I said it was necessary. I didn’t say it was smart. 
Adam
Originally Posted by SaintCad
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.”?
That didn’t answer the question. I’m honestly curious how someone without insurance would handle it if they caused an accident. By your little smiley at the end, are we to assume that you don’t think it was a big deal that someone else would have to pay if you caused an accident?
You are completely incorrect!
I don’t know what state you’re in, but most states require $15K or less in property liability. So whether a car is worth $15K or $80K doesn’t make a difference to the insurance company - they would pay out $15K max.
http://info.insure.com/auto/minimum.html
As you look at the chart, notice that most states require uninsured motorist coverage, thus people who follow the law must subsidize those that do NOT follow the law.
If you want to argue that it is the MEDICAL liability that is expensive, then that is a whole different issue. In that case, the blame probably lies more with medical costs than car type.
My biggest objection to mandatory car insurance is that it is an asymmetrical intrusion of the government into the free market. When a product is mandatory instead of optional, the market is no longer free, and prices rise unnaturally. If governernment decides is good public policy to require insurance, it should go all the way and control prices. To artificially inflate demand is an unfair burden on the unwilling customer.
I’m completely amazed by this idea of having limited insurance liability to third parties.
In the UK, no matter what the value of the vehicle happens to be, the insurance of the party at fault must pay out, and that can also include unlimited medical expenses, some claims here have paid out in excess of $3 millions.
What is the point of having insurance that actually does not cover the cost of compensating th einjured party ?
Our insurance is very much more expensive, true, but its the price you pay fo coverage.
On top of all the insured costs, we also have a scheme hat all insurers must contribute that covers losses to those parties suffering detriment from those who do not carry insurance.
The individuals not carrying insurance are obviously subject to legal sacntions, and in the UK we are far more likely to ban you from our roads.
I saw a tv show where a UK cop went over to the US to work alongside their cops, fly on the wall documentary, I was amazed that an obviously drunk driver was tlod to get on their way, without car and no other sacntion was applied.
The differance between this approach and the UK could not have been more stark, drunk driving carries an automatic 18 month ban for a first offence(and this is by simply being above the booze threshold, not for being completely legless)
I have seen people banned from the road even when their vehicle was not moving, without keys in the ignition and no evidence that the vehicle had actually been driven, such as warm engine.
Seems you lot in the US take driving offences very much more lightly than we do, crimes such as death by dangerous driving carry up to 10 years in prison, and I have seen that very sentence handed down to prisoners in my workshop.
In Nevada if you fail to pay for car insurance, the state cancels your car tags. They were strict, and the insurance companies worked hand in hand with the state of Nevada, making sure that every last driver paid their premium on time. My suggestion if you were to ever move away from a state like Nevada to another state, to be sure to keep the insurance current., or better yet change those plates when you first arrive. I got arrested (not a big deal per se) when I came back home to Tennessee for driving with those suspended plates. The cops told me that if I changed my plates when I first came home, I would of been perfectly legal.
Until recently in the state of Mississippi, one could drive a car without insurance unless there is an accident. Then, if you lack insurance, you’re in trouble. I drove in Tennessee from 1984 to 1999 and was never asked for proof of insurance. The problem with my area of the United States is that there are a lot of poor people who need their cars for work and their livlihoods, and public transportation in many parts of the country are unrelaible, unsafe and expensive. So it’s a Catch 22 between Car and Work, and Rent and Car Insurance. You can’t sue most of these people either if they crash into you, because they do not have anything to give in a judgement. This also happened to me when a woman pulled out in front of me totalling my car (luckily no one was hurt). She had no insurance on the car. She was a nurses’ aide. Should she be thrown in jail for a mistake?
Simple- no fines, no jail time, no suspension of drivers license- they just impound your vehicle until you show you have insurance- paid for 6 months. Of course, the towing & impound fees will be expensive.
But they won’t pay the fine, they’ll drive without a license, and so forth. But if the Police just calls the towing service then & there- they can’t drive without a car.
This will need police impound and towing services that aren’t corrupt, of course.
I’d impose the same penalty for drunk drivers who are caught driving drunk again while on parole or suspended sentance- except that you don’t get the car back.
I heard a proposal floated a few years ago that I thought had merit and easily
addressed eliminating the problem of uninsured drivers. Simply add the cost of a
minimum liability insurance into the price of fuel at the pump. Insurance companies
would bid to provide coverage for a geographic area and a specific time period.
Pump prices would be set accordingly. Everyone would have basic liability and the
cost would be commensurate w/ the miles driven for an individual vehicle.
Additional coverage would, of course, be available. Lawsuits would still be permitted
for those cases where damages exceeded the available coverage.
You have to put a limit somewhere. Otherwise you could line the outside of your car with fabrege eggs and destroy the life of the first guy who bumps you in a parking lot. It’s not fair. There should be some reasonable upper limit on the cost of the car as a transportation device, and people who drive jewelry and toys on public roads should have to take some risk themselves. Accidents happen. You can’t price the little guys our of driving so that rich people can have the roads safe for status symbols or toys.
Fines, jail time, impounding vehicles; they are all feel good measures that appeal to the desire for retribution. But is there any evidence that they actually reduce the rate of uninsured motorists? I would like to see some data supporting such a claim before we add expense and manpower burdens to already overtaxed law enforcement, judicial and correctional systems.
If they don’t have a car- how do they drive? I have no “desire for retribution”- I just want them off the road until they are insured. Impounding vehicles is one way of doing this. The other way is jail time. In most juristictions the impound and towing fees are cash positive and are paid before you get your vehicle back. Thus, other than the 'cost" of a vehicle stop (which is already paid for in the cost of the Officer’s wages) there is no additional cost. Thus, there is no additional “burden”. (The towing & impound services are private companies, contracted. They don’t get paid by the government, they pay the government.)
Can we prove that any penalty actually acts as a deterrance? Should we have no penalties at all if we can’t prove they act as a deterance?
They buy another cheap beater. Lather, rinse, repeat.
This is an expense and burden on the sustem.
Unless the vehicle is not worth redeeming; a $500 beater isn’t worth impound fees plus insurance. Scofflaws merely buy another and continue to drive without insurance.
If an officer is spending time running down uninsured motorists, he can’t chase terrorists. 
Sure we can. There are any number of studies that correlate changes in penalties with a decrease in crimes.
Exactly.
My invisible leprechaun friend can refer you to one of those.
Most of the time police don’t actively chase uninsured motorists. They are either caught with expired tags (in most jurisdictions, you can’t renew without insurance), during a traffic stop (in every state where I have been stopped, the officer has asked for license, insurance, and registration), or at the scene of an accident.
Right- it’s a normal part of a traffic stop. That stop is already figured into the budget. Thus no extra “burden”. Then again, we have to undertand that it we want any laws enforced at all, there will be a burden. Uninsured motorists are something for which most of us agree for the need for some enforcement- thus some burden.
Whether or no a “beater” is just abandoned or not- there is no cost to the PD/government. The Impound service just sells the beater, and sometimes they don;t get back all their fees- which they may or may not try and collect.
If they can’t afford insurance, they also can’t afford a $1000 car every few months either. Eventually, they stop driving.
One good reason for the harsh penalites is that I think it will show that the state takes the crime seriously. If the penalty for drunk driving was a $100 fine, I’d drive drunk all the time.
Also, there are a lot of uninsured drivers who have the money to pay for insurance, but choose to spend their money elsewhere. No, I"m not talking about buying baby formula and medicine for their mother. I knew several twenty-somethings who didn’t have insurance because they chose to spend their money on bars, dinners out, and clothes.
Texas provides plenty of information about insurance for state residents.
Another fallacy your premise is based on; a scofflaw may drive for years without being stopped for anything, so "$1000 car every few months " is not realistic.
Who would have to pay besides me if I got in an accident uninsured? The other party’s uninsured motorist coverage would pay for his damage, then his insurance company would sic its lawyers on me to receive reimbursement.
SaintCad, I think you’re looking for something that’s not there.
Ada,
Here are some state-by-state insurance requirement summaries:
http://www.edgarsnyder.com/accidents/auto-accident/auto/insurance/
http://info.insure.com/auto/minimum.html
BTW, Michigan’s no-fault system deals with the expensive car problem. If you buy an expensive car, you have to pay for collision coverage for your car. That means your rates will be higher. OTOH, I’m not so sure that higher numbers of expensive cars in the insurance pool does not result in higher rates.
But what if the other driver was driving <ta-da> without insurance? Or is it his fault for not having insurance?
Two uninsured drivers collide? Sounds like a match made in heaven, and no skin off your nose. Or do you still have a beef with them, just on general principles?