Take up the challenge of making all Californians financially responsible for operating motor vehicles and quit placing the financial irresponsibility of over 20% of the state’s motorists at the feet of Poizner.
That’s from the Secretary of State. Hello! McFly! Unless you require EVERY licensed vehicle to be insured, you put those that have insurance AT RISK. Everyone needs to take responsibility.
It isn’t “anti-consumer” to require everyone that owns/drives a car to carry at least minimum insurance limits. It isn’t “anti-immigrant” to require the “working poor” to carry insurance.
It IS common sense to require this. Boy, am I glad I moved out of California.
It is a privilege to drive no a right to drive. If you don’t have insurance the law says you can not drive a vehicle. If you don’t have insurance, get “off the road”, I’m sick and tired of paying for your lack of responsibility. If you are in an accident without insurance it should be made a felony, you car confiscated and sold or crushed. Anti-immigrant — Don’t like the rules — go back to where you came from and change the rules there.
Yea, Dog, I’m glad I left Cali too – however – Mr. Poizner and the gad-fly organization hounding him are equally disingenuous in my view. They both know or should know by now that:
1) Folks have to drive to be able to work as there is no public transit worthy of the name and just the LA area alone covers more real estate them most of the eastern seaboard States do.
2) You do not need insurance to drive a car – or a license for that matter – you need a CAR to drive a car
3) Every Calif. vehicle operator who is conversant with points number 1&2 will buy all the Under Insured motorist coverage available know I do and have done since before I emigrated to protect myself instead of relying on someone else to do it for me.
for the record, it is the Greenlining Institute that called the initiative anti-consumer and anti immigrant.
Those of us on the left always toss those words in to show something is bad without having to offer any logical support. Sort of the same way the right uses un american or anti family.
With a little mental redacting it is possible to read nes releases without cant, but that often leaves you with nothing but a few indeifinite articles and a sprinkling of conjunctions.
There are three studies on the effect of mandatory auto insurance on the poor showing increases in food stamps due to mandatory auto insurance and a study showing 44% of the respondents said they could not buy food or pay rent due to mandatory auto insurance. If interested go to http:www.foodstampstudy.com or http://www.autoreform.org/090998mar.pdf
The poor….boo hoo. If you want to drive a car you have to pay for one and then you have to pay for gas and then you have to pay for the upkeep of that car. If “the poor” can afford all of these things, they can pay the freakin auto insurance. I understand there is a percentage of the population that can not work for numerous reasons or are unable to move out of this economic segment but many people who claim to be “the poor” are lazy and welch off of our goverment. My message is for you lazy bums…go to work losers and pay your bills like I do
That’s a 10 year old study that took place in Arizona. It is dated useless information and does not pertain to the dynamics of California. Had it been studied in L.A., it would have had some validity. Don’t make excuses for those who don’t know how to budget themselves. If you can afford a car and the gas and the upkeep, you can afford minimum liability coverages. PERIOD.
Maybe “the poor” should have thought about the costs of having a vehicle (gas, insurance, etc.) before buying that new cell phone, flat screen tv or having that fifth child. They need to follow the law regardless and that means having insurance. If they have no insurance then their vehicle should be impounded.
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.
Take up the challenge of making all Californians financially responsible for operating motor vehicles and quit placing the financial irresponsibility of over 20% of the state’s motorists at the feet of Poizner.
“anti-consumer, anti-immigrant ballot initiative ”
That’s from the Secretary of State. Hello! McFly! Unless you require EVERY licensed vehicle to be insured, you put those that have insurance AT RISK. Everyone needs to take responsibility.
It isn’t “anti-consumer” to require everyone that owns/drives a car to carry at least minimum insurance limits. It isn’t “anti-immigrant” to require the “working poor” to carry insurance.
It IS common sense to require this. Boy, am I glad I moved out of California.
It is a privilege to drive no a right to drive. If you don’t have insurance the law says you can not drive a vehicle. If you don’t have insurance, get “off the road”, I’m sick and tired of paying for your lack of responsibility. If you are in an accident without insurance it should be made a felony, you car confiscated and sold or crushed. Anti-immigrant — Don’t like the rules — go back to where you came from and change the rules there.
We already have a mandatory insurance law. So much for enforcing it!! Just make new laws so they won’t be enforced either!! Way to go!
Yea, Dog, I’m glad I left Cali too – however – Mr. Poizner and the gad-fly organization hounding him are equally disingenuous in my view. They both know or should know by now that:
1) Folks have to drive to be able to work as there is no public transit worthy of the name and just the LA area alone covers more real estate them most of the eastern seaboard States do.
2) You do not need insurance to drive a car – or a license for that matter – you need a CAR to drive a car
3) Every Calif. vehicle operator who is conversant with points number 1&2 will buy all the Under Insured motorist coverage available know I do and have done since before I emigrated to protect myself instead of relying on someone else to do it for me.
for the record, it is the Greenlining Institute that called the initiative anti-consumer and anti immigrant.
Those of us on the left always toss those words in to show something is bad without having to offer any logical support. Sort of the same way the right uses un american or anti family.
With a little mental redacting it is possible to read nes releases without cant, but that often leaves you with nothing but a few indeifinite articles and a sprinkling of conjunctions.
There are three studies on the effect of mandatory auto insurance on the poor showing increases in food stamps due to mandatory auto insurance and a study showing 44% of the respondents said they could not buy food or pay rent due to mandatory auto insurance. If interested go to http:www.foodstampstudy.com or http://www.autoreform.org/090998mar.pdf
The poor….boo hoo. If you want to drive a car you have to pay for one and then you have to pay for gas and then you have to pay for the upkeep of that car. If “the poor” can afford all of these things, they can pay the freakin auto insurance. I understand there is a percentage of the population that can not work for numerous reasons or are unable to move out of this economic segment but many people who claim to be “the poor” are lazy and welch off of our goverment. My message is for you lazy bums…go to work losers and pay your bills like I do
That’s a 10 year old study that took place in Arizona. It is dated useless information and does not pertain to the dynamics of California. Had it been studied in L.A., it would have had some validity. Don’t make excuses for those who don’t know how to budget themselves. If you can afford a car and the gas and the upkeep, you can afford minimum liability coverages. PERIOD.
Maybe “the poor” should have thought about the costs of having a vehicle (gas, insurance, etc.) before buying that new cell phone, flat screen tv or having that fifth child. They need to follow the law regardless and that means having insurance. If they have no insurance then their vehicle should be impounded.