Pending New Oklahoma Uninsured driver law

[dogmush]

"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?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[Ben]

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.

[Tallpine]

If both drivers acted "reasonably" and the accident happened anyway,

then look up at the sky - there are probably pigs flying too. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

garnish what wages? 
its like the dead beat parents who work off the books

[MechAg94]

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. 

[roo_ster]

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?"

[K Frame]

"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.

[Balog]

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.

[Ben]

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?

[MillCreek]

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.

[Balog]

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.

[brimic]

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.

[RoadKingLarry]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

code duello too

[Balog]

I actually do think that a justice system based around restitution for property based crimes would be a significant improvement.

[BridgeRunner]

I actually do think that a justice system based around restitution for property based crimes would be a significant improvement.

+1

[BridgeRunner]

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.