Pending New Oklahoma Uninsured driver law

[RoadKingLarry]

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

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.

[Fly320s]

Why are you hard core about auto insurance?

[vaskidmark]

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.

[RoadKingLarry]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[wmenorr67]

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.

[Brad Johnson]

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

[Tallpine]

Big Bother is watching.

[TommyGunn]

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.

[grislyatoms]

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.  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

they have cameras that scan the tags around here flag em if they come up hot

[Azrael256]

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 Johnson]

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

[AmbulanceDriver]

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. 

[White Horseradish]

So they don't need probable cause to run a plate?

[Brad Johnson]

Cops run random plates all the time and, no, they do not need probable cause to do so.

Brad

[RoadKingLarry]

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.

[grampster]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.

[Boomhauer]

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?

[Brad Johnson]

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

[Regolith]

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.

[red headed stranger]

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. 

[Brad Johnson]

I'm sure that will be the next step. 

There's no next step involved.  Some places already have them in use.

Brad

[red headed stranger]

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 . . .