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

[Ferzerp]

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.

As someone who drives a car that would be beyond someone living paycheck to paycheck to pay to repair, no, it shouldn’t be. That’s a recipe for financial ruin to most folks if at fault of an accident, and a having to deal with a lawsuit for the not at fault party.

Some places allow for a surety bond instead of insurance, but that’s only really an option for the wealthy since you have to be able to cover damages yourself.

 

[JulesMaximus]

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.

It’s a non violent crime. They have to prioritize just like any other profession.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

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?

Because here in the states they take you to jail typically (IIRC) if you aren't able to pay. What does Canada do? Send a tax collector to their house randomly and search their boots for gold to collect? That is why we have insurance - the minimum is simply to pay for the other person's vehicle if YOU are liable.

If these people receive income, it's under the table and hidden from the US Government. Now if we were to adopt something such as a digital currency that can always be traced in some way.... then we might have possibilities. Which actually now that I think about it that is an amazing idea. Why not get rid of cash? I fucking hate cash. If you want to do a transaction you have to do it through digital means.... and there is always a way (Paypal, for example).

Think about it - all the money it costs to... well... print valid money - fight counterfeits, etc... could easily make up for transaction fees of using a debit card. At the same time, we could increase tax income a million times over by combating all the under the table income in the country...

Sorry, dove off the deep end into another topic there.

 

[dphantom]

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.

Wow. well one county over from where we live the DA has decided he will not prosecute "lesser" crimes. Just armed robbery, homicide, domestic abuse, anything that endangers public. For the rest, they will ignore.

 

[ronbo613]

Call Friends of Portland Motorists Against Uninsured Drivers(FOPMAUD)

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Wow. well one county over from where we live the DA has decided he will not prosecute "lesser" crimes. Just armed robbery, homicide, domestic abuse, anything that endangers public. For the rest, they will ignore.

So why have rules with no punishment?

That's like saying "Don't cheat on this test, but if you get caught we won't do anything".

 

[Ferzerp]

Because here in the states they take you to jail typically (IIRC) if you aren't able to pay. What does Canada do? Send a tax collector to their house randomly and search their boots for gold to collect? That is why we have insurance - the minimum is simply to pay for the other person's vehicle if YOU are liable.

The US has no debtors prison. You’re just making things up.

 

[NoTine42]

So why have rules with no punishment?

That's like saying "Don't cheat on this test, but if you get caught we won't do anything".

Exactly.
Why waste money on Congresses in 50 states + federal?
Their job is to write new laws
But they won’t get enforced.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The US has no debtors prison. You’re just making things up.

Not paying a debt to someone else and a debt (or rather, citation/fine) to the state/city are 2 very different things. And I put IIRC for that exact reason, I'm not 100% sure.

 

[Darwin333]

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?

Well for the guy that stole the jeep I imagine that he will be in jail for quite a while so unless he has assets, which is rather doubtful since he is stealing a car, he will be literally deprived of the ability to pay anything by the state. Besides, you can only garnish so much of a persons check before they just start working for cash. So even if they do have some sort of job it's going to be pretty low paying considering they are a felon so 25% of their check, after taxes, will take a long ass time to make them whole. I imagine that legally insurance companies have the ability to sue uninsured motorists to recoup their loses but it costs them more in legal costs than they will ever collect.

 

[Darwin333]

The US has no debtors prison. You’re just making things up.

Try not paying court fines or your taxes and see what happens.

 

[Ferzerp]

A court fine isn’t a debt. A judgment is. Some people do go to prison over fines, yes. In theory it is only supposed to happen if you refuse to pay as opposed to can’t pay, but it gets mucked up some yes. Regardless though, that’s specifically not a debt relationship which “debtors prison” specifically implies.

There is no jail time for being unable to pay your taxes. There is jail time for evading taxes. That is, not filing, or falsely filing. If you file accurately and just cannot pay, you’re going to have a bad time, but that bad time doesn’t involve incarceration.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Well for the guy that stole the jeep I imagine that he will be in jail for quite a while so unless he has assets, which is rather doubtful since he is stealing a car, he will be literally deprived of the ability to pay anything by the state. Besides, you can only garnish so much of a persons check before they just start working for cash. So even if they do have some sort of job it's going to be pretty low paying considering they are a felon so 25% of their check, after taxes, will take a long ass time to make them whole. I imagine that legally insurance companies have the ability to sue uninsured motorists to recoup their loses but it costs them more in legal costs than they will ever collect.

That's the problem, they just get a tap on the wrist and sent on their way. But if you or me failed to pay our taxes or bills they would be coming to get all of our stuff pretty quick and we would possibly fail jail time if we still can't pay after they took everything.

If they can't come up with the money then they should be forced to. Their crimes shoudl not go on other people's insurance. If they are uninsured or are stealing a car like my example, whatever has to be done for them to come up with the money should be forced. Getting a job, etc. Basically there should be labour jails for those types of people.

Of course if you get insurance then that would not be an issue. But that's all I'm saying, if someone has no insurance they should still be forced to pay for all damages or come up with a way to pay.

 

[BoomerD]

That's the problem, they just get a tap on the wrist and sent on their way. But if you or me failed to pay our taxes or bills they would be coming to get all of our stuff pretty quick and we would possibly fail jail time if we still can't pay after they took everything.

If they can't come up with the money then they should be forced to. Their crimes shoudl not go on other people's insurance. If they are uninsured or are stealing a car like my example, whatever has to be done for them to come up with the money should be forced. Getting a job, etc. Basically there should be labour jails for those types of people.

Of course if you get insurance then that would not be an issue. But that's all I'm saying, if someone has no insurance they should still be forced to pay for all damages or come up with a way to pay.

In a "perfect world," (or more perfect) sure...hold the uninsured driver responsible for repaying the damages...but in reality, it ain't gonna happen. If a person doesn't have a steady job...or barely gets by, how can you get money from them? You can't garnish the wages of the person who is a job hopper...by the time the paperwork catches up with them, they're on a different job. And the guy who's barely eking out a living...garnishing his (or her) wages might be the thing that causes them to crash economically...and if they lose their house/apartment...they will probably not be able to keep their job......

Some states require proof of insurance to register your car. Unfortunately, many people sign up for insurance to get the registration...then drop it... Many states get notified by the insurance company when insurance lapses or gets cancelled...and you get a letter of intent to suspend the registration and/or driver's license...but lots of folks are willing to take the chance of driving with a suspended registration and/or driver's license.

it's not like the DMV or cops can just throw a switch and disable a car until the driver gets valid insurance...

 

[boomerang]

If some people are not required to follow the rules, why should I have to?

 

[tynopik]

If some people are not required to follow the rules, why should I have to?

because you have resources that you don't want to lose, so they have leverage over you

if you don't have anything, you can do whatever you want because you have nothing to lose

 

[Darwin333]

That's the problem, they just get a tap on the wrist and sent on their way. But if you or me failed to pay our taxes or bills they would be coming to get all of our stuff pretty quick and we would possibly fail jail time if we still can't pay after they took everything.

If they can't come up with the money then they should be forced to. Their crimes shoudl not go on other people's insurance. If they are uninsured or are stealing a car like my example, whatever has to be done for them to come up with the money should be forced. Getting a job, etc. Basically there should be labour jails for those types of people.

Of course if you get insurance then that would not be an issue. But that's all I'm saying, if someone has no insurance they should still be forced to pay for all damages or come up with a way to pay.

We made debtors prisons illegal over 200 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I definitely see your point but I'm not keen on making them legal again. Without the threat of jail it's virtually impossible to force someone to work. Besides, most of the people that would be in these situations are already living check to check. The courts aren't going to make a person and their family/kids homeless in order to pay for your car and it's counterproductive as that will almost surely cause them to lose their job.

 

[Darwin333]

If some people are not required to follow the rules, why should I have to?

I assume because you can afford to pay if someone wins a lawsuit against you and the courts would love to take your money from the fines/fees.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

In a "perfect world," (or more perfect) sure...hold the uninsured driver responsible for repaying the damages...but in reality, it ain't gonna happen. If a person doesn't have a steady job...or barely gets by, how can you get money from them? You can't garnish the wages of the person who is a job hopper...by the time the paperwork catches up with them, they're on a different job. And the guy who's barely eking out a living...garnishing his (or her) wages might be the thing that causes them to crash economically...and if they lose their house/apartment...they will probably not be able to keep their job......

Some states require proof of insurance to register your car. Unfortunately, many people sign up for insurance to get the registration...then drop it... Many states get notified by the insurance company when insurance lapses or gets cancelled...and you get a letter of intent to suspend the registration and/or driver's license...but lots of folks are willing to take the chance of driving with a suspended registration and/or driver's license.

it's not like the DMV or cops can just throw a switch and disable a car until the driver gets valid insurance...

The dealerships can if the car isn't paid off... why not the DMV?

Though even I don't trust government to implement such a system and use it wisely/correctly.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

If some people are not required to follow the rules, why should I have to?

Not just that - you don't just have to follow the rules... You have to pay EXTRA on your insurance, just to account for the chance that one of those fuck-heads that DONT obey the rules might hit you and owe you money... knowing obviously they won't pay you. Thus you need to pay EXTRA insurance for uninsured motorists that hit you. JOY!

Not only do we have to do our parts as civilized humans that aren't lazy pieces of shit - but you have to pick up the pieces for those that are lazy shitheads.

 

[Ferzerp]

Those aren't dealerships any more than loan stores are banks/credit unions. Those are shady businesses built to prey on the financially unstable. You realize this right? That practice only exists in those places. Regular car dealers sell a car and are out of it. Either the customer pays, or their creditor pays. Regular dealers' only involvement in financing is working as a broker for a loan if the customer doesn't pay outright, or provide their own. So no, the dealerships can't. Predatory lending institutions that happen to use cars in their schemes do.

Also, I can only assume you're just trolling suggesting hard enforced governmental authorization for any vehicle use.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Those aren't dealerships any more than loan stores are banks/credit unions. Those are shady businesses built to prey on the financially unstable. You realize this right? That practice only exists in those places. Regular car dealers sell a car and are out of it. Either the customer pays, or their creditor pays. Regular dealers' only involvement in financing is working as a broker for a loan if the customer doesn't pay outright, or provide their own. So no, the dealerships can't. Predatory lending institutions that happen to use cars in their schemes do.

Also, I can only assume you're just trolling suggesting hard enforced governmental authorization for any vehicle use.

I made it clear at the end of my post that I don't trust the government to be able to properly, accurately, and wisely put together such a system and use it for its intended purpose.

I'm open to the concept itself though - otherwise what is your answer to the issue at hand (uninsured motorists that don't obey laws, don't pay, and simply break the rules with no repercussions)? What do you think happens to a society that simply "lets things go"? (Hint: It never gets better, only worse).

 

[dphantom]

So why have rules with no punishment?

That's like saying "Don't cheat on this test, but if you get caught we won't do anything".

Exactly. Why the DA won't prosecute some crimes is beyond me. The DA says not enough staff so minor crimes will be dropped. So if you get arrested for shoplifting, you will be released as an example.