rhode@leadsv.UUCP (Chris Rhode) (08/14/85)
[mmm...munchies and crunchies in here somewhere...CHOMP] > From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader) > Newsgroups: net.legal,net.auto > Subject: Uninsured motorism > Which suggests that, in jurisdictions where motorists are allowed > not to have insurance (that's most of them in North America, isn't it?), > insurance companies should sell policies that protect you not only > against your own liability but also against that of the uninsured > driver who runs into you. (please, net.legal people, correct anything I say that is incorrect; I'm just a naive programmer :-)) Here in CA, liability insurance is REQUIRED. Unfortunately, it seems that you never have to present proof of this fact in the process of getting (or maintaining) a driver's license. The upshot is that I hear more than a few stories of people involved in accidents where the person-at-fault turns out not to have any insurance. Recently, a law was enacted requiring every driver to have proof of insurance with them at all times. Typically this consists of a small card supplied to a driver by his/her insurance company. The law states that an officer can ask to see this card any time you are stopped....failure to have the card is an offense punishable by something like a $500 fine, and possible license revocation. Unfortunately, I don't see this as helping much, since if a person can avoid a run-in with an officer he/she can still get away with driving uninsured. Unless officers routinely ask to see the proof-of-insurance for things like traffic tickets, the only time it will be asked for is, of course, when the person is involved in an accident....and if the person doesn't have one at that point, then it's not any different than before (i.e. the other person is stuck without somebody to pay the medical and repair bills). Except maybe the possibility of license revocation will scare a few people into getting insurance. I hope they do revoke licenses in most cases. I'm not sure if this is something available nationwide or not, but I -do- have "uninsured motorists" coverage which I pay for (through the nose) every six months. This, I believe, serves to provide you with the money that you would normally get from the "other guy" if s/he is uninsured. However, I don't think the other person is then liable for the money "owed" to the insurance comapny (i.e. he gets off the hook, except, again, that he may lose his license). I don't understand why they can't just require you to provide the DMV with proof of insurance every time you register your car (yearly here in CA). No insurance, no registration...pretty simple. Can somebody explain to me why this is so impossible to do? -Chris Rhode (in the Silicone Valley :-) Lockheed R&D Palo Alto, CA ihnp4!amd!cae780!leadsv!rhode ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!rhode
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (08/14/85)
In article <586@leadsv.UUCP> rhode@leadsv.UUCP (Chris Rhode) writes: > >Recently, a law was enacted [in CA] requiring every driver to have proof of insurance >with them at all times. Typically this consists of a small card supplied to >a driver by his/her insurance company. The law states that an officer can [---] >ask to see this card any time you are stopped....failure to have the card is >an offense punishable by something like a $500 fine, and possible license >revocation. Unfortunately, I don't see this as helping much, since if a >person can avoid a run-in with an officer he/she can still get away with >driving uninsured. Unless officers routinely ask to see the proof-of-insurance >for things like traffic tickets, the only time it will be asked for is, of >course, when the person is involved in an accident....and if the person doesn't >have one at that point, then it's not any different than before (i.e. the >other person is stuck without somebody to pay the medical and repair bills). >Except maybe the possibility of license revocation will scare a few people >into getting insurance. I hope they do revoke licenses in most cases. Fortunately, the law is a little stronger than inplied here. If you are stopped for any reason, the officer is REQUIRED to ask for the proof of insurance. As I heard the other provisions, there are no provisions for a "fix it ticket" (where you must present the card to someone within x days and get the ticket signed-off), and you must be fined if you didn't have it when requested. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc. UUCP: tektronix!teklds!cae780!gordon {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon {nsc, hplabs, resonex, qubix, leadsv}!cae780!gordon
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/16/85)
> Unfortunately, I don't see this as helping much, since if a > person can avoid a run-in with an officer he/she can still get away with > driving uninsured. In Maryland you are required to get insurance to register your car. In addition, to comply with some federal regulation (they claim) they randomly sample 10% of all motorists who must get their insurance company to send a letter back to the MVA here indicating that they are covered and have been covered for the entire period. Unfortunately I've been part of the random sample twice in the past three years. -Ron
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (08/19/85)
>In Maryland ... they randomly sample 10% of all motorists who must >get their insurance company to send a letter back to the MVA here >indicating that they are covered and have been covered for the >entire period. This is a bit of a nuisance, but it's not nearly as bad as what happens if an insurance company (*any* insurance company) makes a mistake and tells the MVA that your policy has been cancelled. This happened to me, when my agent wrote down the wrong driver's license number, and also to a friend of a friend of mine, when a company that had *never* insured her told the MVA that her (nonexistent) policy with them had been cancelled. When this happens, the MVA immediately suspends the registration for the car(s) in question, and you must file an FR-19 form (the same letter mentioned above) in order to have it reinstated. Worse yet, the form *must* be filed at the Glen Burnie office near Baltimore; it cannot be done at your local MVA. The catch is that you can't drive there since your registration has been suspended! Of course, you can do all this by mail, but that leaves you unable to legally drive for two weeks or so. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@maryland
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (08/20/85)
In article <1297@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >When this happens, the MVA immediately suspends the registration >for the car(s) in question, and you must file an FR-19 form (the >same letter mentioned above) in order to have it reinstated. >Worse yet, the form *must* be filed at the Glen Burnie office >near Baltimore; it cannot be done at your local MVA. The catch >is that you can't drive there since your registration has been >suspended! Oh, you're lucky!! My insurance lapsed through a combination of being out of town a lot, blatant stupidity on my part, and ignorance of the law. Here in NC, that means that I have to: a) Forfeit the license plates (and therefore driving privleges) for 30 days on BOTH cars, b) pay a $50 fine per car, and c) file the forms for both cars to get new license plates AND pay for them (in addition to the $50) -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
nrh@lzwi.UUCP (N.R.HASLOCK) (08/21/85)
[mmm...munchies and crunchies in here somewhere...CHOMP] > > > Which suggests that, in jurisdictions where motorists are allowed > > not to have insurance (that's most of them in North America, isn't it?), > > insurance companies should sell policies that protect you not only > > against your own liability but also against that of the uninsured > > driver who runs into you. > > I don't understand why they can't just require you to provide the DMV with > proof of insurance every time you register your car (yearly here in CA). > No insurance, no registration...pretty simple. Can somebody explain to me > why this is so impossible to do? > This is more or less what the Swiss do. Liability Insurance is for the vehicle with ANY driver. Collision and other add ons may be restricted to reduce premiums but liability is required to be for whoever happens to be behind the wheel at the time. As happens here the owner get sent a bill for registration renewal. If he does not pay up within the specified time, the state police come around to remove the tags from the vehicle. Vehicles seen on the highway without tags are immediately impounded and the owners are severely fined. The driver is also fined if he or she is not the owner. There are one or two holes in this system but in general it works. It could be made to work here too. Just think, the first state to implement such a system could hold the state goverment of any other state responsible for any vehicles it registered which were being used without insurance. -- -- {ihnp4|vax135|allegra}!lznv!nrh Nigel The Mad Englishman or The Madly Maundering Mumbler in the Wildernesses Everything you have read here is a figment of your imagination. Noone else in the universe currently subscribes to these opinions. "Its the rope, you know. You can't get it, you know."