TexasCHLforum.com

The problem I see with treating this entirely as a civil matter (which I agree with in principle) is that most of the people without insurance don't have any assets to go after. Or they are illegals and don't have documented assets. In those cases there need to be, IMO, criminal penalties when they are involved in an accident and don't/can't pay. Damaging someone's property and not paying for the damage is a criminal act and should be treated as such.

mr.72 wrote:well anygun... I just simply flat out oppose the law requiring you to buy insurance if you drive a car.

so clearly it's now the law. but I think it's a dangerous and unconstitutional law.

If you think the law requiring you to purchase insurance is unconstitutional then I will start up one more absolute second amendment threads and you should chime right in 100% on my side.

Laws directed at priveledges are there to force those who would fail to take responsibility for their actions to do so.

If we use our firearms negligently we are liable for damages. Obviously there are far more people using vehicles negligently than firearms.

Anygunanywhere

actually anygun, I agree with you on your absolute reading of the 2A.

And FWIW I am not big on this "driving is a privilege" nonsense. Sure maybe it is. But forcing you to buy one thing if you own another thing is a violation of your right to own property. Likewise I think forcing you to carry liability insurance, when you have not demonstrated that you have encountered any liability, is certainly at least wrong, if not unconstitutional.

We should punish those who commit offenses, be it with a gun, or with their car. If you damage my property or person with your car, then you are liable. However we are assuming all of us are liable, and then forcing you to insure yourself against this liability which is wrong on both counts. Sure maybe I am liable if I get into a wreck with you, but that determination can only be made after the wreck. If I think it is prudent to protect myself against such liability, I can buy insurance.

txmatt wrote:The problem I see with treating this entirely as a civil matter (which I agree with in principle) is that most of the people without insurance don't have any assets to go after. Or they are illegals and don't have documented assets. In those cases there need to be, IMO, criminal penalties when they are involved in an accident and don't/can't pay. Damaging someone's property and not paying for the damage is a criminal act and should be treated as such.

Agreed.

And by the way, it's not just treated as a civil matter in my opinion, but by law liability in a car accident is a civil matter and not a criminal matter.

Now of course, the easier thing to do is not let the illegals in the country to begin with... but just because offenders don't have assets to go after doesn't make mandatory car insurance right. They are not buying insurance either. If I think I am at risk of being harmed by someone who has neither assets or insurance, then I buy my own insurance to cover that situation (no fault, uninsured motorist, etc.).

We have forgotten what liberty is.

mr.72 wrote:
We have forgotten what liberty is.

I agree with you here 100%.

Anygunanywhere

mr.72 wrote:We have forgotten what liberty is.

That's the best line of reasoning out of this entire thread. Thank you Mr.72

txmatt wrote:Damaging someone's property and not paying for the damage is a criminal act and should be treated as such.

It is. I think the "civil matter" lies are a sign of laziness or stupidity.

§ 28.03.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;
(b) Except as provided by Subsections (f) and (h), an offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if: (A) the amount of pecuniary loss is less than $50;
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the amount of pecuniary loss is $50 or more but less than $500;
(3) a Class A misdemeanor if: (A) the amount of pecuniary loss is: (i) $500 or more but less than $1,500;
(4) a state jail felony if the amount of pecuniary loss is: (A) $1,500 or more but less than $20,000;
(5) a felony of the third degree if the amount of the pecuniary loss is $20,000 or more but less than $100,000;
(6) a felony of the second degree if the amount of pecuniary loss is $100,000 or more but less than $200,000; or
(7) a felony of the first degree if the amount of pecuniary loss is $200,000 or more.

boomerang wrote:

txmatt wrote:Damaging someone's property and not paying for the damage is a criminal act and should be treated as such.

It is. I think the "civil matter" lies are a sign of laziness or stupidity.

Am I really to take it that you are saying that I am lazy or stupid?

§ 28.03.
(a) A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys the tangible property of the owner;

That would be a car wreck where you intentionally ram the other person's car with your car.

Not one where you failed to judge the stopping distance or failed to notice the cross traffic or whatever.

mr.72 wrote:I'm going to break SeamusTX's wise advice and openly dissent on this thread. I fundamentally oppose any law requiring you to have any insurance of any kind.

I absolutely agree with you. There is no law requiring homeowner's insurance, or renter's insurance; if my dog bites someone, or the mail carrier trips over a loose paver on my sidewalk, I am liable. A lack of insurance doesn't negate the liability.

One of the celebrated freedoms in New Hampshire is that there is no mandatory car insurance. The only exception is that someone who has caused an accident, and who has not paid for the damages, can be required to carry insurance coverage. That's an individual court judgement, though.

The standard argument against mandatory insurance, is that those with insurance wind up paying more for uninsured motorist coverage. Nope: insurance is cheaper in NH than in surrounding states (and cheaper than Texas, too.)

You guys keep saying..well just file lawsuit against that person

How can you expect to get ANYTHING from someone that is here illegally and has NOTHING that isn't given to him by someone else, now you are boned 2x..by the damaged caused by that person with no insurance, then out the money for the attorney to file the lawsuit then get NOTHING when they don't honor the lawsuit

In my idea..the only way to have a license is to be insured..insured that if you use the privilege of driving and happen to cause damage to someone else's property that that person can be reimbursed for the damages YOU caused. The easy thing about it is since you are insured you can have 10 clunkers in your yard, but at any time driving you are covered for the damages you cause to someone else's property, if you do cause damages.

In my eyes..it should be MANDATORY to have insurance to get a license and if you don't keep insurance your license is VOID, and if caught driving without proof of insurance (electronically bound to your license like a CHL is, they know instantly) you suffer the consequences under the law already in the books

Too many people are taking advantages of loopholes in the system and everyone including you and me who do things legally and by the book are left holding the short end of the stick

It shouldn't be a federal thing..it should be a STATE law, once the insurance rates start dropping like a rock because everyone is now covered or those that don't get insurance loose the privilege of driving, other states will take notice.

Homeowners and renters insurance protect your property from outside influences...driving insurance protects others from your actions (unless you pay more for comprehensive)

I too am tired of the Federal Government trying to control every aspect of our lives

mr.72 wrote:...but for example even though I ride my bicycle to work most days and only use my car 1-2 days per week, I cannot buy part-time-use insurance for the car if it is my only car (or if the number of cars in my household does not outnumber the number of licensed drivers)

have you shopped around for a different ins. co? I ride to my bicycle to work 3 days a week and work from home the other 2 and was able to manipulate my premium by adjusting the annual miles driven. Saves me over $100 annually.

thankGod wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:If your insurance lapsed, within three days SC State Troopers were knocking on your door and taking the tags off of your vehicle.

That would be a good idea. However, I don't think we have enough manpower to handle all the work that would be required.

I was involved in an accident where a guy had no insurance and sideswiped 3 cars causing causing significant damage to all of them. The guy was seen drinking. He Was latin looking and spoke broken English (illegal ?) The responding League City officer found the beer bottles in the same brand as described in the car. There was no insurance. The culprit was screaming and hollering and pounding on the car scaring those involved and the witnesses. When I mentioned the behavior to the League City officer he explained, "his girl friend gave him some pills and that he is much better now"

So here is a man possibly illegal, who had been caught red handed drinking while driving, with abnormal behaviour taking some sort of traquillizer, and no insurance. He drove off in his uninsured car while the rest of us got towed away. He got ticketed for failing to control and no insurance. Our deductables was probably more than the ticket he paid. I don't believe that his punishment was enough to convince him to be more responsible.

Molon_labe wrote:You guys keep saying..well just file lawsuit against that person

How can you expect to get ANYTHING from someone that is here illegally and has NOTHING that isn't given to him by someone else...
In my idea..the only way to have a license is to be insured..insured that if you use the privilege of driving and happen to cause damage to someone else's property that that person can be reimbursed for the damages YOU caused

This is no different from gun control laws. Irresponsible people bent on breaking the law don't care whether they have a driver's license, car insurance, whether they are in this country legally, any of that nonsense. You are not going to change their behavior by making laws that only responsible people follow. Your new law would have no effect on those people who are now buying insurance, and no effect on those who do not currently buy insurance.

So my suggestion is that if you are truly concerned about a driver who is uninsured causing you harm and you being unable to sue them to cover their liability, then buy your own insurance to cover yourself. There's nothing to say that if it's not required for you to have insurance, you cannot still buy insurance. But the law even now is not effective at compelling drivers to buy insurance. More laws won't do any better. This whole system does not work, not for car insurance, gun control, or anything else.

I too am tired of the Federal Government trying to control every aspect of our lives

How is that any different, practically, from the state government controlling every aspect of our lives?

I'm tired of government controlling any aspect of my life, and I don't care which government it is.

jimlongley wrote:This I disagree with. Driving without insurance, without financial responsibility, is only victimless until the wreck,

Owning a gun without a liability insurance policy is also vicitmless until you hurt somebody with it. Do you want to have to maintain a $500k personal injury policy for your guns?

As for the auto liability issue, I'd have to agree with those pointing out that uninsured/underinsured coverage is just too cheap to do without; it doesn't take much to rack up $20k in injuries, and with U/U your insurance company gets to be the one wondering whether or when the other guy will pay, rather than you having to deal with it. I kept my liability rates well over minimum just so I could have $50k on the U/U, and IIRC, it all cost me about $30/month extra even when I was averaging 2500 miles a week in a sales job.

Now, my wife handles all of that, and even the twice-totalled '92 Tempo we got for $200 has full coverage, just because the discount for having exactly the same insurance on both cars makes it only a few $/month more than liability.

mr.72 wrote:This is no different from gun control laws. Irresponsible people bent on breaking the law don't care whether they have a driver's license, car insurance, whether they are in this country legally, any of that nonsense. You are not going to change their behavior by making laws that only responsible people follow. Your new law would have no effect on those people who are now buying insurance, and no effect on those who do not currently buy insurance.

So my suggestion is that if you are truly concerned about a driver who is uninsured causing you harm and you being unable to sue them to cover their liability, then buy your own insurance to cover yourself.

That's scary... you wrote exactly what I planned to write.

Relying on the law to protect you from uninsured drivers is as foolish as relying on the law to protect you from thugs and thieves.

Words on paper never stopped anyone. Take responsibility for yourself.

Even if a driver has mandatory minimum insurance, their coverage is only adequate for about half the new cars sold today, and a short hospitalization with minor surgery.