This looks like a good time to bring up this topic. In My state, there is a Bill in the State legislature which will allow the legal theft of cars from poor people.
The bill, Authored by Republican Steve Martin of Bartlesville permits police officers to have a vehicle immediately towed away if the driver doesn't have insurance.
This is wrong on so many levels, and the people who authored it and voted for it are doing something very stupid and evil.
The people who will be hurt under this law are poor people. (I know, I used to be one.)
Nowadays, if a person is working a low paying job, affording transportation is already difficult. The Mandatory insurance requirement is an additional burden
that some people simply cannot manage, and if a person cannot afford to pay for insurance, then they certainly will not be able to afford having to pay the insurance, (you have to get insurance in order to get your vehicle out of impound) the towing fee, and the storage fee, as well as any back tag fees.
In effect, if a poor person is stopped, their car immediately becomes the property of the towing company. (Towing fees are +$100.00 and storage fees are $20.00/day)
If a person relies on their automobile to get back and forth to work, (a virtual certainty in this state, where the residential and commercial properties are often widely separated. ) then they not only lose their car, but their job as well.
Another aspect of this bill is that they are considering taking away a person's drivers license for a year if caught driving without insurance. This would eliminate an entire group of possible jobs. Next stop, public dole.
If this passes the Senate, somebody needs to bring a court challenge arguing that this violates numerous fundamental rights. This bill is wrong and stupid, and is one of the rare examples where the Republicans are idiots.
Republicans are stupid thieves.
I am not going to vote on this, because I dont like the question.
Let me add a few things here:
1. Car insurance, to the best of my knowledge is a lot cheaper in the US, than it is in Austria.
2. Car insurance is mandatory in Austria as well. You also have to keep your car in a condition that meets the savety requirements set up by the government.
3. Cars in Austria cost a lot more to maintain in part because of the high fuel costs.
4. I was pretty poor at some point and I was still able to afford paying for my car insurance. In fact it was a lot less than paying for my gasoline...
One reason why insurance should be mandatory is, because accidents happen and this poor bastard from your example would never be able to pay for the damages, if he e.g. hit a guy that was then handicaped, unable to work, etc.
So the victim of the accident would be left with nothing (you cant take money from a poor bastard that does not even have enough money to pay his insurance, right?). Personally I would consider this horrible. I mean there is someone who got badly injured in an accident that was not his fault and he gets left with nothing! That is not fair!
If the party at fault has an insurance, then the insurance company will pay for it.
Now, I am not sure about having someones car towed. I would think that simply taking the license plates would be enough. This is what they do here. Once the insurance has been paid (and there is proof of that), you get the license plates back. No I never had mine taken, because I could always afford to pay the insurance. If you cant even afford that, despite the much lower cost of insurance and gas in the US, then you really have other problems and should consider doing something else, or nothing, since you cant really be earning much less when doing nothing at all, LOL.
Oh btw, in Austria you get fined, if you dont have your yearly checkup done, even if you never drive the car and just have it parked in a public place. I think that is not right, because that really hits poor people and a car that is parked is rather save, I would say.
Let me add a few things here:
1. Car insurance, to the best of my knowledge is a lot cheaper in the US, than it is in Austria.
2. Car insurance is mandatory in Austria as well. You also have to keep your car in a condition that meets the savety requirements set up by the government.
3. Cars in Austria cost a lot more to maintain in part because of the high fuel costs.
4. I was pretty poor at some point and I was still able to afford paying for my car insurance. In fact it was a lot less than paying for my gasoline...
One reason why insurance should be mandatory is, because accidents happen and this poor bastard from your example would never be able to pay for the damages, if he e.g. hit a guy that was then handicaped, unable to work, etc.
So the victim of the accident would be left with nothing (you cant take money from a poor bastard that does not even have enough money to pay his insurance, right?). Personally I would consider this horrible. I mean there is someone who got badly injured in an accident that was not his fault and he gets left with nothing! That is not fair!
If the party at fault has an insurance, then the insurance company will pay for it.
Now, I am not sure about having someones car towed. I would think that simply taking the license plates would be enough. This is what they do here. Once the insurance has been paid (and there is proof of that), you get the license plates back. No I never had mine taken, because I could always afford to pay the insurance. If you cant even afford that, despite the much lower cost of insurance and gas in the US, then you really have other problems and should consider doing something else, or nothing, since you cant really be earning much less when doing nothing at all, LOL.
Oh btw, in Austria you get fined, if you dont have your yearly checkup done, even if you never drive the car and just have it parked in a public place. I think that is not right, because that really hits poor people and a car that is parked is rather save, I would say.
What rights are violated, exactly? Granted, it's a nasty bit of business, but a right-to-personal-transportation isn't something I'm aware of.
Many local jurisdictions in my state, Alabama, have had laws similar to this for a while, though I believe most only impound cars of unlicensed drivers.
It's not targeted at "poor" people, though; it's one of the few tactics local governments have to tackle the problem of illegal immigrants, most of whom aren't even licensed, let alone insured. In fact, the goal is to do exactly what you claim they're doing - prevent them from getting to work, so they will lose their jobs and hopefully leave. And, of course, they won't even say that's the reason.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1893590/posts
Many local jurisdictions in my state, Alabama, have had laws similar to this for a while, though I believe most only impound cars of unlicensed drivers.
It's not targeted at "poor" people, though; it's one of the few tactics local governments have to tackle the problem of illegal immigrants, most of whom aren't even licensed, let alone insured. In fact, the goal is to do exactly what you claim they're doing - prevent them from getting to work, so they will lose their jobs and hopefully leave. And, of course, they won't even say that's the reason.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1893590/posts
Perrin Ehlinger
Skipjack wrote:
One reason why insurance should be mandatory is, because accidents happen and this poor bastard from your example would never be able to pay for the damages, if he e.g. hit a guy that was then handicaped, unable to work, etc.
Let me try one of my stock arguments on you.
What is your life worth? Can you be compensated for your life with money? Were you to lose your head in a car crash, would it make any difference to you whether the accident was your fault or the other guy's?
My point is, the most valuable thing to any individual is their bodily integrity, yet they willingly risk it by driving on the roads. Every Day, People will risk the lives of their wives and children, yet God forbid that they should have to risk damage to their automobile!
There IS no compensation for your life. Insurance will not save your life, nor your body. *IF* you choose to drive on the public roads, you willingly take this risk.
If you feel so strongly about damage to your vehicle that you would deny other people's right to travel on the public roads, then you should pay for insurance to cover you, and let others do the same.
The minimum required insurance will most definitely not cover any serious medical problems, let alone pay upkeep for someone who has been crippled. (it used to be $10,000.00/$20,000.00/$10,000.00, but I think it's double that now.)Skipjack wrote: So the victim of the accident would be left with nothing (you cant take money from a poor bastard that does not even have enough money to pay his insurance, right?). Personally I would consider this horrible. I mean there is someone who got badly injured in an accident that was not his fault and he gets left with nothing! That is not fair!If the party at fault has an insurance, then the insurance company will pay for it.
How is it fair to deprive a poor man of his right to earn a living?
This is more reasonable, but still doesn't address the issue of why a poor man should be deprived of an ability to make a living just to protect another man's pretty car?Skipjack wrote: Now, I am not sure about having someones car towed. I would think that simply taking the license plates would be enough. This is what they do here. Once the insurance has been paid (and there is proof of that), you get the license plates back.
I know people who can barely feed themselves, let alone pay insurance. Should we all be better were they on the public dole?Skipjack wrote: No I never had mine taken, because I could always afford to pay the insurance. If you cant even afford that, despite the much lower cost of insurance and gas in the US, then you really have other problems and should consider doing something else, or nothing, since you cant really be earning much less when doing nothing at all, LOL.
It's a right to use the public ways. It is an old and ancient right that no one can be denied the use of public roads. Nowadays that means driving, because they won't let you pilot a horse cart down the boulevard.(except perhaps during parades.)Scupperer wrote:What rights are violated, exactly? Granted, it's a nasty bit of business, but a right-to-personal-transportation isn't something I'm aware of.
This mandatory insurance buisness is relatively recent. In my state it was originally pushed by a man named "Butch" Hooper, a Representative to the state legislature who was previously an insurance salesman. He claimed (back in 1982, I think) that we had to do this in order to bring down high insurance costs. The idea was that if we FORCED everyone to buy insurance, the costs would go down. We did, and they didn't.
For thousands of years, the highest King and the poorest peasant could travel up and down the public roads with their fine horses or their broken down oxcarts.
Now you may say that cars are far more dangerous nowadays, and that nobody could get hurt with horses and wagons. Not true. My mother was ran over by a wagon when she was a little girl, and she almost died. People HAVE died from horses and wagons and trains and ferryboats. Living life is a risk.
It is wrong to deny others the right to travel (which is virtually the same thing as their ability to work.) to protect the prettyness of other people's cars.
This is reasonable, as the state has an obligation to protect citizens from the risks of people endangering the public because they don't know how to drive properly.Scupperer wrote: Many local jurisdictions in my state, Alabama, have had laws similar to this for a while, though I believe most only impound cars of unlicensed drivers.
Even if this is true, it is not a good enough reason to deprive Americans of a fundamental right. I don't care if they announce a gun confiscation policy and tell me it's targeted at illegal aliens. The fact is, it is hitting Americans and it shouldn't be tolerated.Scupperer wrote: It's not targeted at "poor" people, though; it's one of the few tactics local governments have to tackle the problem of illegal immigrants, most of whom aren't even licensed, let alone insured. In fact, the goal is to do exactly what you claim they're doing - prevent them from getting to work, so they will lose their jobs and hopefully leave. And, of course, they won't even say that's the reason.
We now have this tow-away-if-uninsured in UK now, recently introduced.Diogenes wrote: What is your life worth? Can you be compensated for your life with money? Were you to lose your head in a car crash, would it make any difference to you whether the accident was your fault or the other guy's?
My point is, the most valuable thing to any individual is their bodily integrity, yet they willingly risk it by driving on the roads. Every Day, People will risk the lives of their wives and children, yet God forbid that they should have to risk damage to their automobile!
There IS no compensation for your life. Insurance will not save your life, nor your body. *IF* you choose to drive on the public roads, you willingly take this risk.
If you feel so strongly about damage to your vehicle that you would deny other people's right to travel on the public roads, then you should pay for insurance to cover you, and let others do the same.
I have to say that I thought the argument that if you can't afford insurance then you should stay off the road is quite sound.
But, actually, I quite like your argument. I don't agree with it, but I do think the logic has a philosophical merit.
Unfortunately I think it might be rather easily overwhelmed by pointing out that majority of road accidents are costly, but non-injury, accidents. So the argument holds that if the poor person is able to pay for the repair of damage they may cause then they shoudl be able to pay for insurance. This non-injury accident is also probably the reason that the min cover is set so low - it isn't there to cover injury - possibly, even for the reasons you site.
But I do like the thinking!!
Incidentally, little-known in British law, it is permissible to lodge £15,000 with the local treasurer of the Council as a bond and you do not need insurance. Not sure anyone does this (you can probably get more from the interest on £15,000 just to pay for a certificate here) but if you were a 17 year old with a Ferrari it might be a cheaper option!
We have had mandatory auto insurance in Virginia all my life. The present rules are that you cannot get license tags without insurance. You don't have to cover your own vehicle, but you do have to be able to pay in case you hit or hurt someone else. You can essentially just post a bond, an uninsured motorists fee, but the price is so high nobody would (I think it is more like $100,000).
If you have a bad accident record, you may not be able to get or afford insurance. I think that is fair enough, and it is not a partisan issue here.
Bicycles do not require insurance, nor does public transportation.
I'm amused at the Obama health-care plan, which will essentially criminalized failure to have health insurance. This will also be a burden on the poor, especially those employed part-time or sporadically. Depending on how it is implemented, it may be a license to require people to buy insurance at whatever the insurance companies care to charge.
If you have a bad accident record, you may not be able to get or afford insurance. I think that is fair enough, and it is not a partisan issue here.
Bicycles do not require insurance, nor does public transportation.
I'm amused at the Obama health-care plan, which will essentially criminalized failure to have health insurance. This will also be a burden on the poor, especially those employed part-time or sporadically. Depending on how it is implemented, it may be a license to require people to buy insurance at whatever the insurance companies care to charge.
Well, from what the original plan was (not sure how much it is going to deviate), then it was going to cost no more than 40 USD a month for a low income individual. IMHO this is nothing. As I said, I have been rather poor in the past as well, but if you are realistic, you will realize that 40USD are easily saved somewhere in everyday life. Heck, you can easily spend that on a cable TV subscription each month and that is IMHO not as important than healthcare. If you have problems bringing up 40 USD a month, you are in serious trouble. As I said before, if you can not find the money to pay your car insurance, which should be a little more than that (I pay 50 Euros a month here), you will be in trouble.This will also be a burden on the poor, especially those employed part-time or sporadically.
That is a ridiculous argument, sorry. I might just as well ask you, whether, I put a bullet into your head, would you be mad at me?What is your life worth? Can you be compensated for your life with money? Were you to lose your head in a car crash, would it make any difference to you whether the accident was your fault or the other guy's?
But, when you get injured and you have that injury resulting in medical costs (especially important in the US) and or loss of business profit, then this is a relevant question. And yes, I would want to be compensated for that.
Actually, I would, but it is a lot more expensive than the basic coverage that is required. Also, I do have an accident insurance and an insurance that pays me in case I cant do my business due to an illness. They cost rather little actually and are totally worth the money, as I found out about a year ago.If you feel so strongly about damage to your vehicle that you would deny other people's right to travel on the public roads, then you should pay for insurance to cover you, and let others do the same.
As I said, he can most certainly afford that. If he cant then he is not working, has never been working and therefore does not have a problem with not making it to his job anyway. As I said before, the basic car insurance is cheap. If you have problems paying for it, then cut the cable TV. Plus it is about injuries as well, not just the car. I find it quite apalling that you are trying to lower the issue to just the value of a car.This is more reasonable, but still doesn't address the issue of why a poor man should be deprived of an ability to make a living just to protect another man's pretty car?
Well in that case, your system certainly has issues, I can tell you that. Here noone, even those who do not have a job, have such problems. Unless there is something else seriously wrong here, I cant see that to be true. I can see people having problems affording health insurance in the current system, yes, because that is actually very expensive right now, but car insurance? Try pulling someone elses leg.I know people who can barely feed themselves, let alone pay insurance. Should we all be better were they on the public dole?
I wonder how they pay for the gas/oil/inspection/repairs etc, if they cant afford insurance.
Except if one horse cart hit another, you weren't risking becoming an organ donor. You'd have to get out and taunt the horse into kicking you in the head.Diogenes wrote:For thousands of years, the highest King and the poorest peasant could travel up and down the public roads with their fine horses or their broken down oxcarts.
Also, minimum insurance standards, at least in the states I'm familiar with, are primarily concerned with liability coverage, medical expenses, then property damage. So, if you only have minimum coverage, and you're hit by an uninsured driver, you're screwed. Assuming you still have your head on, of course, since that seems to be at issue.
Ride a bike. Walk. Ride a horse, even (which you can do in most places and on most roads, check your local laws). I believe the only right being infringed upon, technically, is the right to drive the car - not the use of the roads.It's a right to use the public ways. It is an old and ancient right that no one can be denied the use of public roads.
Perrin Ehlinger
My life is worth about 2.14 million.Diogenes wrote:
What is your life worth? Can you be compensated for your life with money? Were you to lose your head in a car crash, would it make any difference to you whether the accident was your fault or the other guy's?
I will probably average out making around 150K a year considering my age, career path and prior performance. At a relativly conservative investment of 7% then my life income will likely be around 2.14 Mill in todays dollars.
Now the other argument could be...my life is worth ZERO. Since a human being can not be owned, then the human being has no intrinsic value.
Now, I am christian, and while I am not eager to meet my maker face-to-face, I don't dread being dead. I know a better existence is in store for me. Therefore, being killed is not a tragedy, other than the cost of my lost income....
Therefore, insurance DOES compensate for my life. The act of being alive is worth nothing. Your lost income has a calculatable dollar value and being dead is not actually a tragedy...
I carry life insurance at the 2 Mill level and my wife and lawyer know to extract every dollar out of the person who killed me!
Several years ago while an acquaintance and I were driving to another city we talked about insurance. I happened to know that the fellow had some medical problems he was dealing with but the conversation was about car insurance. After making my argument that no one has the right to deny the road to others, he finally made the statement that "if people can't afford insurance then they should stay off the road! " I Then moved the conversation onto the subject of Health Insurance and asked him about his medical problems. After he finished explaining how difficult the whole thing was, I said quite loudly, "If people can't afford Health insurance then they should just stay off the D@mn Road!" Needless to say, he didn't have a comeback for that.chrismb wrote:We now have this tow-away-if-uninsured in UK now, recently introduced.Diogenes wrote: What is your life worth? Can you be compensated for your life with money? Were you to lose your head in a car crash, would it make any difference to you whether the accident was your fault or the other guy's?
My point is, the most valuable thing to any individual is their bodily integrity, yet they willingly risk it by driving on the roads. Every Day, People will risk the lives of their wives and children, yet God forbid that they should have to risk damage to their automobile!
There IS no compensation for your life. Insurance will not save your life, nor your body. *IF* you choose to drive on the public roads, you willingly take this risk.
If you feel so strongly about damage to your vehicle that you would deny other people's right to travel on the public roads, then you should pay for insurance to cover you, and let others do the same.
I have to say that I thought the argument that if you can't afford insurance then you should stay off the road is quite sound.
chrismb wrote: But, actually, I quite like your argument. I don't agree with it, but I do think the logic has a philosophical merit.
Unfortunately I think it might be rather easily overwhelmed by pointing out that majority of road accidents are costly, but non-injury, accidents. So the argument holds that if the poor person is able to pay for the repair of damage they may cause then they shoudl be able to pay for insurance. This non-injury accident is also probably the reason that the min cover is set so low - it isn't there to cover injury - possibly, even for the reasons you site.
One of my other stock arguments (and one which I used on the previously mentioned conversation) is that at some point there must be a limit on what is considered reasonable coverage. There are people out there driving Half Million dollar cars. Should people be required to carry a half million dollars worth of insurance in case they run into such a person?
Well obviously, someone wishing to drive a very expensive car must at some point accept the risk that his car may be damaged by an individual that cannot possibly pay him, nor can that person's insurance cover it.
The fellow I was driving with agreed, but said *HE* was not driving an expensive car. I told him his truck was about a year old, and probably cost him $15,000.00 . To many people *I* know, this IS an expensive vehicle. Most of them can barely afford a $1,000.00 car. I pointed out that if he took his car to Mexico, he very likely would have to pay for any damages himself, because few could afford to pay for it. He said that he "simply wouldn't go to Mexico" for fear that someone might hit him.
I told him he might as well lie cowering under his sheets everyday, for a deer might run out of the woods and damage his vehicle, and alas, no one would be available to pay for the damage!
My point is, People accept risks to their lives and vehicles every day. They KNOW they can have an accident in which they cannot compel anyone to pay them. The people driving very expensive cars realize this and accept the risk. Why is it unreasonable for everyone else to understand this and accept the risk? Why must we demand that SOMEONE has to pay for a risk we accepted? Especially when it denies poor people the opportunity to earn even a meager existence?
Thank you. Sometimes I come up with some philosophical gems if I do say so myself. As the old saying goes, "Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while."chrismb wrote: But I do like the thinking!!
We have a similar system here. You can post a $20,000.00 bond, and drive without insurance, but the state collects the interest on your money, not you. I've thought about doing it several times, but It offends me to give them the money and let them collect the interest. However, that is no longer as big of a consideration as it once was. I feel like doing it anyway just so i can thumb my nose at those lousy bastards. It would be my way of telling them "I'll not obey your stupid law!"chrismb wrote: Incidentally, little-known in British law, it is permissible to lodge £15,000 with the local treasurer of the Council as a bond and you do not need insurance. Not sure anyone does this (you can probably get more from the interest on £15,000 just to pay for a certificate here) but if you were a 17 year old with a Ferrari it might be a cheaper option!
Well, from what the original plan was (not sure how much it is going to deviate), then it was going to cost no more than 40 USD a month for a low income individual. IMHO this is nothing.
On $1,500 a month perhaps. On $900 a month (which I live on - I don't drive BTW) devastating.
As to animal transportation? Dangerous. Jews have tort law on the subject going back at least 2,000 years. Ox goring did happen. Animals on the loose could trample people. Carts could roll down hill. If you couldn't pay for damages you could become a slave.
I'm with Diogenes.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
This is a complete and utter strawman. Yes you can be compensated for your life with money; it is paid to your beneficiaries or next of kin. But they are not requiring people buy life insurance, they are requiring liability insurance for property and bodily injury losses.What is your life worth? Can you be compensated for your life with money? Were you to lose your head in a car crash, would it make any difference to you whether the accident was your fault or the other guy's?
And those services are both easily valued, and are frequently expensive. So if a poor person were involved in a loss (and they are, every day. I handle them.) how would you expect them to compensate the person whose property they damaged, if they already don't have any money?
Tom Ligon wrote:We have had mandatory auto insurance in Virginia all my life. The present rules are that you cannot get license tags without insurance.
There are doubtless those who's lives began and ended while Slavery was legal, but long acceptance is not the arbiter of rightness.
In Oklahoma, they will not allow you to transfer ownership without insurance. Let me emphasize this. They won't let you register the Title in your name without insurance.
Tom Ligon wrote: You don't have to cover your own vehicle, but you do have to be able to pay in case you hit or hurt someone else. You can essentially just post a bond, an uninsured motorists fee, but the price is so high nobody would (I think it is more like $100,000).
Again, a state compels you to patronize a non governmental third party for the state to grant you permission to use the public roads. Why is this acceptable?
Tom Ligon wrote: If you have a bad accident record, you may not be able to get or afford insurance. I think that is fair enough, and it is not a partisan issue here.
Bicycles do not require insurance, nor does public transportation.
There are no paths for bicycles here, and for the longest time taxicabs were the only form of Public Transportation. (more expensive than a car.) Apart from that, many people live in the rural parts of the State. Suggesting they ride a bicycle into the city to go to work is not only insanely life threatening, it is unreasonable to think very many people can even do it! (I would have to ride 12 miles down a highway with no shoulders to get to and from work.)
You are showing an inkling of what I am getting at.Tom Ligon wrote: I'm amused at the Obama health-care plan, which will essentially criminalized failure to have health insurance. This will also be a burden on the poor, especially those employed part-time or sporadically. Depending on how it is implemented, it may be a license to require people to buy insurance at whatever the insurance companies care to charge.
Well then. It is a risk. The alternative is to put the poor who are unable to work due to transportation limits on the dole. Fair enough.EricF wrote:This is a complete and utter strawman. Yes you can be compensated for your life with money; it is paid to your beneficiaries or next of kin. But they are not requiring people buy life insurance, they are requiring liability insurance for property and bodily injury losses.What is your life worth? Can you be compensated for your life with money? Were you to lose your head in a car crash, would it make any difference to you whether the accident was your fault or the other guy's?
And those services are both easily valued, and are frequently expensive. So if a poor person were involved in a loss (and they are, every day. I handle them.) how would you expect them to compensate the person whose property they damaged, if they already don't have any money?
Of course you can for a small premium insure against accidents with an uninsured motorist.
Drive carefully, keep both hands on the wheel, and your eyes on the road. The life you save may be your own.
And you know insurance gives rise to moral hazard. - Why be so careful? I'm insured.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.