Posted on 05/19/2015 6:18:09 AM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder
That’s why one focus of the Click It or Ticket campaign is nighttime enforcement. Participating law enforcement agencies will be taking a no-excuses approach to seat belt law enforcement, writing citations day and night.
In California, the minimum penalty for a seat belt violation is $161.
Fair warning.
I wish to point out that this is impossible. That by choosing to drive on a road, you are accepting the risk that you could be maimed or killed. There is no such thing as making someone "whole" who is maimed or killed. It is a false concept.
I believe motor law should work like all other law. If you are culpable, you should pay to the extent you are culpable if you are able.
If a man cuts down a tree and it falls on his neighbor, he should have to pay for damages/injuries. The state should not have a law requiring him to have insurance for the possibility he might accidentally injure someone else. This is a form of prior restraint, i.e. holding someone accountable for an offense not yet committed.
If on the other hand, you can show you have the financial means to do so “without” insurance...then no, you should not be forced to purchase insurance.
Why should driving laws use a different set of rules than ordinary civil law? What you suggest would be a step in the right direction, but what would be most appropriate is if the state stayed within their mandate and butted out of any involvement with insurance.
It is not the business of the state to compel patronage to private interests. At the very least, if the state is going to compel insurance, the State should be the one to supply and administrate it. I personally think there should be a wall between the power of the state and the interests of private entities.
If Insurance is a state interest, the state should implement it and collect the money and pay the claims.
I don't believe it is a legitimate state interest, and I don't believe the state should act as an enforcing agent for the profit of private interests.
Do you do that now? I would suggest you not do that. You should pay your own bills. If someone injures you, you should have a civil claim against them.
I have no argument with this. I believe people are entitled to place themselves at risk, but they have no right to place someone else at risk.
I do not believe liability insurance should be mandatory. It prevents people who cannot afford it from exercising their rights to use the public ways. I believe the poor should be allowed to exercise their rights too.
Another poster ragged on about the gubmit forcing us to have insurance. They don’t really mandate you have liability insurance, just that you get no car tag without it, which makes good common sense.
That is a back door mandate. It's a not so clever trick to do exactly the same thing. It is linking the duties of the state with the Interests of private entities.
The gubmit does not mandate we have Comp/Collision insurance, the loan company says “no insurance covering our investment, no loan”, which again makes good common sense.
I have no issue with private contracts between parties. If Insurance is the condition of a loan, then each party may agree to the terms.
I take issue with the state enforcing the interests of private parties at the expense of the rights of the poor.
You make very good points. Can’t argue most of what you say.
Still, in a civil society, if you take the responsibility to drive on the road with other citizens, you must be able to compensate another individual if you are negligent or simply cause an accident.
Take illegal aliens for example. Insurance rates in Texas are sky high in part because of uninsured/under insured illegal aliens. Heck, illegals will get out and abandon the vehicle by running away from an accident knowing full well they stand a good chance of never having to face the financial and or legal responsibility of an accident.
That my friend is just plain wrong.
“I do not believe liability insurance should be mandatory. It prevents people who cannot afford it from exercising their rights to use the public ways. I believe the poor should be allowed to exercise their rights too.”
For real?
Why did I have that gut feeling that trying to reason with DL was a never ending futile exercise, that clearly continues?
So you are Ok if Joe Blow runs into you and has no liability insurance nor any assets to pay for YOUR damage? Or are you just OK if Joe Blow runs into someone else as long as it doesn’t cost you?
You think that the poor have a RIGHT to drive even if they are financially unable to protect the public from their actions, reckless or accidental? There is no RIGHT for anyone to drive a car.
You can only compensate them if their injuries are not too severe. There is only a small window of financial liability which is practical. In practice, few people have insurance policies capable of paying serious medical bills. Most insurance policies simply serve to repair or replace their vehicles, and can pay for medical care in the case of relatively minor accidents.
Like it or not, driving is an uncompensated risk. The loss of your hand or your leg cannot be compensated. It just can't. Rational people ought to recognize that they are taking their chances when they get on the road. Indeed, insurance gives people a false sense of security.
Take illegal aliens for example. Insurance rates in Texas are sky high in part because of uninsured/under insured illegal aliens. Heck, illegals will get out and abandon the vehicle by running away from an accident knowing full well they stand a good chance of never having to face the financial and or legal responsibility of an accident.
The root of that problem is the fact that they are here and exercising freedoms to which they are not entitled. Treating one of the symptoms (that they are uninsured) is impossible, (to people breaking one law, what is another?) and wouldn't address the larger problem anyway.
That my friend is just plain wrong.
Yes, it is wrong, and the bill needs to be sent to the Amnesty people in Washington D.C., and especially those in the past that enabled this breach of our laws.
Whether I wear my seatbelt or not is a matter between me and my insurer, not the State.
I get distracted driving laws, but the lost liberty vs benefit to the society ratio for click-it laws is in the lower double digits to the right of the decimal point.
In a word, they are bull excrement, and another way to criminalize normal people.
Yup. You cops get out there and raise as much revenue as you can from this. Know though, that though it is a safe and profitable workday, that you are, once again, proving how worthless you are for actually protecting the public. We see what you actually care about investing time in. If you act like highwaymen, you’ll be treated like one.
I am as okay as I would be if he did. His insurance won't pay for my lost life, or lost arm. I recognize that driving is a risk, and I chose to take that risk. I would suggest to the people that would deny others freedom, that if the risk is too great for you, don't take it, or perhaps drive around in a Nerf Mobile.
Don't use the force of law to infringe the freedom of others just to give yourself a false sense of security, and it is indeed false. Minimal insurance won't pay for much beyond replacing or repairing a vehicle. For high end vehicles, it won't even pay for that.
Or are you just OK if Joe Blow runs into someone else as long as it doesn’t cost you?
Is the cost of it going to matter if someone is ran into and killed? You can't pay back death. You can't pay back an eye. Bill Gates can't even pay that bill.
You think that the poor have a RIGHT to drive even if they are financially unable to protect the public from their actions, reckless or accidental?
If they are criminally liable, they should be held to account by criminal law. If it is an accident, how are you going to "protect" the public from something accidental? The Ability to pay won't make the accident less likely. In fact, Insurance appears to increase chances of accidents because it encourages a more cavalier attitude.
In the meantime, opportunities are lost to the poor because they are denied the exercise of a right so fundamental it goes back to Roman times.
Your anti-cop vitriol is becoming quite humorous.
.
Or move to New Hampshire...
Jackboot Revenue collectors in action.
LOL...that’s where I am! :-) But I work in the Mouth of the Rat.
I googled my old address to look at the old neighborhood.
It sure has changed since 1980 when I left..............
I wear them, not because of freedom or laws, but because of my loved ones............
...and because my car warning will ding for ever and the red lamp on the dash.................
Wear them for any other reason other than the law requires you to. If I drive a couple of blocks to drop off stuff at the elementary school, I might not wear it.
Again, my choice.
If you are keeping score, you can kill a child in the womb, but you can’t drive without a seatbelt.
Makes perfect sense to me.
I hear you.
It has changed from 1999 when I came here.
I lived there during the Cocaine Wars.................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.