most likely to get liquored up & drive are also the demographics most likely to drive without insurance, I see no reason for a blanket law and/or soem sort of new & improved law & power in this area.
My standard for support/opposition to laws these days has a second automatic check(4):
"Will this be applied to illegal aliens and po' natives like it will be applied to regular folks, or will they get a pass much of the time?"
WRT insurance, the answer is a resounding "NO."
So, I don't support the furtherance of these laws and the authority/ability of LEOs to harass solid citizens while letting the problem children slide on by.
(1) So poor that they can not afford the second "O" and the "R." Pronounced "poe."
(2) The poorer cousins of those in Note (1) who can not afford even the first "O." Pronounced "p'uh."
(3) Some localities with lotsa money and bored LEOs will give some of the p' folks a hard time, but these seem to be the exception. Also, such laws will be used as a pretext to stop and snoop for something more serious.
(4) First being, "Is this constitutional?"
-
"I'm entirely fed up with government intrusion in my life."
You think I'm not?
But I'm also fed up with the expectation that I'll take a righteous financial hit because I'm acting responsibly.
Regarding the firearms analogy, yes, it MIGHT be an accident, but even if it is a true accident, it was your bullet that caused the harm so you should not be able to walk away totally and completely scott free.
Just as you got behind the wheel, you also pulled the trigger.
-
Everyone here who is for the state forcing you to buy one kind of insurance (car) and against the state forcing you to buy a different kind (health) go ahead and raise your hands.
-
Everyone here who is for the state forcing you to buy one kind of insurance (car) and against the state forcing you to buy a different kind (health) go ahead and raise your hands.
That is really "apples and oranges" for a number of reasons, to include:
1) If I don't have health insurance and I get cancer, it's just me affected. If someone without auto insurance hits me, they affect me. It would be like me giving someone cancer, if you want "apples to apples".
2) If someone without health insurance and no money gets cancer, the taxpayers pay for their medical expenses ( the right or wrong of that is a different discussion). If I'm hit by an uninsured motorist, the taxpayers won't pay to fix my car, or for my medical expenses if I got jacked up.
3) No one should be "forced" to get either kind of insurance if they have the means to take care of their problems and actually take the responsibility to do so (I have no idea how we would initiate something like that). Why am I required to be their safety net and/or their patsy if they choose neither insurance nor personal responsibility for actions that affect people other than themselves?
-
3) No one should be "forced" to get either kind of insurance if they have the means to take care of their problems and actually take the responsibility to do so (I have no idea how we would initiate something like that). Why am I required to be their safety net and/or their patsy if they choose neither insurance nor personal responsibility for actions that affect people other than themselves?
I can speak to that, a bit. Florida is notorious in the medical malpractice world for the size of the malpractice insurance premiums and the size of the plaintiff awards. A number of physicians have decided to go 'bare', or without insurance coverage. In most states, you have to have malpractice insurance to get hospital privileges, but Florida hospitals can no longer require this if they want to have any OB/GYN or orthopedic surgeons on staff.
So Florida law (http://www.floridamalpractice.com/stat458.320.htm) requires that you either have to have minimum amounts of malpractice insurance, an escrow account, or a letter of credit. So if you don't want to pay for the insurance, you can go the escrow account or letter of credit route.
-
To me, the possibility that you might get into a car accident seems a lot like the possibility your house could be broken into, or someone could strike you with a car while a pedestrian etc etc. The sort of thing that one should carry adequite coverage for themselves. Having a law that says "You must have insurance" will probably stop people from driving without insurance about as well as the laws against driving without a license/regiatering your vehicle/while intoxicated.
-
Don't feel bad, our former governor (Diamond Jim Doyle) who was owned by the bottom feeder lawyer industry passed a 'shared liability' law in our state right before he left.
This law means that if you are found 1% responsible for and accident (as in being a participant in an accident), you can be 100% liable for the accident's costs. We also have mandatory insurance, which had its minimum limits increased significantly by the same law.
Someone who is drunk, runs a red light and t-bones you with their ghetto cruiser could get a huge payout from your insurance policy if they aren't insured themselves regardless of whether they were driving illegally under the influence or without insurance, or both.
I still am not in favor of police pulling over motorists because their computer shows no insurance policy. I am in huge favor, however, of the police busting a cap in the head of the offending driver in the above situation when they arrive at the scene.
-
We could do away with the insurance requirements but let's make it legal for the aggrieved party to exact retribution on the offender. You totaled my car and cost me a broken arm and have no means or intent to cover my losses, I get to come to your house, take or destroy enough of your stuff to satisfy me and I get to break your arm.
Hey, this anarchy stuff could be fun.
-
code duello too
-
I actually do think that a justice system based around restitution for property based crimes would be a significant improvement.
-
I actually do think that a justice system based around restitution for property based crimes would be a significant improvement.
+1
-
it didn't address one persons negligence bankrupting another person with medical bills. or depriving a family of their breadwinner perhaps permanently.
And government exists to stop bad stuff from happening. Ok.
We clearly need gov't mandated marriage insurance.