If this measure passes, and that is no certainty in the homeland of bleeding hearts known as California, I wonder how long it will take for a poster child case to emerge in support of instantaneous impounding. Some individual is bound to have their plates removed and registration revoked but not ever have their car impounded and proceed to maim a family of honest, insurance and tax paying citizens. With the state facing 10% budget cuts across the board, what peace officers will have time to follow up on individuals whose plates and registration have been revoked? And if these violators didn’t have insurance in the first place, can we really expect them to exhibit the moral courage to deliver their car for impounding when they fail to procure insurance within a week?
Exactly. I couldn’t agree with you more. Furhtermore, no mention is made of the black market for “replacement plates”. I can see the DMV being flooded with requests to replace stolen tags if a measure like this is passed.
I grew up in NY and pulling plates was the practice there. Any vehicle on the road without plates was without insurance. It worked then but I doubt this would work now in CA (times have changed); officers have no time to go and pull the plates, individuals without insurance will drive regardless, DMV can take 45 days to acknowledge “no insurance” currently so how quickly can any of this be implemented anyway?
It’s a flawed system that could be made better but can we ever make it completely compliant in this day and age?
Doubt it.
Correct me if I’m wrong about the LAW, but it’s the DRIVER who needs to be insured! If the new law specifies that the VEHICLE needs to be insured, then many people will remain uninsured. This is the major problem with the current law. When a person goes to register a vehicle. the California DMV wants proof that the VEHICLE is insured. If a police officer stops someone, I have it on good source that they look to see if the VEHICLE is insured, not the person!!
Seems like there are a lot of articles today all covering the same thing. How do we handle people who drive without insurance or drive with a suspended license. The answer while harsh is simple… take the car they are driving.
If it is not their car, too bad, take it anyway. Let that happen a couple of times and anyone willing to lend a car to someowe will likely do a better job of checking whoever it is that they are lending the car to.
First of all, this is a stupid proposal as an attempt to deter uninsured motorists from the road. I might lack my proof of insurance and vehicle at the time of an infraction, and it does not mean I am uninsured, and it does not mean the vehicle I am driving is not properly registered with the authorities or DMV. This makes no sense! A driver can have permissive use of the vehicle under the insurance policy and cops are not educated enough to understand such policy provision. Besides cops should be focusing on more important crimes than small infractions. I am against uninsured motorists and they way to deter this problem is by charging every penny these uninsured drivers might incur in case of a loss. That would teach them a lesson. If caught without insurance, they should be fined. The courts are responsible for this problem too. They are too lenient by reducing fines if the uninsured driver gets insurance after getting caught. They end up paying a small fine and buy a vehicle registration insurance with a broker for less than a month and go back to square one. The government should make it mandatory that each insurance broker writes at least 500 policies a year through the low cost and these will help too. Stop the bullshXt.
This doesn’t make any sense. How does the state track who does or doesn’t have insurance? The reason the “vehicle” is required to be insured is because the registration and insurance can be verified, any driver (I know there are exceptions – for example “excluded” drivers)is covered while driving the vehicle, and it’s the vehicle that creates the damages.
Sounds great to require “drivers” to have insurance, but that would be a bigger mess than already exist.
I believe this is dangerous.The system will corrupt itself from law enforcement[kick backs],phony license plates,false documentation,plus ruining the econmy.I do not agree with this…….paul
It is the vehicle that is insured, not the driver. There is a lot to be said for the idea of changing the laws so that it is the driver who is insured but that will never happen. If a driver is stopped and does not have proof of insurance his drivers license could easily be pulled, much easier than pulling a car license plate, and the drive would have X number of days to provide proof of insurance to get their license back.
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.
If this measure passes, and that is no certainty in the homeland of bleeding hearts known as California, I wonder how long it will take for a poster child case to emerge in support of instantaneous impounding. Some individual is bound to have their plates removed and registration revoked but not ever have their car impounded and proceed to maim a family of honest, insurance and tax paying citizens. With the state facing 10% budget cuts across the board, what peace officers will have time to follow up on individuals whose plates and registration have been revoked? And if these violators didn’t have insurance in the first place, can we really expect them to exhibit the moral courage to deliver their car for impounding when they fail to procure insurance within a week?
Exactly. I couldn’t agree with you more. Furhtermore, no mention is made of the black market for “replacement plates”. I can see the DMV being flooded with requests to replace stolen tags if a measure like this is passed.
I grew up in NY and pulling plates was the practice there. Any vehicle on the road without plates was without insurance. It worked then but I doubt this would work now in CA (times have changed); officers have no time to go and pull the plates, individuals without insurance will drive regardless, DMV can take 45 days to acknowledge “no insurance” currently so how quickly can any of this be implemented anyway?
It’s a flawed system that could be made better but can we ever make it completely compliant in this day and age?
Doubt it.
Correct me if I’m wrong about the LAW, but it’s the DRIVER who needs to be insured! If the new law specifies that the VEHICLE needs to be insured, then many people will remain uninsured. This is the major problem with the current law. When a person goes to register a vehicle. the California DMV wants proof that the VEHICLE is insured. If a police officer stops someone, I have it on good source that they look to see if the VEHICLE is insured, not the person!!
theft of license plate will go up. great measure hope it passes.
Seems like there are a lot of articles today all covering the same thing. How do we handle people who drive without insurance or drive with a suspended license. The answer while harsh is simple… take the car they are driving.
If it is not their car, too bad, take it anyway. Let that happen a couple of times and anyone willing to lend a car to someowe will likely do a better job of checking whoever it is that they are lending the car to.
First of all, this is a stupid proposal as an attempt to deter uninsured motorists from the road. I might lack my proof of insurance and vehicle at the time of an infraction, and it does not mean I am uninsured, and it does not mean the vehicle I am driving is not properly registered with the authorities or DMV. This makes no sense! A driver can have permissive use of the vehicle under the insurance policy and cops are not educated enough to understand such policy provision. Besides cops should be focusing on more important crimes than small infractions. I am against uninsured motorists and they way to deter this problem is by charging every penny these uninsured drivers might incur in case of a loss. That would teach them a lesson. If caught without insurance, they should be fined. The courts are responsible for this problem too. They are too lenient by reducing fines if the uninsured driver gets insurance after getting caught. They end up paying a small fine and buy a vehicle registration insurance with a broker for less than a month and go back to square one. The government should make it mandatory that each insurance broker writes at least 500 policies a year through the low cost and these will help too. Stop the bullshXt.
This doesn’t make any sense. How does the state track who does or doesn’t have insurance? The reason the “vehicle” is required to be insured is because the registration and insurance can be verified, any driver (I know there are exceptions – for example “excluded” drivers)is covered while driving the vehicle, and it’s the vehicle that creates the damages.
Sounds great to require “drivers” to have insurance, but that would be a bigger mess than already exist.
I believe this is dangerous.The system will corrupt itself from law enforcement[kick backs],phony license plates,false documentation,plus ruining the econmy.I do not agree with this…….paul
It is the vehicle that is insured, not the driver. There is a lot to be said for the idea of changing the laws so that it is the driver who is insured but that will never happen. If a driver is stopped and does not have proof of insurance his drivers license could easily be pulled, much easier than pulling a car license plate, and the drive would have X number of days to provide proof of insurance to get their license back.