Oklahoma is about to join the ranks of states that require that you show proof of registration when being stopped by an LEO. What does showing registration accomplish? They can get if and who the car is registered to from the tag and even if I’m not the owner, I can still drive a friend’s car with their permission. The tag should also tell if the vehicle is stolen. What am I missing?
For that matter, why do you need proof of insurance?
In the UK, police can tell from the plate if the car is taxed and insured. Databases are an amazing thing!
(To be fair, we’re not even required to carry our driving licenses, or any other form of ID).
License plates are removable. They don’t have the make, type, and color of the car and VIN printed on them so you can switch license plates with a different car. That can be found out by calling in the license plate number but with the registration in can be determined on the road without any communications.
They don’t even need to stop you as a camera can scan the plate and almost instantly give make, model, colour and year of the car, followed by the Registered Keeper’s name and details and whether it’s insured (and for whom, as most non-business insurance here is for named drivers only).
As a consequence, licence plate theft or cloning has become a thing.
Non-residents never can believe that there are 50 separate databases in the U.S. Plus a possible separate federal database, which usually does not exist.
Are you saying that if you borrow your brother’s or a neighbor’s car you wouldn’t be driving insured unless you happened to be named on the insurance policy? I’d think there would be all kinds of accidents with a driver uninsured.
That’s a good question, because the VIN can be run and that information found already. “Show me a document that can be forged” seems like wheel spinning to me.
My own (UK) insurance allows me to drive other people’s cars (with their permission) and be covered under my own policy. This is cheaper than letting other non-named people drive my car on my insurance, although both are available.
If I do drive someone else’s car, there is a limit on how much they will pay out for the car I’m driving - it’s quite high, but they wouldn’t pay to replace a Bugatti Veyron that my mate lends me for the weekend if I total it. They would pay any third party costs as usual, though.
Do you have a cite for this?
I was hoping that an article explaining that this was the case might include an explanation, or at least a hint, of why it was the case; but Google has failed me.
I only have a cite that says that Oklahoma is implementing. Nothing I’ve found indicates the reasoning. Hence the thread.
Illinois does not require drivers of non-commercial vehicles to have registrations in their cars. This requirement often catches Illinois drivers by surprise when they drive out-of-state.
Specifically in my state we do not have a database that covers insurance. You have to provide proof or if we are willing to bend over backwards we can put in a personal call to the individual insurance company. We are under no obligation to do this.
I had a roadside ‘chat’ with one of your brethren, just at the edge of Pork roll territory; he specifically stated he didn’t need proof of insurance for an out of state vehicle. (Ins card stays in the glove compartment while license & registration is in wallet, as I was always taught never to leave registration in the car).
I’m really bad about putting the new sticker on my car when I renew my registration. Like really bad. Over the years, I’ve been stopped at least 3 or 4 times. I just can’t seem to get around to putting it on in a timely manner.
Anyway, I was out a few weeks ago, with my months-old expired registration tag. I was stopped at a red light with my brother when we noticed a motorcycle cop filling up at the gas station at that corner. We were wondering why he was filling up at a public station – especially since a large police station was just about half a mile away. Then, I noticed that he’d pulled out of the gas station and was now sitting directly behind me. I could see that he was keying something into the key pad on his handlebars (are they called that on motorcycles?).
I’m sure he was looking me up and noticing that, yes, even though my tag was old, my registration was up-to-date. No real need to pull me over and do the whole song-and-dance. I mentioned it to my brother, and he put my tag on as soon as we got home.
If you and I have a collision, and we are both insured, our insurance companies will work out who is responsible for what, and all of the repair bills and medical bills will be covered. If I have no insurance, your insurance company will get stuck with your bills, and they will raise your rates next year. Uninsured motorists make things more expensive for everybody. It is a common problem in states with large populations of illegal immigrants.
The question was why you have to have proof of insurance, not why you have to have insurance.
I read that question less as why do you need insurance, and more like why do you need to carry the proof.
(Same as Thudlow Boink)
[Moderating]
This thread is about insurance, not illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants can have insurance, and legal residents can lack insurance. Let’s stay on topic.
It depends on your insurance policy.
The insurance policy I have for me and my vehicles ONLY covers me in my vehicles - it does not cover someone else driving my vehicles, nor does it cover me driving someone else’s vehicles. In return for all that, I get very low rates which, being on the low end of middle class and insuring two vehicles is of some importance to me.
It’s also why when I rent a car I get the optional insurance they offer - because otherwise I’d be uninsured driving their car. I rent seldom enough that even with that extra cost I still come out ahead.
You can, if you desire, purchase policies that cover you regardless of which/whose vehicle you’re driving (I have a friend with a commercial driver’s license who has one of these because he’s always driving different vehicles for work as well as for private use). You can purchase polices that cover whomever is driving your vehicle. You can purchase policies that do both. Of course, you will pay for all that.
There is also coverage for “uninsured drivers” which is to cover you (as an insured driver) if you’re hit by someone uninsured.
Yes, I’m sure there is a simpler way to do all this, but this is America where the masses seem to like complications.
If you’re under around 25, you’re almost certainly only allowed to drive cars where you’re named on the insurance, after that age many companies (though not all) give 3rd party as default on any vehicle loaned to you. One I had a few years ago, intriguingly, covered me to drive other vehicles ‘in an emergency only’ but nowhere in any of the documents did it define an emergency.
We generally just don’t borrow cars much. It’s something that always stuck out to me watching films set in US schools, teens all having cars and just causally borrowing friends’ cars. None of my friends even owned a car as a teen- insurance is so expensive for a teenager, you can easily pay over £1000 for a year’s 3rd party fire and theft* insurance for a 17 year old. It’s a lot cheaper to get added to parents insurance, presumably because the odds of you driving like a maniac are presumed to be lower, so that’s what we all did until the price dropped when we got older.
Both the driver of an uninsured vehicle and the person who loaned them the car can get a fine and driving licence points- get enough points and you’ll likely lose your licence. Being caught driving uninsured in the first two years after passing your test would usually mean enough points to have your licence revoked, with a 2 year wait before you can reapply.
*Often the cheapest option- slightly cheaper than 3rd party only, presumably because not many companies offer 3rd party only.