• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

No License or Insurance? Feel free to total someone elses car and only get a ticket in Portland OR.

Apr 20, 2008
10,153
979
126
What the hell happened to cops going for real shit? I see people being busted all the time for fishing without a license, yet we have people able to drive without a license or insurance and total people's cars (at fault no less) with no penalty.

TL : DR Got rear ended at a light, guy going 40+mph in an Explorer into the back of my Honda Fit. He has no insurance. Torn back muscles. Fuck fuck fuck.
 

Six

Senior member
Feb 29, 2000
518
28
91
Sorry you got hurt. Stuff like this pisses me off to no ends. Oregon is probably following California's lead where driving is a god damn human right and enforcing the law on the stupid is considered discrimination against the poor. :(
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
For starters, why let the guy just drive away? He has no license or insurance!
Arresting people and/or impounding wrecked cars costs money the city/county/state/LE agency may never recover. Better to let him go so he can keep working (assuming he is employed) to pay for the hefty citation he probably got, not a penny of which will be used to compensate you for your damages.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,778
4,751
136
Pretty sure shit like that wouldn't fly in Texas. Vehicle would have been towed at the very least - especially because I would wager that the driver is broke as shit and won't be paying you, his ticket, or anything - the very least you can do is take his asset (the car).
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
57,741
6,020
126
hopefully the OP has uninsured motorist coverage as well as collision coverage...or deep pockets to cover the damage and medical bills. (even your health insurance will likely want to be at least partially repaid for any monies they spend as a result of an auto accident, (subrogation) especially if you ever recoup anything from the other guy.)
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,778
4,751
136
hopefully the OP has uninsured motorist coverage as well as collision coverage...or deep pockets to cover the damage and medical bills. (even your health insurance will likely want to be at least partially repaid for any monies they spend as a result of an auto accident, (subrogation) especially if you ever recoup anything from the other guy.)
Which you wont. it's like trying to extract blood from a stone. You will just empty your pockets further.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
165
106
Well crud, that sucks. Sorry to hear about this, Scholz.:(

You mention torn back muscles. How bad is it? Are you going to be okay?

Arresting people and/or impounding wrecked cars costs money the city/county/state/LE agency may never recover. Better to let him go so he can keep working (assuming he is employed) to pay for the hefty citation he probably got, not a penny of which will be used to compensate you for your damages.
It's basically no-fault accident policy taken to its logical conclusion. Instead of trying to force people to be responsible for each other, make them responsible for themselves. It has a certain simplicity to it, but it also makes it hard to hold people accountable and get "justice." I'd say that it makes getting bad drivers off of the road harder as well, but for most people in the US, banning them from driving may as well be sentencing them to unemployment, so I'm not sure any policy would fix that specific problem.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
639
126
The system has found a way to deal with this. You get to pay for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. You get made whole again (subject to how much the insurance company wishes to pay out) and then you get to reimburse the insurance company for their payout to you over the course of many years. If you switch insurance companies you get to compensate that new company for the other companies loss.

Everybody important wins.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ns1

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
42,204
4,708
136
The system has found a way to deal with this. You get to pay for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage. You get made whole again (subject to how much the insurance company wishes to pay out) and then you get to reimburse the insurance company for their payout to you over the course of many years. If you switch insurance companies you get to compensate that new company for the other companies loss.

Everybody important wins.
Bright ray of sunshine just showed up. Happy, OP?

:D

Hope you recover quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z
Feb 25, 2011
16,576
1,337
126
For starters, why let the guy just drive away? He has no license or insurance!
Did he have it, but not have the paperwork on him? That's usually just a "come to the courthouse and prove you have it, then we charge you only a small fine."
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Arresting people and/or impounding wrecked cars costs money the city/county/state/LE agency may never recover. Better to let him go so he can keep working (assuming he is employed) to pay for the hefty citation he probably got, not a penny of which will be used to compensate you for your damages.
In my state your car gets towed if you don't have insurance. Private company does the towing and storing and they charge you an absurd amount of money per day for storage fees. If you don't pay/pick up your vehicle in a certain amount of time the towing company gets to keep it and sell it. I've heard of them cutting people breaks if the person says they just don't have their insurance card and they believe them, you still get a ticket but they don't tow your car. You can even go to court to prove you had insurance at the time and they will drop the ticket. Granted that is for traffic stops, I couldn't imagine they'd allow you to drive away from an accident, especially a relatively serious one, without proof of insurance.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
51,268
3,900
126
For starters, why let the guy just drive away? He has no license or insurance!
I don't buy this at all. There is no way a cop would let him drive away if he doesn't have a license. And I don't mean that he has one just not on him, I mean that he doesn't have one at all.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,525
157
106
Here is what Oregon DMV has to say.
https://www.dmv.org/or-oregon/car-insurance.php

OR Insurance Violations
Driving without insurance in Oregon can be costly. If you're found to be operating a vehicle without the required minimum car insurance, you face the following penalties:

If you are involved in an accident while uninsured, you'll face license suspension for 1 year. Once you've reinstated your license, you'll be required to file an SR-22 for 3 years (see below).

SR-22 Proof of Responsibility
If you've been driving without insurance and you're found to be guilty of doing so by a judge, you can be ordered to file an SR-22 with the DMV for 3 years.

An SR-22 acts as proof of financial responsibility, meaning a guarantee that you'll hold at least the minimum required car insurance for a full 3 years.

If you do not file an SR-22 when ordered, your license will be suspended.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,153
979
126
Here is what Oregon DMV has to say.
https://www.dmv.org/or-oregon/car-insurance.php

OR Insurance Violations
Driving without insurance in Oregon can be costly. If you're found to be operating a vehicle without the required minimum car insurance, you face the following penalties:

If you are involved in an accident while uninsured, you'll face license suspension for 1 year. Once you've reinstated your license, you'll be required to file an SR-22 for 3 years (see below).

SR-22 Proof of Responsibility
If you've been driving without insurance and you're found to be guilty of doing so by a judge, you can be ordered to file an SR-22 with the DMV for 3 years.

An SR-22 acts as proof of financial responsibility, meaning a guarantee that you'll hold at least the minimum required car insurance for a full 3 years.

If you do not file an SR-22 when ordered, your license will be suspended.
This is Portland Police we're talking about here. I worked many years in retail loss control and investigations. If it was someones first time being caught for non-violent felony theft they sometimes would cite and release.

For a felony. Let that sink in.
 
Apr 20, 2008
10,153
979
126
hopefully the OP has uninsured motorist coverage as well as collision coverage...or deep pockets to cover the damage and medical bills. (even your health insurance will likely want to be at least partially repaid for any monies they spend as a result of an auto accident, (subrogation) especially if you ever recoup anything from the other guy.)
I do have uninsured coverage and collision. I have no idea how to recoup. Apparently the guy lives out of that vehicle.

Did he have it, but not have the paperwork on him? That's usually just a "come to the courthouse and prove you have it, then we charge you only a small fine."
No, I have a photo of his "Oregon Identification Card" which is not a license. Officer confirmed he had no license, also that his license was neither suspended or revoked.

I don't buy this at all. There is no way a cop would let him drive away if he doesn't have a license. And I don't mean that he has one just not on him, I mean that he doesn't have one at all.
Read above. No license. Only an Oregon State ID card which is not valid for driving.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
61,093
9,171
126
www.uovalor.com
IMO insurance should be optional, but if you do cause someone damage then you should simply be liable to pay for the damages out of pocket. Simple. Same with other crimes that cause damage, the criminal should be liable to pay everything. Ex: Some thief stole a jeep in my city years back and rammed through a bunch of people's properties and caused lot of damage to fences, cars etc. The ownners were forced to go through their own insurance for damages. If they didn't have insurance (ex: a project car sitting in the driveway) then they were on the hook. That's pure BS. The thief should have to pay for every single damage he caused.

The excuse they use is "well they don't have money". Yeah, but if I don't have money to pay my taxes, or a fine, or anything really, I still have to pay it and somehow come up with the money. Why are criminals given more slack when it comes to that?
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,363
409
126
IMO insurance should be optional, but if you do cause someone damage then you should simply be liable to pay for the damages out of pocket. Simple. Same with other crimes that cause damage, the criminal should be liable to pay everything.
Well, this seems to imply that anyone at fault in an automobile accident is a criminal. While driving under the influence is and should be considered criminal, I hesitate to classify a driver who makes an unfortunate, unintentional, non-negligent error that results in an accident as a criminal. (For the record, I have been rear-ended at a red light three times myself and never felt I was confronting a criminal afterwards.)

Recognizing that a serious accident can result in damages of six or seven figures, I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of drivers can not guarantee to pay damages "out of pocket". Those drivers who can are usually entitled to post some sort of surety bond in lieu of carrying insurance. It makes sense (at least to me) that those drivers who cannot should be required to carry at least a minimal amount of insurance to at least partially cover any damages they might cause (the insurance minimums are actually woefully inadequate). Whether it is fair or not, being liable to pay and being able to pay can be two very different things; for the ones damaged, the latter is much more important than the former IMHO.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY