There are too many uninsured drivers on the roads. Naturally, the call for tougher penalties always invites the race card. Poorer people, who are more likely to be Hispanic or Black, claim they can’t afford car insurance. I say, tough luck. Either get insurance or don’t drive. Period.
I’d suggest increasing the penalites for driving without insurance to be in line with those for driving while intoxicated. This site shows the DWI First Offender penalties in Texas
The penalty for driving without insurance with NO accident or injury should be:
A fine of up to $2000 (probably about $750)
3 days in Jail
Driver’s license suspension of at least 90 days
2 Years Probation
Mandatory Traffic School
In Texas, there is a Driver License Surcharge which is assesed for three years following conviction of driving without insurance of $250.00 per year. I’d increase that to $1000 per year.
I’d increase the penalty if there was an accident, injury, or a repeat offense.
Too harsh? Not harsh enough? Is there ANY way to get uninsured motorists off the road?
I don’t LIKE paying car insurance. But, I do it because I have to. Other drivers should do the same
I was in a car accident several years ago. The other driver, who caused the accident, only had $25,000 in personal injury coverage, and my medical bills have easily tripled that.
She also only had $25,000 in property damage coverage, which is perfectly legal in my state. Luckily, the amount covered my car, but what if I had been driving a new SUV?
My policy had under-insured driver coverage, so I’m now in the midst of a suit against my own company to get reimbursement. Likely, my rates will go up as a result.
How much will enforcement of this law cost? Additional peace officer manhours, additional burdens on over-crowded courts, incarceration expenses, etc. Hard to squeeze it out of the defendants, the reason most of them don’t have insurance it they can pay for that either.
I don’t like my insurance rates going up; I like tax increases even less.
First of all, where did all this vitriol come from? Were you in an accident with an uninsured motorist? Hang 'em high, eh?
Second, if you don’t want the race card pulled, try this: I’m a white male. I drove without insurance for about a year and a half, not just because I couldn’t afford it, but because I also had no way of getting to work without my car. I lived in an area with little to offer in the way of full-time jobs. I was 21 years old, young and dumb, scared of not being able to pay my rent or my bills, and I felt that driving without insurance was better than being homeless.
Was it stupid? Yes. Did I have good reason to be driving? I think so. Did I get caught? You betcha.
I’m currently in the process of paying off a $5,000 fine. If I miss a payment, I lose my car registration and my tags. There’s no avenue of appeal for this, which I consider a fairly harsh punishment for a first-time offense (let the record show that I’ve been stopped maybe 3 times since I got my license almost 10 years ago…I have a very good driving record). Yes, I broke the law, but how can someone pay a $5,000 fine if they can’t shell out $80-100 a month for car insurance? Where’s my first-time slap on the wrist?
I have insurance now, and I won’t be letting something like this happen again.
I must ask the OP: Was my punishment harsh enough for you? Were my circumstances understandable?
Let me add that my county offers very little in the way of public transportation. There’s no light rail or subway, and bus stops are few and far between.
If you destroy someone’s car, you should be responsible for replacing it, and the fact is, many people have cars worth over $25,000, and not only SUV drivers, but those with sedans and minivans.
Now, few of us have policies which could cover a Lamborghini or an expenive antique car, but your policy should cover the widely-driven cars. Frankly, I don’t think anyone should have property damage of less than $40,000.
Just a comment to point out that here in British Columbia, If you have an accident that involves drugs or alcohol, then you’re insurance is null ands void.
If someone insists on driving a Crystal Cathedral through a region known for hail and flying debris, they should expect to pay for any damage incurred themselves. It’s their choice to endanger their riches by taking them on the road. Like earthquakes and hurricanes, accidents happen.
A $25,000 car is not a Crystal Cathedral (or a Lamborghini, for that matter.) Many people have them. This article says that the most popular vehicle in the US has a base price of almost $20,000. Most people don’t buy the bare-bones version, either. Secondly, a lot of people with trucks use them for work-- you’d be depriving someone of their livlihood with no recourse if they were damanged by the uninsured.
Nor is it always a pure accident. A true accident is when no one could have possibly done anything to prevent it. Most accidents are caused by negligence-- not paying attention to the road.
Like it or not, if you destroy someone’s property, you are legally and ethically responsible for paying for it.
You also can’t sue another driver for personal injuries unless you can demonstrate a “serious impairment of body function.”
So the only risk to a person who has full coverage (no-fault, collision, and comprehensive) is that they could be seriously injured in an accident with someone who does not have (or have enough) insurance. You can get Uninsured Motorist coverage and Underinsured Motorist coverage to cover this risk.
Of course, if you don’t have collision or comprehensive, and you total your car in an accident, you can only get $500, even if it’s the other guy’s fault.
Here are the consequences of driving without insurance here:
I made it a bit extreme for the purpose of clarity. All our insurance rates are affected by the average vehicle price, and the mere existence of high priced vehicles raise the rates of even those who drive 15 year old beaters.
At some point, it becomes reasonable to argue that a person who chooses to drive a ridiculously expensive vehicle on what are after all public roads is behaving recklessly. In the event of an accident, that reckless behavior leaves them with a share of the ethical responsibility for damage to their own property.
Should poor folk be forced off the roads simply because they can’t afford to pay for damage to a rich man’s car? What with credit ratings being used to determine insurance rates, that’s exactly what’s happening.
So how did you plan to reimburse somebody for their damages and/or medical bills if you caused an accident? Or would it be a case of “Screw 'em. I needed to get to work.” or “I’m really really sorry.”?
I’m not rich and I can’t afford to be without my car nor could I afford a major repair bill. So what you are saying is that I have two choices: A) get screwed over when some uninsured motorist rams into my car or B) spend more of MY money buying uninsured/underinsured coverage so other people can save money by not buying insurance? Doesn’t sound fair to me.
Perhaps, but the prudent driver always carries uninsured motorist coverage. A fat lot of good demanding fairness does you, when your only car is totaled.
What about the idea of no-fault insurance? That is, if you have an accident, your insurance pays for the damage to your vehicle, no matter who caused the accident. Therefore, if you have an accident with an uninsured or under-insured motorist, then the only person who has a problem is the one without the coverage.
In this state, the only thing a person has to do if he is charged with driving without insurance is buy insurance and go show that they now have insurance. Then the fine is waived. Of course, then the usual practice seems to be to cancel said insurance, so I don’t think the law is very useful.
Nope, everyone should have insurance, but the wealth of one group of people shouldn’t be allowed to price other people out of what is a shared resource. You’re already paying more of YOUR money for insurance because of other people’s expensive vehicles.