For every step forward....

EMNofSeattle · Dec 2, 2012

Seriously, say what you want about liberals, but it appears citizens have more rights in most "liberal" states then they do in "conservative" states.

Now Oklahoma is conducting checkpoints for insurance violations?
http://news.onlineautoinsurance.com/state/oklahoma-car-insurance-checkpoint-98489

remember, assert your rights at these checkpoints and don't back down..

while this video is a immigration check, the same concept should do...

[video=youtube;eUHfyPylVL8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUHfyPylVL8[/video]

Ca Patriot · Dec 2, 2012

California has check points for auto insurance and its a liberal state.

davidmcbeth · Dec 2, 2012

When I am pulled over ... I just say "ask me any question in court" ... then when they ask again .. then I get tiffy with them asking them questions: a) are you deaf b) are you stupid c) are you deaf and stupid d) did yo' momma drop you as a child? e) have you sought professional medical treatment for your condition? f) how long have you been a member of the communist party?

davidmcbeth · Dec 2, 2012

Ca Patriot said:
California has check points for auto insurance and its a liberal state.

Insurance is not mandatory .. you can also have a bond

EMNofSeattle · Dec 2, 2012

Ca Patriot said:
California has check points for auto insurance and its a liberal state.

But they're the exceptions.

look at the states that ban DUI checkpoints, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Iowa, only three red states ban such checkpoints and those are Idaho, Alaska, and Texas. And I think insurance checkpoints wouldn't fly as easily in most of the states where checkpoints are allowed.

has anyone challenged insurance checkpoints?

Ca Patriot · Dec 2, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
Insurance is not mandatory .. you can also have a bond

I have never heard that before. What do you mean by a "bond" ?

EMNofSeattle · Dec 2, 2012

Ca Patriot said:
I have never heard that before. What do you mean by a "bond" ?

In my state (Washington) one can be exempted from insurance requirements in two ways, one is to post a monetary amount equal to the minimum insurance requirements to the DOL who will hold it in case you get into an accident. say the state requires you have a policy of 50,000 dollars liability insurance, you can post 50,000 dollars to the DMV and the DMV will issue a certificate saying they have your 50,000 dollars that you must carry like an insurance card. this is called a certified deposit, and the other is to have a third party issue you a bond for the insurance amount and you must provide a copy of the bond certificate to the DMV, this is a surety bond, and works much like when you bond yourself with a bail bonsdman out of jail...

but since the insurance amounts are so large, 60,000 in WA, most people just pay monthly premiums for an insurance policy.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/insurance.html

I don't know how they do it in California, I would assume they have a similar system.

Ca Patriot · Dec 2, 2012

In California you have to have insurance unless you are an illegal alien.

Thats one reason why I moved out of CA

davidmcbeth · Dec 3, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
In my state (Washington) one can be exempted from insurance requirements in two ways, one is to post a monetary amount equal to the minimum insurance requirements to the DOL who will hold it in case you get into an accident. say the state requires you have a policy of 50,000 dollars liability insurance, you can post 50,000 dollars to the DMV and the DMV will issue a certificate saying they have your 50,000 dollars that you must carry like an insurance card. this is called a certified deposit, and the other is to have a third party issue you a bond for the insurance amount and you must provide a copy of the bond certificate to the DMV, this is a surety bond, and works much like when you bond yourself with a bail bonsdman out of jail...

but since the insurance amounts are so large, 60,000 in WA, most people just pay monthly premiums for an insurance policy.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/insurance.html

I don't know how they do it in California, I would assume they have a similar system.

+1 , correct

What did they think I meant, James Bond? har har har ... really it does not surprise me though; 99% of drivers don't know the laws that they are subjected to ...

Ca Patriot · Dec 3, 2012

so do you take a check for $50,000 down to the DMV ?

davidmcbeth · Dec 3, 2012

Ca Patriot said:
so do you take a check for $50,000 down to the DMV ?

I got it !

Keylock · Dec 3, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
But they're the exceptions.

look at the states that ban DUI checkpoints, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Iowa, only three red states ban such checkpoints and those are Idaho, Alaska, and Texas. And I think insurance checkpoints wouldn't fly as easily in most of the states where checkpoints are allowed.

has anyone challenged insurance checkpoints?

As an Okie I'll let you know if it happens to me.

Uninsured drivers are an issue here in the Sooner state. I carry uninsured driver coverage on my vehicles. I'm curious how other states have solved this issue as our legislature seems unable to come up with a solution. Maybe they could learn something.

eye95 · Dec 4, 2012

The driver who jumped two curbs, crashed into my MIL's Blazer, and pushed it sideways, across the grass and the garden, through the house wall and into my then-13-yo son's bed was uninsured. BTW, he was also an illegal alien, unlicensed, drunk, and driving a car that the owner claimed he had no permission to use (ha!) (so I'd have no recourse against her).

The driver who t-boned my wife's truck about a week ago, causing it to roll several times (she is reasonably OK, thanks to the seatbelt) announced at the scene that she had no insurance.

I hate seatbelt laws, but use seat belts all the time because they do save lives, including my wife's. I hate helmet laws, but I would wear one if I rode on a motorcycle because they do save lives. I think laws requiring people who operate tons of machinery on our roads and highways to be insured for the damage they might do to others are reasonable. Choosing not wear belts or helmets affects the chooser only. Choosing not to be insured costs others money and has twice cost ME a bundle because these losers don't have enough assets to go after.

georg jetson · Dec 4, 2012

eye95 said:
The driver who jumped two curbs, crashed into my MIL's Blazer, and pushed it sideways, across the grass and the garden, through the house wall and into my then-13-yo son's bed was uninsured. BTW, he was also an illegal alien, unlicensed, drunk, and driving a car that the owner claimed he had no permission to use (ha!) (so I'd have no recourse against her).

The driver who t-boned my wife's truck about a week ago, causing it to roll several times (she is reasonably OK, thanks to the seatbelt) announced at the scene that she had no insurance.

I hate seatbelt laws, but use seat belts all the time because they do save lives, including my wife's. I hate helmet laws, but I would wear one if I rode on a motorcycle because they do save lives. I think laws requiring people who operate tons of machinery on our roads and highways to be insured for the damage they might do to others are reasonable. Choosing not wear belts or helmets affects the chooser only. Choosing not to be insured costs others money and has twice cost ME a bundle because these losers don't have enough assets to go after.

In a free republic, the state is not given the authority to regulate private citizens exercising their right to use the common ways for their private needs and wants. Supporting the requirement for insurance is one of your little ways you support tyranny. Get uninsured and underinsured coverage if you feel the need to protect yourself from loss. It is very cheap in my state and I'll bet it's cheap in most states.

EMNofSeattle · Dec 4, 2012

georg jetson said:
In a free republic, the state is not given the authority to regulate private citizens exercising their right to use the common ways for their private needs and wants. Supporting the requirement for insurance is one of your little ways you support tyranny. Get uninsured and underinsured coverage if you feel the need to protect yourself from loss. It is very cheap in my state and I'll bet it's cheap in most states.

not for me, despite my clean accident history my being a young male works terribly against me. adding under insured motorist adds 15 dollars a month to my premium...

however I do support the insurance mandates, cars cause damage like few other things do, but I do not support the government stopping every single car and demanding their papers. one, it's a needle in a haystack search that's statistically ineffective, second it's a violation of the 4th amendment.

georg jetson · Dec 4, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
not for me, despite my clean accident history my being a young male works terribly against me. adding under insured motorist adds 15 dollars a month to my premium...

Some may consider $15 a month cheep. Like most things should be in a free society, it should be your choice.

EMNofSeattle said:
however I do support the insurance mandates, cars cause damage like few other things do, but I do not support the government stopping every single car and demanding their papers. one, it's a needle in a haystack search that's statistically ineffective, second it's a violation of the 4th amendment.

Yes, that was my point. Many people support the insurance mandate and that is how we end up with an over-bearing, tyrannical government. We have to recognize that in order to preserve liberty, we MUST preserve liberty even when we disagree with it.

eye95 · Dec 4, 2012

georg jetson said:
In a free republic, the state is not given the authority to regulate private citizens exercising their right to use the common ways for their private needs and wants. Supporting the requirement for insurance is one of your little ways you support tyranny. Get uninsured and underinsured coverage if you feel the need to protect yourself from loss. It is very cheap in my state and I'll bet it's cheap in most states.

The purpose of government in a Republic is to protect the rights of the People, including the right to property. Allowing people with insufficient assets to cover the damages that they might inflict on the publicly owned byways is not protecting those rights. Requiring people who use these public byways to be financially responsible is not tyranny. Saying so is participating in foolish hyperbole.

Again, you missed the key distinction in seatbelt/helmet laws and financial responsibility laws. The former protect the person from himself. That is not a necessary function of government. The latter protect the property of others from irresponsible behavior, precisely the function of government.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

EMNofSeattle · Dec 4, 2012

eye95 said:
The purpose of government in a Republic is to protect the rights of the People, including the right to property. Allowing people with insufficient assets to cover the damages that they might inflict on the publicly owned byways is not protecting those rights. Requiring people who use these public byways to be financially responsible is not tyranny. Saying so is participating in foolish hyperbole.

Again, you missed the key distinction in seatbelt/helmet laws and financial responsibility laws. The former protect the person from himself. That is not a necessary function of government. The latter protect the property of others from irresponsible behavior, precisely the function of government.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

The helmet and seat belt laws were passed becuase of lobbying by big corporate robber barons in charge of the insurance industry, it's all about not having to pay-out.

eye95 · Dec 4, 2012

EMNofSeattle said:
The helmet and seat belt laws were passed becuase of lobbying by big corporate robber barons in charge of the insurance industry, it's all about not having to pay-out.

No doubt they supported the effort because it was in their financial interest. However, barring support that it was only their effort, and not also the effort of well-meaning folks who think that government is the solution to every problem, I would not use the word "because."

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

georg jetson · Dec 4, 2012

eye95 said:
The purpose of government in a Republic is to protect the rights of the People, including the right to property.

Agreed. I have the RIGHT to use the common ways.

eye95 said:
Allowing people with insufficient assets to cover the damages that they might inflict on the publicly owned byways is not protecting those rights.

The state does not have the authority to allow or disallow. There are many ways people can cause property damage accidentally. Making a distinction because they are on publicly paid for right-of-ways is a pathway to tyranny. It gives the power of regulation to the state. The problem is easily solved by acquiring uninsured/under insured protection.

eye95 said:
Requiring people who use these public byways to be financially responsible is not tyranny. Saying so is participating in foolish hyperbole.

You not only agree with mandated insurance, but have fooled yourself into thinking it is inline with a free republic. A government regulating it's citizens' movements is tyranny in it's most basic form.

eye95 said:
Again, you missed the key distinction in seatbelt/helmet laws and financial responsibility laws. The former protect the person from himself. That is not a necessary function of government. The latter protect the property of others from irresponsible behavior, precisely the function of government.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I missed nothing. The distinction is irrelevant. Insurance mandates do not require that the insured have coverage that can pay any damage amount. There are limits. The problem still exists that damages may be incurred that cannot be paid for. That's life and there is no getting around it no matter how much you want government to make it go away. Getting the government involved with this is another mistake that trades liberty for perceived safety.

For every step forward....

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member