Driving is not a right – it is a privelege. Therefore, if you dont have proof of insurance, you should not be able to obtain a driver license or a car tag nor should you be able to get a vehicle titled in your name or be able to purchase a car.
We have a mandatory ins law in California & if I remember right, we are tied for the second highest UM numbers in the country (about 30%). What good is the law if it isn’t enforced? There are no consequences if you don’t have it. Go figure!
Let me give you all a loaded question… Remember, you have been warned.
In every state of the union, what do you need in order to drive a car?
Now before you read on, you should list out what you need to have in order to drive.
All that you need in order to drive a car is… the car and the car keys. You don’t need a drivers license, you don’t need to have plates and you sure don’t need to have insurance. (remember, I didn’t ask what do you need to drive LEAGALLY)
That being the case, in order to keep uninsured people off the road, you have to take their cars. That is the only way and everything that the states have done to prove otherwise has failed.
The consideration of asset protection is only one of many factors that a person should consider when purchasing auto insurance. Anyone who takes on the responsibility of operating/owning an automobile on public roads should be held equally responsible for injury/damage they may cause as result of their negligent operation of the vehicle.
Poor people, while disadvantaged, are not without options to get transportation to work and other places they need to go. I understand it might be a hardship to work with bus schedules, taxi or carpool availability, arranging rides with friends/coworkers/relatives, walking/biking long distances, etc., but the options are still there.
Not every person who opts to operate a vehicle is poor, or is in a position of choosing between feeding children or buying insurance. Many just decide not to spend the money for the coverage because they’d rather spend it on something else. (Or, rationalize about the odds like our gambler-commenter.)
The mandatory insurance laws, inadequate and difficult to enforce as they may be, have been created to protect the safety of all persons who operate motor vehicles on public roads (even the uninsured ones).
If most of you would agree that minimum financial responsibility should a required part of owning or leasing a motor vehicle, then perhaps the financial responsibility laws should be revised to require anyone who contracts to purchase or lease a motor vehicle to produce a certification from the insurer that coverage is in place or certification from the state or the bond issuer that a proper liability bond is in place before a vehicle can be titled to them or used as collateral for financing the vehicle.
Once the person takes possession of the vehicle, the person should not be able to renew the registration for the vehicle or obtain a renewed driver license without a certification from their insurer that coverage is in place or certification from the state or the bond issuer that the liability bond is in force. Those who sell or lease vehicles should be prohibited from transferring ownership to a person until the person provides the seller with insurance certification (from the company) or bond certification (from the state or bond issuer). The seller would then be required to provide that original certification to the registrar before the title could be accepted for transfer. Of course, insurance regulators (and perhaps bureaus of motor vehicles as well)would need statutory changes to require insurers and bond companies to issue such certificates, etc., to complete the “enforcement circle”.
Maybe changes like these would cut down on the availability of automobiles to persons who cannot or will not afford to insure them.
No regulatory scheme is going to be “loophole-proof” but preventing the sale or ownership of a vehicle to any person until insurance is arranged for first puts a barrier up that affects all who would purchase or lease a motor vehicle. Requiring insurance certification at the time of registration renewal, driver license renewal, and title transfer would also help cut down on the cases where someone purchases insurance at the time of acquiring the vehicle and then lets it lapse for nonpayment of premiums thereafter.
I hope these thoughts may be useful to any of you who are in a position to lobby for significant change in the laws relating to this important issue.
Excellent commentary, Concerned. In Georgia, we’ve had a system in place for several years that eliminates the need for the certificates on license tag renewals. All documentation is delivered with the initial registration. In the following years, we renew our tags on the internet; the insurance companies are hooked into the system electronically, and if the coverage isn’t in force, the tag can’t be renewed. If the insurance cancels (for any reason), a notice is sent to the state alerting them to the lapse. I have no idea what level of reinforcement takes place when the state receives such a notice, but I assure you that people who are abiding by the law appreciate the seamless interface between ourselves, our insurance companies, and the state.
I have read all comments and they are certainly slanted towards personal responsibility regardless of wealth or lack thereof. As said, amazing how the budget does not allow for auto insurance but DOES allow for tire, gas, oil, vehicle, registration, and in Alabama, a twelve pack and cigarettes.
Let’s see, food stamps pays for food, welfare pays rent, I guess that darn Federal Govt. needs to come up with an auto insurance subsidy. Right after Hillary federalizes health insurance like Canada where health procedures take years and the care is substandard. Great Idea. Everything the Federal Govt. touches becomes a mess or worse than it was.
AZ. fines $500 first offense and $1,000 for second. Problem is the smart cops who hate courtrooms do not cite. Judges not longer have any latitude for fines but still allow people to provide evidence of insurance (6 month ID card) by paying one month and waive fines.
AZ. finally enacted “if driving on a suspended, revoked or without a drivers license, involved in an accident, at fault, the police are instructed by statute to impound the vehicle. I am unsure of this happening but hope it does.
So, it may be cheaper to drive uninsured if you have no assets, but in the near future, no pay, no play will keep those wonderful members of society from collecting if I had it my way!
No, 25/50 is not what I recommend and I personally will not sell below 50/100 without having my customer sign an affidavit stating that I have fully advised them of the implications of low limits of liability and how liability coverages work.
No, I do not have PI trial law experience outside of jury duty, gladly. No, I haven’t done extensive research in average hospital bills beyond what I know from living with a nurse, dating a home health care aide, having an EMT father and a police captain for a cousin. It’s not based on what a politician or attorney has told me since the politician will try to keep limits low, the attorney will try to force it high.
My statement was based on my opinion and personal experiences.
My assessment of $5k limits on PD being criminal is based on me driving a 5-year old American sedan worth more than that.
Not much to add…i’m just baffled by people’s lack of responsibility when it comes to owning a car.
I bought my first car when I was 26!! that’s when I felt financially stable enough to get out there and buy one. and when i bought one, i had a number in my head. That number not only included my monthly payment, it also factored in the insurance premium.
I really wanted this really cute mercury cougar, but new it would be considered a sports car, which would mean my insurance rate would be higher. So i settled on a four door Hyundai Elantra (that was 2 years old at the time of my purchase). and before I could even sign the loan, get the plates, i had to find insurance coverage and purchase it to have proof of insurance.
i completely agree that the statement made in the article that insurance is a tax on the poor…well if we ALL have to have it, isn’t it a tax on everyone?
and yes, i did consider other people when i purchased my insurance. people in nebraska love to buy huge trucks so instead of settling for the bottom of the barrell coverage i did more than that in case i hit a car/truck that costs as much as my college education did.
Mark – ignore “the realist, s/he/it is a total loser and has absolutely no understanding of insurance. most likely has no job and plays on the computer all day. Mark – your posts are right on.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Driving is not a right – it is a privelege. Therefore, if you dont have proof of insurance, you should not be able to obtain a driver license or a car tag nor should you be able to get a vehicle titled in your name or be able to purchase a car.
We have a mandatory ins law in California & if I remember right, we are tied for the second highest UM numbers in the country (about 30%). What good is the law if it isn’t enforced? There are no consequences if you don’t have it. Go figure!
Let me give you all a loaded question… Remember, you have been warned.
In every state of the union, what do you need in order to drive a car?
Now before you read on, you should list out what you need to have in order to drive.
All that you need in order to drive a car is… the car and the car keys. You don’t need a drivers license, you don’t need to have plates and you sure don’t need to have insurance. (remember, I didn’t ask what do you need to drive LEAGALLY)
That being the case, in order to keep uninsured people off the road, you have to take their cars. That is the only way and everything that the states have done to prove otherwise has failed.
To all who have commented on this article:
The consideration of asset protection is only one of many factors that a person should consider when purchasing auto insurance. Anyone who takes on the responsibility of operating/owning an automobile on public roads should be held equally responsible for injury/damage they may cause as result of their negligent operation of the vehicle.
Poor people, while disadvantaged, are not without options to get transportation to work and other places they need to go. I understand it might be a hardship to work with bus schedules, taxi or carpool availability, arranging rides with friends/coworkers/relatives, walking/biking long distances, etc., but the options are still there.
Not every person who opts to operate a vehicle is poor, or is in a position of choosing between feeding children or buying insurance. Many just decide not to spend the money for the coverage because they’d rather spend it on something else. (Or, rationalize about the odds like our gambler-commenter.)
The mandatory insurance laws, inadequate and difficult to enforce as they may be, have been created to protect the safety of all persons who operate motor vehicles on public roads (even the uninsured ones).
If most of you would agree that minimum financial responsibility should a required part of owning or leasing a motor vehicle, then perhaps the financial responsibility laws should be revised to require anyone who contracts to purchase or lease a motor vehicle to produce a certification from the insurer that coverage is in place or certification from the state or the bond issuer that a proper liability bond is in place before a vehicle can be titled to them or used as collateral for financing the vehicle.
Once the person takes possession of the vehicle, the person should not be able to renew the registration for the vehicle or obtain a renewed driver license without a certification from their insurer that coverage is in place or certification from the state or the bond issuer that the liability bond is in force. Those who sell or lease vehicles should be prohibited from transferring ownership to a person until the person provides the seller with insurance certification (from the company) or bond certification (from the state or bond issuer). The seller would then be required to provide that original certification to the registrar before the title could be accepted for transfer. Of course, insurance regulators (and perhaps bureaus of motor vehicles as well)would need statutory changes to require insurers and bond companies to issue such certificates, etc., to complete the “enforcement circle”.
Maybe changes like these would cut down on the availability of automobiles to persons who cannot or will not afford to insure them.
No regulatory scheme is going to be “loophole-proof” but preventing the sale or ownership of a vehicle to any person until insurance is arranged for first puts a barrier up that affects all who would purchase or lease a motor vehicle. Requiring insurance certification at the time of registration renewal, driver license renewal, and title transfer would also help cut down on the cases where someone purchases insurance at the time of acquiring the vehicle and then lets it lapse for nonpayment of premiums thereafter.
I hope these thoughts may be useful to any of you who are in a position to lobby for significant change in the laws relating to this important issue.
Thanks for listening.
Excellent commentary, Concerned. In Georgia, we’ve had a system in place for several years that eliminates the need for the certificates on license tag renewals. All documentation is delivered with the initial registration. In the following years, we renew our tags on the internet; the insurance companies are hooked into the system electronically, and if the coverage isn’t in force, the tag can’t be renewed. If the insurance cancels (for any reason), a notice is sent to the state alerting them to the lapse. I have no idea what level of reinforcement takes place when the state receives such a notice, but I assure you that people who are abiding by the law appreciate the seamless interface between ourselves, our insurance companies, and the state.
I have read all comments and they are certainly slanted towards personal responsibility regardless of wealth or lack thereof. As said, amazing how the budget does not allow for auto insurance but DOES allow for tire, gas, oil, vehicle, registration, and in Alabama, a twelve pack and cigarettes.
Let’s see, food stamps pays for food, welfare pays rent, I guess that darn Federal Govt. needs to come up with an auto insurance subsidy. Right after Hillary federalizes health insurance like Canada where health procedures take years and the care is substandard. Great Idea. Everything the Federal Govt. touches becomes a mess or worse than it was.
AZ. fines $500 first offense and $1,000 for second. Problem is the smart cops who hate courtrooms do not cite. Judges not longer have any latitude for fines but still allow people to provide evidence of insurance (6 month ID card) by paying one month and waive fines.
AZ. finally enacted “if driving on a suspended, revoked or without a drivers license, involved in an accident, at fault, the police are instructed by statute to impound the vehicle. I am unsure of this happening but hope it does.
So, it may be cheaper to drive uninsured if you have no assets, but in the near future, no pay, no play will keep those wonderful members of society from collecting if I had it my way!
Damn lawyers!
No, 25/50 is not what I recommend and I personally will not sell below 50/100 without having my customer sign an affidavit stating that I have fully advised them of the implications of low limits of liability and how liability coverages work.
No, I do not have PI trial law experience outside of jury duty, gladly. No, I haven’t done extensive research in average hospital bills beyond what I know from living with a nurse, dating a home health care aide, having an EMT father and a police captain for a cousin. It’s not based on what a politician or attorney has told me since the politician will try to keep limits low, the attorney will try to force it high.
My statement was based on my opinion and personal experiences.
My assessment of $5k limits on PD being criminal is based on me driving a 5-year old American sedan worth more than that.
Not much to add…i’m just baffled by people’s lack of responsibility when it comes to owning a car.
I bought my first car when I was 26!! that’s when I felt financially stable enough to get out there and buy one. and when i bought one, i had a number in my head. That number not only included my monthly payment, it also factored in the insurance premium.
I really wanted this really cute mercury cougar, but new it would be considered a sports car, which would mean my insurance rate would be higher. So i settled on a four door Hyundai Elantra (that was 2 years old at the time of my purchase). and before I could even sign the loan, get the plates, i had to find insurance coverage and purchase it to have proof of insurance.
i completely agree that the statement made in the article that insurance is a tax on the poor…well if we ALL have to have it, isn’t it a tax on everyone?
and yes, i did consider other people when i purchased my insurance. people in nebraska love to buy huge trucks so instead of settling for the bottom of the barrell coverage i did more than that in case i hit a car/truck that costs as much as my college education did.
I meant to say that I agree the statement made in the article about insurance being a tax on the poor is disgusting! Sorry about that.
Mark – ignore “the realist, s/he/it is a total loser and has absolutely no understanding of insurance. most likely has no job and plays on the computer all day. Mark – your posts are right on.