I agree with the idea that people must prove their ability to drive safely, and so I think mandatory licensing is a good idea as it helps to insure public safety.
I agree that cars must be in safe condition so as to protect the public, so safety inspections are a good idea.
I’m not too sure I get why cars must be registered and licensed except to allow the state to tax them. So your car can be identified in case the driver has been naughty is silly. Plates can be switched very easily. I don’t see how this tiny instance of good impacts public safety in any meaningful way.
Also, the car insurance thing. I used to live in New Hampshire, the only state where it is not required. When I moved, I had to suddenly start paying some thousand dollars a year extra to be able to drive. How does my having a piece of paper saying I’m being bled by such-and-such company help ensure public good?
We haven’t been able to afford auto insurance until recently. It’s amazingly expensive. So in order to have a job at all, we’ve been forced to break the law. I’m sure millions of people are in the same situation. Where is the good in this?
As a related incident, the people in New Hampshire are better drivers- more polite, using turn signals, letting people merge, etc.- than the people in any other state I’ve been to. My husband says it’s because they know they’re driving without the awareness of loss coverage that insurance buys. I’m not sure I agree- but is an interesting coincidence.
The reason states require insurance is because of liability in case of an accident. If you cause an accident which involves death or injury to other people, and/or damage to property, the state wants to be sure that you will be able to pay for the damage (up to some minimum amount) so that the injured parties or taxpayers don’t wind up footing the bill for your negligence.
What he said. Personally, I think insurance is bollocks, but I also am willing to take responsibility for my actions if I screw up. Unfortunatly, I seem to be in a small minority in that regard, so the state mandates that we have proof we can pony up the dough if something bad happens.
As far as registration goes, it keeps people from stealing your car and getting away with it too easily! They can still steal it and chop it up, but think how easy it would be to steal it, drive it to the next big town and use it forever more, with never a fear of you finding it. Try it. It works.
And the tax thing. Its always about the tax thing.
Fagjunk Theology: Not just for sodomite propagandists anymore.
The OP says that plates can be switched easily, but note that if the cop runs a plate on some suspicious driver and finds out that it belongs on a '98 Ford Tempo instead of the '03 Honda Accord that he sees ahead of him, it’s time to pull the car over. Also, the state now has your VIN, which makes it easier to recover stolen cars found with incorrect plates/without plates.
If you smash into me and cause me $97,000 in damage and medical expenses, will you be able to pay me or will you stand aroud in court with your pockets turned out and rely on your lack of money to get out of your responsibilities.
While I sympathize with your situation, I do hope law enforcement pulls you over and takes your car. If it happens again, I hope the put you in jail.
Sorry for the bluntness but I had a friend hit by an uninsured driver and her lack of caring made you want to punch her lights out.
Can’t pay for the mess you make means you shouldn’t be driving. Job doesn’t pay enough for you to have car insurance means that the job isn’t that great and I’m sure there is an equivalent one close to home.
So does that mean the guy in front of me on the Long Island (NY) Expressway with the New Hampshire plates has no insurance? How is it legal for these cars to drive in other states?
Take a look at your auto insurance policy–you may have an “uninsured motorist” clause or rider.
I have one on my auto insurance. Basically, if our friend in the OP, who has no insurance, causes an accident that damages me or my car, I’m not out anything because she cannot pay. My insurance will pick up her tab for the damage she caused, in other words. I don’t know if they will go after her for some kind of restitution, but at that point, I should have my settlement and thus am no longer worrying about it.
I would imagine its because you can buy an uninsured motorist rider to protect yourself against these folks, that they are permitted to drive in other states and provinces without having to buy special trip insurance. It is worth it to me; the uninsured motorist rider costs very little, IIRC.
I also used to live in New Hampshire, but I had auto insurance and with much higher limits than the minimum. I’m sure there are lots of people there without any. I don’t think that people in New Hampshire were any better or more courteous drivers than anywhere else. If lack of insurance is an indication of courteous driving behavior, then why are divers in Miami so aggressive.
Settle down, postcards, it’s not the cars from New Hampshire you should be afraid of. According to recent statistics, the rate of uninsured motorists in New Hampshire is only 9%, whereas in New Jersey (a state with mandatory insurance) it is 15%! Now how do you feel?
It may be easy to switch them, but that would be done only by someone who is planning on doing evil. (Or so I’d imagine.) The great majority of accidents are indeed accidents - or at least stupidity and carelessness, but in any case not planned in advance. Therefore, the plates are still useful to identifythe owner.
And even if the plates were switched, they’re still useful when the police are chasing a suspect. The plates may not be his, but it proves that the car we caught now is the same one that we’ve been chasing for the past half-hour.
So if you cause an accident and are liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage who is going to pay? If you can’t even afford to buy insurance how do you plan on taking responsibility for the damage you caused?
By the way, in California at least, you are required to show proof of financial wherewithal to pay for damages arising from an accident.
Most people prove this by demonstrating that they have an insurance policy with a licensed insurance company, BUT, if you don’t want to get insurance, you can, in essence, self-insure, by putting up a bond or some such.
As several posters have already stated, the purpose of the requirement is to ensure that someone else isn’t stuck with the bill if you cause an accident but don’t have the money to pay for the medical bills and property damage.
As far as I’m concerned, saying that you can’t afford car insurance is like saying you can’t afford gas. If you can’t afford it, you don’t drive. Don’t want to get into GD here (maybe too late) but it is–in my view rightly–criminal for a driver to put others at risk that he will cause an accident but won’t be able to pay for the resulting damage.
So the uninsured are supposed to stay at home and starve to death in the dark? Why should they care about your problems (risk of accident losses), if your don’t care about theirs? You should light a damn candle instead of just cursing the darkness. Start by telling your state legislators to pass and enforce a law banning the practice of charging uninsured motorists more to buy insurance after a lapse in coverage. Why is it in the public interest to make it more difficult for the uninsured to come into compliance with the law?
There are lots of things that could be done to reduce the uninsured motorist problem, but until legislators are willing to give up the hundreds of millions of dollars paid by insurance companies to pass laws that are anti-competitive and screw the consumer in order to fatten the corporate coffers, you are goiing to be exposed to more and more risk from uninsured motorists. There are not enough impound lots nor prison cells in the whole country to solve the problem by mandatory insurance law enforcement alone.
Well, I was going to question the OP’s closing statement about NH drivers, but then I noticed the location (Hartford CT). Never mind. Having lived in both states, I’ll have to agree that NH drivers are the lesser of two evils.
Although I have nothing important to add, I would like to point this out again. It astounds me.
BTW, that’s a very interesting site, Fear. Thanks for the update.
I live in a no-fault state (Michigan). I do carry uninsured motorist coverage, and have collision, comp., etc. (“full coverage”), it’s expensive, but cheaper than paying off the bank and having only a wreck that doesn’t work.
That said, I have no idea why I have “uninsured motorist coverage.” As I said, I live in a no-fault state. You hit me and it’s your fault, my insurance company pays me for my damages, medical, etc. I hit you and it’s my fault, my insurance company pays me for my damanges, medical, etc., and your pays for yours. Hell, you can’t even successfully sue me (or I you) for more than $500 (I think that’s the current limit).
If I have a car that has only PL/PD, and you broadside me, I’m out of luck – I should have had collision coverage, and as said, I can’t sue you.
No-fault makes PERFECT SENSE to me, and I have no idea how you people in other states live day-to-day (all my time in other states was under Michigan licensure and insurance). If I live in Texas, for example, can I just carry dirt-cheap PL/PD in case I hit you, and then hope you’re insured if you hit me so I can sue you to fix my car? Then, if I have “uninsured motorist coverage,” I can use that to pay for my damages? I would assume that if this is true that it can’t be my fault?
Why isn’t everything no-fault? I’ve heard it’s more expensive, but in my own personal experience the non-no-fault is more expensive (thus having always kept my Michigan insurance and license during my military days).
no fault insurance is a scam. It used to be that those who drove well, had very low insurance rates, but now under nofault, your own insurance must pay if someone crashes into you. No fault spreads the cost of high insurance rates of bad drivers, into the pool of all drivers.
I don’t know Susanann. Whenever I tried to get quotes in Texas, for example, the rates were ridiculous for their own brand of insurance. And I’m talking the same insurance company! I was better off keeping my Michigan insurance, financially.
My rates are great, and that’s a reflection of where I live and how I drive and my credit rating and a bunch of other things. The fact is, bad drivers either pay a heck of lot more than I do, or are denied coverage completely.
In the long run I’m sure there are even more hidden savings. Like wasted money in court. Here in Michigan you can’t sue for more than $500 (sum questionable). Okay, you can always sue for anything, but the judge will throw it out in accordance with state law. The result is there aren’t a lot of suits, leaving a lot of crap out of the courtrooms, and also prevents a lot of the types of fraudulent lawsuits that could occur in non-no-fault states.
I’m sure there are other savings related to this.
Note I’m not trying to promote no-fault necessarily, but I’ll again plead for some basic understanding of non-no-fault insurance. I’m ignorant, completely. I don’t know how anyone can drive having to worry about whether the other idiots are insured or not.
