Big Brother is coming

ben62670

GV#27 wrote: »

Yeah I guess you have to do it, not doing so would be very risky I would think.

Yep. Also you have people like some I know who are not good at keeping track of their bills. Insurance companies who don't get paid on time will not cover an accident on a past due account. Not everyone can afford insurance, or keep track of their bills. I know it shouldn't be our responsibility, but like I said I'll pay the couple dollars to cover my family. Please don't take this as I don't think everyone should have insurance.
Ben

sucks2beme

SolidSqual wrote: »

It starts there but where does it end?

I don't know, but around here I'm fed up with it. Some Dallas city council
members felt towing uninsured vehicles after a traffic stop was biased against poor people. So was hauling in people in Irving, TX. with no insurance, registration,driver's license, and proof of citizenship. Seems it's racist to require anything to drive a car. Just jump in and go. In fact, you can go to court and sue somebody now without being a U.S. citizen. Just bring a lawyer. And why pay for medical insurance, when they could just
claim to be me? Old Jose' looks Irish enough to pass for me. Just take their word for it. But don't forget to run me through the wringer to prove it wasn't me when the bill comes due. Screw it. WHY AM I THE ONLY ONE FOLLOWING
RULES?

ben62670

Hey if you are an illegal just crash into someone and you can sue them, and not get deported just because you are suing someone:mad: I lived in south FLA. It happens all the time.

Kex

If all drivers were properly insured in general, as the law requires, perhaps a careful driver would not feel required to have comprehensive coverage for any vehicle worth more than $10,000, and could opt to partially self insure to cover the possible loss of such a vehicle by not paying the large extra premium required for comprehensive. As things are, even if you are a careful driver, you could loose the entire value of your vehicle to an uninsured hit and run motorist if you do not have comprehensive insurance. If you do have comprehensive insurance, such an event would probably still increase your premiums for some period of time since you would have to claim the value of your destroyed vehicle on your policy. Is this correct?

ND13

There's supposed to be verified license and insurance at the time of the sale of any motor vehicle, period. Unless there's no lien. I get it anyways. I'm sure that a state by state thing, though.

Kex

ben62670 wrote: »

... I'll pay the couple extra bucks to cover me and my family. ...

It costs us $100 per year for uninsured motorists coverage (total insurance bill is $1,300 for the year, with pristine driving records).

ben62670

Kex wrote: »

It costs us $100 per year for uninsured motorists coverage (total insurance bill is $1,300 for the year, with pristine driving records).

Mine is only $20 extra a month, and this for the opted $100,000 coverage of medical bills. No problem. Like I said why risk it. There is way too much risk of an uninsured, unlicensed, unregistered drunk/illegal drivers.

comfortablycurt

I can see the intent of this...but don't entirely agree with it. This is getting to be to much of an invasion of privacy in my opinion.

The problem is, how are these uninsured drivers going to be punished? With a fine? If these people can't afford insurance, what makes you think they'll be able to afford to pay this fine?

Once the fine goes for a while without being paid...you start getting additional fines tacked on, you get new court dates, new court fees(which the ticketed still can't pay), and eventually they end up with some jail time. Who pays for that jail time? The state, i.e. taxpayers. How is this helping to raise money?

I agree, people shouldn't be driving without insurance, but I can't deny that there have been a few times where I've went a while without insurance. There have been times where I simply wasn't able to pay my car insurance...if it comes down to either eating this month, or paying my car insurance, the answer is pretty clear. Fortunately, I've never been in an accident period, let alone while being uninsured.

As others have said though, insurance is basically a legal form of exploitation. I can see it's purpose, but don't necessarily agree that it should be a requirement.

steveinaz

You are ALWAYS gonna have the bad apples----with everything. The point is not to infringe upon those of us who do the right thing in an effort to "control" it. You NEVER give up your freedom for security.

Kex

steveinaz wrote: »

... You NEVER give up your freedom for security.

So why do we have to live with largely ineffective airport security, that seems to inconvenience the trustworthy more than it guarantees against the violent?

To be honest, I don't really know what I think about this one. It's like so many debates ... if only the answer were that simple! Heck ... if everyone was honest, and drivers were responsible, we wouldn't even need the Police or Highway Patrol for that matter. I pay my bills on time, including my insurance, and would never, under any circumstances that I can imagine, drive without a valid license or insurance coverage. What would I do if there were a freak accident and I was responsible for killing a pedestrian, for example? Maybe I would see things differently if I didn't live in a large metropolitan area.

sucks2beme

comfortablycurt wrote: »

I can see the intent of this...but don't entirely agree with it. This is getting to be to much of an invasion of privacy in my opinion.

The problem is, how are these uninsured drivers going to be punished? With a fine? If these people can't afford insurance, what makes you think they'll be able to afford to pay this fine?

Once the fine goes for a while without being paid...you start getting additional fines tacked on, you get new court dates, new court fees(which the ticketed still can't pay), and eventually they end up with some jail time. Who pays for that jail time? The state, i.e. taxpayers. How is this helping to raise money?

I agree, people shouldn't be driving without insurance, but I can't deny that there have been a few times where I've went a while without insurance. There have been times where I simply wasn't able to pay my car insurance...if it comes down to either eating this month, or paying my car insurance, the answer is pretty clear. Fortunately, I've never been in an accident period, let alone while being uninsured.

As others have said though, insurance is basically a legal form of exploitation. I can see it's purpose, but don't necessarily agree that it should be a requirement.

TAKE THE DAMN CAR!. TOWING ENFORCEMENT.
Legal explotation? Hardly. Years ago in Iowa, you could go without if
you could prove you had assets to cover the legal minimum obligation.
TAKE THE BUS IFYOU"RE BROKE. If this makes me an ***hole, then so be it.
Let's say you hit an icey spot and hit a couple of cars? Sorry, couldn't afford my insurance this month. ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why am I so angry? At my age, it's getting hit and having to deal with the
nonsense. Since coming to Texas, everyone that's hit me is uninsured.
It's not about raising money with fines, It's about the rules. No insurance,
don't drive!

KrazyMofo24

The whole big brother thing is only an issue if it's on a subject that isn't so universal. It's really hard to understand why it would be ok for anyone to be able to drive uninsured. All this appears to be is another tool for the cops to be able to tell if someone is breaking the law. Just like running your liscense for any warrants.

ben62670

sucks2beme wrote: »

TAKE THE DAMN CAR!. TOWING ENFORCEMENT.
Legal explotation? Hardly. Years ago in Iowa, you could go without if
you could prove you had assets to cover the legal minimum obligation.
TAKE THE BUS IFYOU"RE BROKE. If this makes me an ***hole, then so be it.
Let's say you hit an icey spot and hit a couple of cars? Sorry, couldn't afford my insurance this month. ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why am I so angry? At my age, it's getting hit and having to deal with the
nonsense. Since coming to Texas, everyone that's hit me is uninsured.
It's not about raising money with fines, It's about the rules. No insurance,
don't drive!

That's funny, but you are missing the point. You need to cover yourself in case the other person is uninsured. Do you really think that all of a sudden people are going to insure their unregistered vehicles? Do you think that all the A hole drunks are going to please you? It is a fact people are going to break the law? Yes penalize the people for driving illegal, but to have some big brother try and correct the bad people isn't going to work. It never has. Lets make crime illegal:rolleyes:

BeRad

Personally, I don't believe anyone should ever be issued ANY kind of punishment unless caught breaking a traffic law by an actual law enforcement officer. The whole idea of photo radar and the likes really disturbs me as to how much people will let their governments get away with in 20, 30 years. Cans of worms are getting opened every year it seems. Anybody see V for Vendetta?

side note:
I am not trying to derail this thread here, but am unfamiliar with auto insurance in the U.S.

Roughly (estimate) what is full liability, comprehensive, and collision coverage worth per month for a 3000 dollar, 10 year old car with perfect drivers record? I'm curious to see what so many people don't want to/can't pay.

comfortablycurt

sucks2beme wrote: »

TAKE THE DAMN CAR!. TOWING ENFORCEMENT.
Legal explotation? Hardly. Years ago in Iowa, you could go without if
you could prove you had assets to cover the legal minimum obligation.
TAKE THE BUS IFYOU"RE BROKE. If this makes me an ***hole, then so be it.
Let's say you hit an icey spot and hit a couple of cars? Sorry, couldn't afford my insurance this month. ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why am I so angry? At my age, it's getting hit and having to deal with the
nonsense. Since coming to Texas, everyone that's hit me is uninsured.
It's not about raising money with fines, It's about the rules. No insurance,
don't drive!

Taking the bus is impossible for me, as there isn't any form of mass transit in the small town I live in. There are cab companies, but guess what, if I can't afford my car insurance, I sure as hell can't afford a cab. Cab rides are expensive...just to go across town here it costs about 8 dollars. The same goes for the bus too...if you're broke, well...the bus costs money too. Like I said, the bus isn't even an option for me here.

That being said, when I didn't have insurance, I walked whenever possible. I walk whenever I can regardless though anyway.

I understand, and agree with these rules for the most part. The point that I disagree with, is the ability to now arrest/ticket you just for being somewhere. A cop decides to run your plates, and BAM! This could happen to people who simply FORGOT to pay their insurance, or were a few days late on it, or any number of other scenarios.

lunazul

How about using a card reader? Swipe the reader with active insurance card and the car starts. Kinda like prepaid phone cards. No insurance no drive.

comfortablycurt

lunazul wrote: »

How about using a card reader? Swipe the reader with active insurance card and the car starts. Kinda like prepaid phone cards. No insurance no drive.

What do you do about older cars though? All of these people that can't afford insurance are supposed to buy one of these now? Good luck with that...lol

That would piss me and most people off to no end anyway. This goes along the lines of inconveniencing everyone. All of the people that ALWAYS pay their insurance are going to have to do the same thing. That wouldn't really be met with the best responses.

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

...and your other option would be? As F'd up as it is--what else can you do. I'd much rather pay a little more for uninsured motorist, than have a friggin microchip shoved up my ****.

Wait bro........thats comming sooner than you think.

I'm all for getting uninsured dopes off the road.But let's face reality,this is a revenue based idea,like seatbelt and helmut laws.Trying to replace high cost police with camera's?? Whats next? Camera's are great for traffic tickets and raising revenue,but there is no end in sight as to how far big brother will go to relieve you of your cash.When you really need a cop,like in Chicago,when a kid gets shot every day,none are to be found,because you have this false sense of security that a camera is watching.Need real cops back walking a beat in my opinion.Government is never good at solving problems,but they are excellent at telling you how much money is needed to starve it off.The whole uninsured thing is a problem that stems from lack of enforcement,to poverty,to illegal imigration,none of which is politically expedeint to tackle.So the answer.....charge them more.

shawn474

Back on topic here......If i read this correctly, the state of Illinois and possibly others are using a company who has formulated some kind of database to cross reference license plate numbers with proof of insurance. How exactly is this an invasion of privacy? IF that is all that they are using it for, then I have no problem with it. What other information can they gain by doing this? I have nothing to hide and frankly don't care what they check, but i see the hesitation and "invasion of privacy".

The less uninsured drivers, the safer the roads IMO. That may be a general statement, but I think it to be true.

All that said, I agree with everyones complaints that this is revenue based BS. Why should the state profit by issuing citations for unisured drivers?

My solution...............do it and cite all uninsured drivers. Suspend licenses when they are found to be violating the law. The money generated should then go into a slush fund that would pay for repairs to law abiding, innocent, insured drivers who are hit by these **** clowns so that we aren't paying out the crapper when this happens. Unrealistic and I am sure it would cause more problems than it's worth, but there has to be something. If all they are doing is photographing license plates to issue citations without addressing the problem, then where does it end?

Shawn

obieone

I can see this working about as well as the D.C. gun ban. I mean, they've been crime FREE since the 70's, RIGHT?:rolleyes:

BTW, this isn't the ONLY instance of Big Brother. Check out 'Smart Grid' by GE.
Remember last year when CA wanted to regulate EVERYONE's thermostat remotely? Imagine the fed doing the same thing, only charging YOU a surcharge for using your A/C to go below 78*f, or your heat above 68*f, or listening to TUBES, because they're NOT energy efficient.

I'm not that worried about this though. I imagine LaRaza will be the 1st to speak out against this. Just like photo ID's for voting.

tonyb

Why can't you just show proof of insurance before you get/renew your license?? End of story.Or is that picking on the poor??

BTW-That smart grid stuff is for the birds,I will never let big brother into my home.I'll find away to generate my own electricity before I do that.Not saying that current grids don't need to be updated,just don't like all the info the smart grid sucks out to taxing bodies.

reeltrouble1

I am Big Brother and I am here to help you. Trust me.

Afterall, I do let you complain about things, I just write your name down so I can help you.

I am Big Brother and I am here to help you. Trust me.

bruss

tonyb wrote: »

Why can't you just show proof of insurance before you get/renew your license?? End of story.Or is that picking on the poor??

because people cancel or dont pay after they use the proof to get their tags.

PhantomOG

I really don't get it. Police already can run your plates and see your name, address, whether your car is registered or not, any outstanding warrants, etc.

And people think adding whether the vehicle is insured or not is the breaking point? Seriously? Where's the fire?

bobman1235

There's a distinct difference between an officer running your plates when they feel the need and having a networked system constantly monitoring every driver everywhere they go. You don't see a difference there? It's not the checking for insurance that bothers me (not sure about everyone else) it's the having a system in place that monitors everyone.

And the BS argument that "i don't do anything wrong, I don't need to worry" is short-sighted. You've never rolled down a hill going the speed limit and ended up 3MPH over? What if there were a system that instantly sent you a ticket for this? You've never come to an empty four-way intersection and not QUITE come to a complete stop? Taken a right on red when there was a sign telling you not to? If there's a system in place to monitor insurance, why wouldn't it be modified to look for these things?

PhantomOG

I understand if people are upset about the "envisioned" part wherein tickets could be issued automatically, but as proposed, its just adding insurance information to the current license plate system.

I just see the cameras/automatic tickets as a separate issue.

jflail2

bobman1235 wrote: »

There's a distinct difference between an officer running your plates when they feel the need and having a networked system constantly monitoring every driver everywhere they go. You don't see a difference there? It's not the checking for insurance that bothers me (not sure about everyone else) it's the having a system in place that monitors everyone.

And the BS argument that "i don't do anything wrong, I don't need to worry" is short-sighted. You've never rolled down a hill going the speed limit and ended up 3MPH over? What if there were a system that instantly sent you a ticket for this? You've never come to an empty four-way intersection and not QUITE come to a complete stop? Taken a right on red when there was a sign telling you not to? If there's a system in place to monitor insurance, why wouldn't it be modified to look for these things?

AMEN Bob. I don't always agree with you, but we are lock step on this one.

And I believe Tennesee is another state that doesn't require you to carry insurance (iirc.)

wingnut4772

Scary shite.

bobman1235

It's not a separate issue, but in fact part of the proposal, at least a future part of the proposal :

InsureNet envisions police and traffic cameras being able to immediately check the status of a vehicle's insurance and, if necessary, issue a citation on the spot or through the mail.

If we're just talking about a way for officers to more easily check if you have insurance while they're running your info... dont' they already check this? "License, registration and proof of insurance please."

comfortablycurt

bobman1235 wrote: »

There's a distinct difference between an officer running your plates when they feel the need and having a networked system constantly monitoring every driver everywhere they go. You don't see a difference there? It's not the checking for insurance that bothers me (not sure about everyone else) it's the having a system in place that monitors everyone.

And the BS argument that "i don't do anything wrong, I don't need to worry" is short-sighted. You've never rolled down a hill going the speed limit and ended up 3MPH over? What if there were a system that instantly sent you a ticket for this? You've never come to an empty four-way intersection and not QUITE come to a complete stop? Taken a right on red when there was a sign telling you not to? If there's a system in place to monitor insurance, why wouldn't it be modified to look for these things?

x100000000

This is just where it starts. If you think they're going to implement a system like this, and never expand it, you're pretty gullible. Almost every single person on the road drives illegally in one form or another, even if it's just rolling a few miles per hour over the speed limit going down a hill, like Bobman said. How would you like it if every single time you accidentally went over the speed limit, you received a ticket in the mail?