the uninsured motorist reality

[_ajax18]

Well I guess if religion is all you have to motivate people to buy car insurance, it should come as no surprise that the uninsured motorist rate is sky high given that most are nonbelievers.

[_Chap]

...Here I lived in fear of going to jail for all this time. Now I'm finding out that the ticket is less than buying the insurance and even that you really don't have to pay. Could you buy uninsured motorist but opt out of buying liability insurance and just pay the ticket on the slim chance you get caught?

Yes, but a religious and moral person like you would never want to break the law and put other people at risk of catastrophic loss. Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you, as the Big White Boss Man said ... and remember, he's watching to see if you're naughty or nice.

Well I guess if religion is all you have to motivate people to buy car insurance, it should come as no surprise that the uninsured motorist rate is sky high given that most are nonbelievers.

Oh, I was talking about YOU, since you seemed to be saying that it was only the fear of jail that had persuaded you to buy insurance up to now. (I've expanded my original quote from your post to include that bit.)

I don't have any religious belief, but I buy car insurance partly because of the legal penalty for not doing so, but also because I have learned by experience that it is hard to be happy if you deliberately live in a way that treats other human beings as if they didn't matter at all.

[_Res Ipsa]

When people are short on funds, auto insurance is one of the first thing to go. You can insure against that risk by buying UM/UIM.

Yeah, I can see why it's the first thing to go. Here I lived in fear of going to jail for all this time. Now I'm finding out that the ticket is less than buying the insurance and even that you really don't have to pay. Could you buy uninsured motorist but opt out of buying liability insurance and just pay the ticket on the slim chance you get caught?

I don’t think it would be legal to write such a policy in WV, but I’d check with an agent or broker. There are consequences besides the fines, including suspension of licenses and registration. And jail. If you are at fault for an accident and a judgment is entered against you, you don’t get your license and registration back until you’ve paid the amount of the required limits — and the obligation survives bankruptcy.

[_EAllusion]

Well that's interesting. If there's no jail time and if not paying a ticket doesn't usually result in being hauled into jail, then why would anyone with bad credit purchase liability auto insurance?

They also can impound your car. It wouldn't be surprising if that outcome happens to "welfare queens" more often.

To answer the other part of your question, there are different levels of being in a debt spiral; it's possible to get out of some holes of bad credit easier than others. Owing 3k of bad credit card debt waiting to be written off is different than having a 150k civil judgment hanging against you in perpetuity.

So you'd have to get caught at least three times driving without insurance before the tickets cost more than the annual premium in New Orleans?

That appears to be the case.

[_Gunnar]

Another interesting question raised here is: If, as ACA opponents have maintained, it is somehow unconstitutional to penalize those declining to buy medical insurance by levying a mandated fee upon them, why is it not unconstitutional to penalize people for not insuring their cars? In both cases, the uninsured wind up costing both the government and the prudently insured more money than if everyone prudently bought insurance.

There is a distinction. There is no constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle. So the state requiring mandatory auto insurance for vehicle owners has no constitutional implications at all. Just don’t drive. With mandatory health insurance, the only way to avoid the premium is not to live.

When people are short on funds, auto insurance is one of the first thing to go. You can insure against that risk by buying UM/UIM.

Thanks! That makes sense. I should have realized that, considering there is neither a constitutional right nor obligation to own or operate a motor vehicle. I still think it does make sense, though, to require motorists to have at least liability insurance or otherwise demonstrate having some fund set aside to cover claims against them due their own negligence.

What do you think of the idea of no-fault auto insurance, where drivers are compensated for damages to themselves or their own vehicle only by their own insurance company, regardless of which driver was at fault?

[_ajax18]

I don’t think it would be legal to write such a policy in West Virginia, but I’d check with an agent or broker. There are consequences besides the fines, including suspension of licenses and registration. And jail. If you are at fault for an accident and a judgment is entered against you, you don’t get your license and registration back until you’ve paid the amount of the required limits — and the obligation survives bankruptcy.

Well this lady who ran the red light while texting and permanently disabled this man was at fault in the accident. How did she walk away with nothing but a ticket for running the red light? Her license wasn't suspended.

[_ajax18]

They also can impound your car. It wouldn't be surprising if that outcome happens to "welfare queens" more often.

It wouldn't be surprising if that outcome happens to "welfare queens" more often.

I think you're right. It sure seemed that way in Memphis. If they could put a hold on the car at the impound lot eventually they could rack up enough storage fee that the fee was more then the value of the car. But if the car was a complete clunker the police didn't seem to focus on that as much because they weren't making money seizing that car.

That's what I was asking about impounding. You keep saying "can,". When do they impound the car and when does the offender get to keep the car? In this case the car did not belong to the lady who ran the red light. It was her mother's car and her mother gave her permission to use it. My patient seemed to indicate that this fact helped allow the lady who ran the red light get away with nothing more than a ticket.

[_Some Schmo]

I can see how a complete ignoramus would use the term "welfare queen" in a serious way.

When I was in my early 20's, before I returned to college, I lost my low wage job and briefly had to use public assistance. Anyone who's used this system should be well aware, it fu-cking sucks. You have barely any money and all the time in the world to do things you can't afford to do. I couldn't wait to get another job. I don't know about anyone else, but when I was on welfare for just over a month, I was never more motivated to find work. It's pure fantasy to believe most people on welfare like their life situation.

If anyone is living like a queen on welfare, they are certainly committing fraud. Only an idiot (or a goddamn liar) thinks living in luxury on welfare is a common thing.

[_ajax18]

It's pure fantasy to believe most people on welfare like their life situation.

You're not working for minimum wage though. You're a very skilled laborer that demands a good compensation package. Say you had significant child support due for 10 kids from three different women, lots of old debts that had ballooned from past creditors. Working wouldn't really give you much more income. And as you mentioned, you'd have all the time you ever wanted. There's a lot of things people would prefer to do with their time and they don't all cost a lot of money.

So yeah, welfare isn't a good situation, but it was far better than working. And in the case of this lady, it did insulate her from civil penalties that most working class people would be subject to for doing things like this. As long as no criminal penalty is there, there simply are no consequences, at least not in this life.

[_EAllusion]

It was her mother's car and her mother gave her permission to use it. My patient seemed to indicate that this fact helped allow the lady who ran the red light get away with nothing more than a ticket.

You know an awful lot about this specific situation from a chance encounter conversation. Normally, I would expect running a red light leading to a serious car accident to cause a license suspension, but I don't know the particulars of LA law on this. If it didn't or doesn't, that sounds like the law there goes light on first time offenses, though you should consider the possibility that your friend isn't a reliable narrator of what happened.

Regarding car impoundment, it wouldn't surprise me if the law allowed for a vehicle to be seized even if the driver wasn't the owner if the owner does not claim it was stolen. I don't know, though. Either way, it appears the consequences aren't what you'd hope they'd be.

At the end of the day, the underlying issue is your friend had something unlucky happen to him. The person responsible for the accident lacked the means to pay for the long-term economic damages, and no lawsuit is going to squeeze blood from a stone.

Maybe you can look at this situation and have more sympathy for other people who had something unlucky happen to them resulting in personal economic struggle.