Some debates over bad ideas never seem to die.
A Texas House Insurance Committee meeting Monday will feature a bill (HB 178) which would require impoundment of uninsured vehicles involved in accidents.
This bill isn't as problematic as its near cousins filed in recent sessions to impound any uninsured car, but it's a step in that direction.
The problem comes because SOOO many Texas drivers can't afford insurance. The number used to be one in four drivers were uninsured. After a decade of intense efforts to drive that ratio down, it's now one in seven.
But that's still a whopping 2.5 million people driving without insurance. Moreover, in a real sense the economy depends on them doing so to get to work, to shop, to get their kids to school. The state has zero interest in all that activity grinding to a halt.
As it does with immigration and so many other situations, Texas keeps unreasonable laws on the books then pretends to enforce them in narrow circumstances while ignoring that the fundamental premise underlying their actions is not tenable. We can't impound every car without insurance, and threatening to do so will likely boost the number of hit and run accidents, because people will fear automatically losing their cars.
Plus, like asset forfeiture, this will inevitably be abused by law enforcement agencies which will quickly come to see auctioning uninsured cars as a new, lucrative revenue stream. Giving government bureaucracies a profit motive to take people's stuff is a bad idea, however good the intentions are behind it. (The impounding agency gets to auction the car and keep the money if the driver cannot get insurance and reclaim the vehicle within 60 days.
Besides, if the uninsured driver has caused injury or property damage, taking away their vehicle means they can't get to their job every day to earn money. That's the best way I can think of to ensure they'll never be able to pay those debts.
This is an example where what sounds like a logical response may end up creating way more problems than it solves.
Grits considers such proposals to suffer from a lack of perspective and creative thinking. In the big picture, just like requiring private citizens to purchase health insurance under Obamacare couldn't possibly cover the entire market, neither can the government requirement that private citizens buy auto insurance. It's an identical situation: If you think Obamacare can't work, the same critique applies to car insurance.
If government thinks people need car insurance, Grits has long maintained that having drivers pay at the pump through gasoline taxes would be the best solution. Make it universal and something you can't avoid paying for if you drive. Then these debates can properly move on to blaming the government for high taxes and often-unnecessary mandates instead of blaming drivers/taxpayers for being unable to bear the burdens government has placed on them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
25 comments:
New Hampshire has no mandatory insurance requirements. Those who cause damage and don’t pay for it can be required to maintain insurance with an SR-22 filing, but it’s not required of others.
Insurance is much cheaper here (just half what I paid in Texas), so we don’t have an uninsured driver problem.
@KBCraig, Live free or die, baby! :)
"Texas keeps unreasonable laws on the books then pretends to enforce them in narrow circumstances while ignoring that the fundamental premise underlying their actions is not tenable." Absolutely 100% correct and ANOTHER crack on indigent folks. Now those with a suspended license because these ridiculous and unconstitutional surcharges who can't get insurance are really going to be hurt when the vehicle they are sneaking around in - trying to get out of that trap and find a job - are auctioned off when impounded because the impounding company CHARGES DAILY and there's no way they could afford that charge either. Take a look at *General Labor* want ads on Indeed.com or Craigslist. Almost all, if not all require a valid drivers license and reliable transportation. I mean, when will the people get it and start voting these people out of office? The *War on the Poor* continues... You have this Republican's support...
Montgomery County Pct. 4 Constable Rowdy Hayden has been towing and impounding uninsured vehicles for a decade and using the auction proceeds for office parties and toys like machine guns. The few hundred dollars his office gets pales when compared to the thousands of dollars in SNAP benefits those who lose their jobs get. Idiot republicans, they simply cannot see the forest because of the trees.
This state gets more clueless by the day. Texas is now trying to retrieve billions in overdue child support by not allowing deadbeats to renew their licenses or registrations. But if you have relatives in a place like Juarez or other border town you have only to give your photo to a friend that will take it to a nearby Mexican town and bring you back a new license under another name, registration too, insurance and tags, no problem. Then when the evil gringo cop runs you through his onboard computer the screen comes back empty-----no mention of Pablo or Hector owing tens of thousands of overdue child support. Hmmm, I wonder how many Texans have vehicle insurance from the land of the mango? Just as with drug trafficking the technology controls everybody EXCEPT the people it should be identifying. When I asked one young man about all this he answered "Border Patrol hasn't taught Fido the drug dog how to sit and stare at license plates yet."
The issue of uninsured motorists comes up often, but there are many competing interests (including rights of a lienholder). Allowing impoundment and sale at auction has never been considered to my knowledge. I believe a bill has been or will be introduced to try to rein in the obvious inequities in the civil forfeiture laws, which would be totally contrary to this proposed bill. We need less forfeitures of property, not more.
In the 84th legislative session, The Senate Committee on Transportation studied and made an interim report on several issues, including how better to protect drivers from uninsured motorists. See: http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/scanned/interim/83/T685.pdf The Committee held hearings and evidently heard testimony (although it is archived) and compared the various ways other states are trying to reduce the number of uninsured drivers, including (1) no-fault systems (11 states; all still allow some suits for serious injury); (2) no-pay, no-play (11 states; various combinations of limitations on suits by uninsured motorists and damages recoverable by them, as well as penalties assessed for failing to maintain liability coverage; and (3) low-cost auto insurance program with reduced limits (adopted by some states to encourage purchase by those unable to afford full liability protection.
The Commmittee suggested a low-cost auto insurance program could be effective in reducing the uninsured motorist rate when used in combination with other programs. A statutory change would be required to create a low-cost auto program offering liability limits below the current required limits.
The Legislative Budget Board, Texas State Government Effectiveness and Efficiency Report had submitted to the 83rd Texas Legislature a recommendation to establish a Low Income Automobile Insurance Program. HB 1111 and SB 491 were filed during that session in an attempt to establish the program. I have not had time to study those bills or how far they got. The Committee had no suggestion or recommendation to reconsider those bills.
While there is a fine for failing to have insurance while operating a vehicle, there is no penalty or incentive to force an individual to purchase an insurance policy. Under the "TexasSure" program, the Texas Department of Insurance sends out notices weekly to uninsured motorists, but there is no enforcement authority connected to the notices. The Committee's only suggestion was to allow the DPS to send out the letters,as a letter from the state policing agency might encourage more motorists to comply with the law.
Anyone who has had the experience of recovering an auto from the "pound" will know it is a dreadful experience.
There are only certain hours you can do this and it is best to remain until the "pound" opens or you may wait another 12 hours. The people who "work" there are under the unique impression that anyone who has to retrieve an auto from the "pound" must be a guilty criminal and are treated like dirt. The majority of individuals in line were clean cut, young, working and had committed the awful offense of "not having their insurance card with them" (no accident involved). Oh, yes, they had insurance but the person who gave them a ticket would not allow or listen to a confirmation by phone - PERHAPS NOW IT COULD BE TEXTED AND A COPY SHOWN TO THE OFFICER.Personally, when I asked about retrieving a relative's car, I was told to go back to another office miles away. The pound is always away from normal life - it is in the country miles away. I learned the forms were right there at the pound office. They just "forgot" that. My husband who has since died was diabetic and was helping me. It was a brutal summer day. We had to drive miles for no reason except they were inconsiderate and did not advise us appropriately. Additionally, the City had imposed a "no sugar drink" on the concession machines, so
my diabetic husband's health was endangered. I heard the employees snap at auto owners. There was a fee charged for "finding" the car which I had located in a parking lot by telephone. The $50 fee was still assessed although the pound had nothing to do with finding the car. The employees who moved the car shall we say did not treat it as though it was a car they owned. It was a nightmare and anything to curb this mean unhelpful distasteful bullying behavior should be done. The fees were exorbitant.
There is an obvious lack of understanding or even basic knowledge of the constitutional protections of peoples' rights that concern "takings" without due process and even what the true requirements are for liability. Asset forfeiture laws violate several rights "protected" by the constitutions and other organic laws. Everyone of our public servants need to be prosecuted for violations of multiple laws and their oaths. Take a moment and just read and reflect upon the Declaration of Independence. I believe that your attitudes about these obvious rights violations will become obvious even to the most hardened users of asset forfeiture. If not then it is time for those that do understand to teach a few hard lessons.
So, Grits, what you are saying is that you have no problems with me having to pay extra for decent uninsured motorist coverage so your beloved poor folks can drive withour paying their actual costs. I think that anyone who can't, or won't, pay for insurance has no busi was operating a motor vehicle. Impound their cars, arrest and jail them, and maybe they will get the idea that they have some responsibilities they can't shirk. And, let's increase the minimums to a realistic value like 100/300/100.
No, 11:14, check your reading comprehension. I suggested pay-at-the-pump so that nobody gets out of paying. You're arguing against some caricature in your head, not anything I've written here.
To play devil's advocate for a moment:
1) In NH, there are many hit and run accidents. A cousin is a state cop and bemoans how many leave the scene because they know that if they stay, they will be required to get a very expensive SR-22 plan for the next 3 years, be required to fix the other person's car and pay for any inconvenience, often greatly embellished, and to actually collect on such a driver requires the person suffering damages to take them to court yet if they are broke, nothing is done to make them pay. Those with the means to pay for insurance do so because they have much to lose but the poor always claim "you can't get blood from a stone".
2) On principle alone, many in the GOP think adding insurance to the cost of gas is not fair because responsible drivers pay a great deal less than poor drivers, lumping us all into one risk pool destroys the incentive to drive carefully, maintain our cars, and many will simply buy gas from out of state, much like many people buy items in NH because it lacks a sales tax, border towns all across state lines taking advantage of this. Plus, who will be the carrier for this insurance boondoggle as thousands of insurance agents are put out of work? Given government inefficiencies, the cost to all of us will be a great deal more as well.
3) Most communities have ordinances requiring a tow lot to be within a certain distance of a tow, be readily accessible by phone, and be open to get cars 24/7 within a specific amount of time from the call. They are also required to enter tow data within a specified amount of time so people will know their car was towed and not stolen when they call. The registered owner of the car is the one who should have to get the car out, cars attached to certain crimes are kept by the government agency. One way around this would be to have the governing agency get into the towing business like in many states, but the inefficiencies arise in those places. As an aside, in NH, many cities have their own storage lots and all police action tows go to those lots.
4) Officers ask motorists for "proof of financial liability" as insurance is only one thing that covers state law. If you don't have it with you, most agencies can now verify on the statewide system that is updated daily. That solves some of the listed problems above and defeats the criminals that buy insurance and cancel it the same day; a common tactic up until several years ago. Otherwise, you are responsible for having it when you drive and calling some unknown number to verify fake insurance shouldn't be a cop's job.
5) Those fake driver licenses typically look terrible and anyone looking at one will figure it out immediately. Then the presenter of said license gets to experience a whole new set of laws that start with him being fingerprinted and may well end with him being deported. If a cop runs a really good looking one though, the kind that costs a lot more than valid insurance, and comes back with no such person, guess what happens to the driver? That's right, off to the fingerprinting and jail process described above. So if you get pulled over for failing to signal but have no valid license or insurance, the Bland Act is not going to save you and recovering your car will be tricky as the registered owner will need to pay the fees if it is even released.
6) If you can't afford a functioning car and valid insurance, take a bus, ride a bike, or car pool with one of your coworkers until you do. Maybe live close to work so you can walk. But lets not pretend most people without this stuff are gainfully employed in high paying jobs requiring tremendous skill and expertise; various contractors pick up half their work crews every morning as a source of cheap labor so common practice, that many don't know another way.
Okay, that was a devil's advocate look opposing some of Grit's recommendations. Each has specific flaws but each is also a commonly held belief. Personally, I'd rather not pay an extra dollar or more a gallon of gas, the savings from my existing insurance means I'm paying a lot more. And there is a great deal of middle ground between the extremes of each side of the arguments listed above, neither extreme on towing a very good idea. We mandate people have insurance because when we didn't, those same poor a few of you like to coddle, never stopped for accidents of their causing, never paid if caught, and drove the insurance costs for the rest of us through the roof all the same.
Pay at the pump is a nonstarter. It's not risk based, requires an entirely new system to collect, and ignores electric cars and hybrids. Better to just impound cars until insurance is procured. A colleague who lived in New York told me that cancelling insurance, or not having insurance, results in a visit from police and removal of license plates. Maybe Texas should try that approach.
Wow just think....if they'd abolish the surcharges or pass a law stipulating that drivers licenses cannot be suspended for non-payment, maybe some of these folks could finally get a job and then get the freaking insurance. The DRP is a the first link in a chain of reactions (read consequences).
"Texas keeps unreasonable laws on the books"
Texas keeps UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws on the books. I guess nobody wants to be the guy that seconds the bill to repeal the sodomy ban, the flag burning ban, or the speedy trial act.
Wow just think...if some people fantasize enough how the sole reason people without insurance don't have jobs are mean old laws expecting people possess a license to drive and be able to responsibly cover an accident with insurance, maybe it will come true. There are jobs for just about every person available right now, those who are chronically unemployed or under employed should find a better excuse. Most of the stores I visited today had help wanted signs and aggressive hiring programs, many of them within walking distance of my home and many others within walking or bicycle distance of various apartments.
And those calling some of these laws unconstitutional might mean well but until the Supreme Court rules these laws as such, those laws are no such thing. Take the state to court if you truly believe it and start the process but short of a legal ruling, nothing is going to change.
If even five per cent of the population were to take mass transportation to work the system would scream for relief.
Why can't the badge-lickers argue here against what is written, rather than some fantasy straw-man that the badge-licker has constructed in his own head? Just for one example: no one, and I mean no one, ever stated in any posting on this site that there was a "sole reason" for why some people didn't have insurance. Perhaps reading comprehension is a learned skill, or maybe there's just not a very good argument against what is actually written? I understand that they are proud to be intolerant, close-minded and spiteful, but at least be honest in advocating for that position.
And for another dose of the reading comprehension lesson, the three laws which 10:07 referred to as unconstitutional have been declared so by either the United States Supreme Court (sodomy, flag burning) or the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (Speedy Trial Act). You're welcome 11:14.
Just get some storage insurance, go get the registration and inspection. And presto! You've beat the system. On another note, not a big fan of giving the government control of auto insurance through a gas tax. The idea is less government. Unless you are a fan of imposing your will on others using your government to do it. When will we learn that the government isn't your nanny and cannot be trusted. Check with your local officials and get their opinion about their government. They'll say the same unless they are advocating something particular.
@6:37, how is requiring minimum liability on cars or health insurance under Obamacare NOT "imposing your will on others using your government to do it"? Please explain the distinction you're making.
Mark, while I tend to agree with your sentiments, there are enough thug-huggers to balance out the badge-lickers, extremists on either side rarely using the kind of qualifiers we do on a regular basis. Maybe it's just because I'm paid to argue but I've been a regular reader here for long enough to see a great many examples from either camp, your name seems too familiar to dismiss your comments as a newbie. Just because I happen to concur that most forfeiture laws and mandatory insurance are examples of government overreach and likely to be found unconstitutional upon judicial review doesn't mean they are currently so.
Wouldn't it be wiser to build bridges by compromising and finding solutions to such pressing problems we can live with? Grits explores a variety of solutions here, some of them unlikely to get traction in a GOP dominated environment, others espoused as practical elsewhere until we find they don't work in those places either. At least he tries to find a better path and doesn't feel the need to resort to name-calling and I have to give him credit for that.
wow keren banget nih :D
Anon 1:29, I am so very sick and tired of dealing with the intentionally ignorant on a daily basis, that when I get an opportunity to perhaps turn the light bulb on I tend to jump on it. Whether it's dealing with a jury panel that thinks the Bill of Rights is too liberal or the typical Texas-proud and Texas-ignorant bunch here who has been voting against their own interests for the last 25 years, the same mentality seems to permeate the body politic of our State. I can't really drill my veniremen, but I don't have to sit quietly here when a commentator posts something that makes people stupider. While perhaps considered harsh by some, sometimes a metaphorical box to the ears can awaken those who are ensconced in their little comfort-puddle of righteousness.
Mark, this is 1:29 again. I get that you are emotional about such matters as it shows in your posts but frankly, you're spinning your wheels. This is a message board open to a wide array of opinionated folks, as such all you do by taking such a combative approach is cause them to dig in deeper. You also open your comments up to additional scrutiny by like-minded or nearly like-minded people who may question your message from the tone you set. Upon reflection of what the prior commentator said, there was more than a hint of truth to his/her message as well, overstated or not, despite my gut feeling that I wish there wasn't. In the end, my previous message stands how we can either be part of the solution or part of the problem, personal attacks leading one in a direction I'm just not sure you care to go. Best wishes!
For some in border towns getting insurance and a license in Mexico is a good solution if one wants to beat the Texas police car computer checks. Sure seems to work good for some that are dodging overdue child support.
Post a Comment