license suspended

[memnoch]

My license was suspended due to a random check on car insurance. That seems so unconstitutional to me...it falls under the search and seizure admendment...grrrr.

My own fault I guess, but it doesn't make it constitutional

[memnoch]

actually if there are any lawyers/law students...do you think I could have a case by arguing that it is unconstitutional...or any loopholes

[Darakash]

My license was suspended due to a random check on car insurance. That seems so unconstitutional to me...it falls under the search and seizure admendment...grrrr.

My own fault I guess, but it doesn't make it constitutional

but they always get around constitutional issues with license suspension, because "driving is a privelege, not a right" and suspension is administrative, not criminal consequence of violating your contractual agreement with the state when you got your license....I think the whole, if you don't submit to a breathilizer test, your license is automatically suspended for 6 months, thing is unconstitutional...but these are the loopholes for that too....

[memnoch]

but they always get around constitutional issues with license suspension, because "driving is a privelege, not a right" and suspension is administrative, not criminal consequence of violating your contractual agreement with the state when you got your license....I think the whole, if you don't submit to a breathilizer test, your license is automatically suspended for 6 months, thing is unconstitutional...but these are the loopholes for that too....

while I do understand the priveledge aspect, it still does not give the right for illegal searching of ones personal records. Just like I know there have been cases fought against the DUI checkpoints. They cant search you without probable cause and a search warrent.

[AutumnWitchie]

Memnoch, I feel your pain. I just went to renew my tags on the car and found out that the state wants to take the tag for 30 days because of a lapse in insurance. When we moved to our house last July, we had all the mail forwarded to the new address. Well, not everything got forwarded correctly. I got stopped at a traffic check and when they ran my info the cop informed me that my insurance had run out the end of August. I explained that we had recently moved and I never got my renewal notice. Cop understood and didn't write me a ticket. I called and straightened out my insurance the next day. Used to be in NC if you had a lapse in insurance you either paid a fine OR lost your tag for 30 days. Now, you pay a fine (which has been doubled) AND loose your tag for 30 days unless you go to court for a hearing. So, here we are with one car and may loose the tag for at least 30 days and/or get a big fine depending on the judge.

[nomadicdragon]

I hate playing devil's advocate here .. But.. Driving is a priviledge and as a driver, I'd prefer that they search and find people that don't have insurance and revoke licenses. If only because if I get hit by one of those drivers and its their fault, I'm screwed. I have to put it on my insurance, pay my deductible, and I have very little to no recourse at getting my money back. Insurance is a pain in the behind to deal with, I work in the Insurance Industry so I know.. but at the same time, its a requirement to having your license and a car and driving. *shrugs*

[memnoch]

I hate playing devil's advocate here .. But.. Driving is a priviledge and as a driver, I'd prefer that they search and find people that don't have insurance and revoke licenses. If only because if I get hit by one of those drivers and its their fault, I'm screwed. I have to put it on my insurance, pay my deductible, and I have very little to no recourse at getting my money back. Insurance is a pain in the behind to deal with, I work in the Insurance Industry so I know.. but at the same time, its a requirement to having your license and a car and driving. *shrugs*

I do understand the financial aspect of it. And I believe one in fault at an accident should pay, but that should be through either insurance, or personal finance. I would be able to get money to pay for an accident if I were in one. I don't like the government telling me how I have to pay it. I know why the law is there, but it doesn't make it constitutional.

[nomadicdragon]

I do understand the financial aspect of it. And I believe one in fault at an accident should pay, but that should be through either insurance, or personal finance. I would be able to get money to pay for an accident if I were in one. I don't like the government telling me how I have to pay it. I know why the law is there, but it doesn't make it constitutional.


The problem is that most people don't end up having to pay for the accident. Take florida for example, almost 50% of drivers in florida are not insured. 50% Think about the odds in that case of hitting someone that is not insured. And more then likely, they aren't going to be able to pay for the accident, or they aren't going to be willing to pay. It's a catch 22. Its not constiutional, yet at the same time, if its not followed up and.. the law isn't inforced, no one would bother having insurance.. *shrugs*

[Darakash]

I do understand the financial aspect of it. And I believe one in fault at an accident should pay, but that should be through either insurance, or personal finance. I would be able to get money to pay for an accident if I were in one. I don't like the government telling me how I have to pay it. I know why the law is there, but it doesn't make it constitutional.

Yes, and if I understand you correctly Memnoch, you are more concerned with the constitutionality of the search and seizure of your records than with whether or not one should be required to have insurance in the first place, is that correct? If so, may I ask, exactly how this was done randomly? I mean were you pulled over randomly and then asked for proof of insurance, or did DMV just do a random search of all their records and you came up as lacking, or what?

[samiaminsane]

You should've had insurance in the first place.

[memnoch]

Yes, and if I understand you correctly Memnoch, you are more concerned with the constitutionality of the search and seizure of your records than with whether or not one should be required to have insurance in the first place, is that correct? If so, may I ask, exactly how this was done randomly? I mean were you pulled over randomly and then asked for proof of insurance, or did DMV just do a random search of all their records and you came up as lacking, or what?

In Ohio they randomly select people, send them a notice with a date the week before they sent it. If you can't prove insurance for that date your license is suspended, first time is for 90 days and you have to pay a reinstatement fee after that of a couple hundred dollars.

[Galaxia]

Ω

[nomadicdragon]

In Ohio they randomly select people, send them a notice with a date the week before they sent it. If you can't prove insurance for that date your license is suspended, first time is for 90 days and you have to pay a reinstatement fee after that of a couple hundred dollars.

Wow. that's something I've never heard of. I know that during routine traffic stops officers will ask for proof of insurance here in Florida. But I've never heard of them sending out notices like that.

*shakes head* that's interesting.

[Old Witch]

Been hit by an uninsured motorist before. not a whole lot of fun since my insurance went up because my insurance had to pay to fix my car...Get some insurance pronto....

[Darakash]

Wow. that's something I've never heard of. I know that during routine traffic stops officers will ask for proof of insurance here in Florida. But I've never heard of them sending out notices like that.

*shakes head* that's interesting.

In fact, here in Florida, if your insurance is cancelled, the insurance company notifies the Motor Vehicle Department/Tax Collector people, and, if, they do not receive notification of new insurance or a reinstatement of insurance (within 90 days, I think), they will automatically suspend your license....

hrrrm, well Memnoch, since it is completely random, kinda like drug testing, is it really going to fulfill the definition of illegal search and seizure? I wonder....

[evie_mun]

Well, it is the law. If you did not have insurance, then you were breaking the law. It sucks that they have random checks, but things like that are to scare people into having their insurance up to date at all times.

The point here, though, is you'll be damn sure to never have your insurance out of date again. It makes it so that people won't make the same mistake twice, and therefore one by one is making sure people are following the law.

Sorry, but better luck next time.

[Brynfire]

Wow, I'm glad I live in Canada - that whole "Patriot Act" thing freaks me out worse than communism. Mostly cause it's desguised as "Patriotism"..... *shudders*

[memnoch]

also might I point out that while it is a pain for me...it was still cheaper in the long run not having insurance. I play the odds...same reason I don't have health insurance.

[nomadicdragon]

In fact, here in Florida, if your insurance is cancelled, the insurance company notifies the Motor Vehicle Department/Tax Collector people, and, if, they do not receive notification of new insurance or a reinstatement of insurance (within 90 days, I think), they will automatically suspend your license....

hrrrm, well Memnoch, since it is completely random, kinda like drug testing, is it really going to fulfill the definition of illegal search and seizure? I wonder....

True true.


Based on my, granted somewhat limited but I don't believe that would fulfill the definition of illegal search and seizure

[Athena-Nadine]

In fact, here in Florida, if your insurance is cancelled, the insurance company notifies the Motor Vehicle Department/Tax Collector people, and, if, they do not receive notification of new insurance or a reinstatement of insurance (within 90 days, I think), they will automatically suspend your license....

That's what they do in NYC too. I don't know about CO because it's never been an issue for me here.

[Xander67]

also might I point out that while it is a pain for me...it was still cheaper in the long run not having insurance. I play the odds...same reason I don't have health insurance.

everytime you get behind the wheel UN INSURED you are gambling with other people's lives too... not haveing insurance Hurts more than just the uninsured in an accident... the other party is then Liable for the bills the insurance company dont pay

[CosmicWhispers]

My license was suspended due to a random check on car insurance. That seems so unconstitutional to me...it falls under the search and seizure admendment...grrrr.

My own fault I guess, but it doesn't make it constitutional
There might be some laws on your state's books that says you have to
have insurance or pay uninsured motorist fee.
I don't know if you could win the constitutional debate or not.
I've seen judges re-enstate peoples licenses, then the DMV says no
and the person stays suspended. I think it is actually easier to deal
with the courts on this than the DMV. The DMV suspends people
all the time. I see "insurance monitoring" as the reason stated
on a lot of driver transcripts. I think it has to do with insurance laws.

[Ben Trismegistus]

In Ohio they randomly select people, send them a notice with a date the week before they sent it. If you can't prove insurance for that date your license is suspended, first time is for 90 days and you have to pay a reinstatement fee after that of a couple hundred dollars.

By obtaining a drivers' license, and registering your car in Ohio, you're essentially signing a contract (or maybe literally signing a contract, depending on the state) with the State of Ohio, stating that, in exchange for the privilege of driving as a resident of Ohio, you will agree to follow certain rules and regulations, one of which is continuing to hold car insurance.

Since you could choose NOT to have a car in Ohio, I don't believe it can be considered illegal search and seizure. It's the same as signing an employee contract agreeing to random drug tests.

[memnoch]

everytime you get behind the wheel UN INSURED you are gambling with other people's lives too... not haveing insurance Hurts more than just the uninsured in an accident... the other party is then Liable for the bills the insurance company dont pay

If I take financial responsibility, why does it matter if its through an insurance company or out of pocket.

[memnoch]

By obtaining a drivers' license, and registering your car in Ohio, you're essentially signing a contract (or maybe literally signing a contract, depending on the state) with the State of Ohio, stating that, in exchange for the privilege of driving as a resident of Ohio, you will agree to follow certain rules and regulations, one of which is continuing to hold car insurance.

Since you could choose NOT to have a car in Ohio, I don't believe it can be considered illegal search and seizure. It's the same as signing an employee contract agreeing to random drug tests.

the "contract" option of it says "financial responsibility" not "insurance". Also as this is the government, not a private employer

[Xander67]

I understand your position,

but not everyone would be able to assume the financial responsibility of the bills...
that is what Car insurance is supposed to be for, not just a tax on driving...

Car insurance is mandatory under law, reguardless of my opinion of the law, I pay my car insurance.. I have been in an accident before without car insurance. Lost my liscence for a year and had to do community service...

I dont want to go back down that road...

[memnoch]

whats worse is I have been in 1 accident, and it was payed for out of pocket

[mol]

everytime you get behind the wheel UN INSURED you are gambling with other people's lives too... not haveing insurance Hurts more than just the uninsured in an accident... the other party is then Liable for the bills the insurance company dont pay
I am sure that memnoch would pay every penny to fix the others persons car/injuries/etc if involved in an accident uninsured.

Wouldn't you?

[nomadicdragon]

I am sure that memnoch would pay every penny to fix the others persons car/injuries/etc if involved in an accident uninsured.

Wouldn't you?


No because I know I wouldn't have the money to do it.. that's why I have Insurance.

[memnoch]

I am sure that memnoch would pay every penny to fix the others persons car/injuries/etc if involved in an accident uninsured.

Wouldn't you?

I know mechanics, I know plenty of people and would take care of financial responsibilities. Consider this (not you mol, but everyone). I've been in 1 accident in 5 years where damage has been done. Insurance for me would run about $1100/year, at that ratio if I do $5500 in damage every 5 years then it would cost the same as insurance. During that time I had jobs driving 100-200 miles 5 days a week...per mile I drive now it would be a higher amount of damage to balance out my paying of insurance. That was why I said I've always played the odds.

[evie_mun]

I know mechanics, I know plenty of people and would take care of financial responsibilities. Consider this (not you mol, but everyone). I've been in 1 accident in 5 years where damage has been done. Insurance for me would run about $1100/year, at that ratio if I do $5500 in damage every 5 years then it would cost the same as insurance. During that time I had jobs driving 100-200 miles 5 days a week...per mile I drive now it would be a higher amount of damage to balance out my paying of insurance. That was why I said I've always played the odds.

It's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is you're still breaking the law, no matter how you try to justify it. Driving is a priveldge, not a right, and by having a liscence you automatically have signed a contract that says you will be insured in the car you are driving. By not being insured, you are breaking the law, and now you are suffering the consequences. You don't hold up your end of the bargain, they don't hold up theirs. It's as simple as that.

[memnoch]

It's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is you're still breaking the law, no matter how you try to justify it. Driving is a priveldge, not a right, and by having a liscence you automatically have signed a contract that says you will be insured in the car you are driving. By not being insured, you are breaking the law, and now you are suffering the consequences. You don't hold up your end of the bargain, they don't hold up theirs. It's as simple as that.

that is where you are wrong, to quote the law you have to be financially covered when driving a car

also could you point out to me in the U.S., or Ohio constitution where it limits my driving priviledge. Drinking alchohol is a priviledge, but they cant remove my priviledge because I'm not insured in the case of a fight where I harm another person or property

[Nighthawk]

In my state, it is a law to carry insurance. Plain and simple. Do I like it? no. I have near 30 years driving and one accident, over ten years ago.. I have been rear-ended, five times, 3 by uninsured people and I always had to pay. I have nearly 5 hundred thou miles driving. Not sure of your laws, but they can remove your license here if you do not provide insurance, as well as give jail time and a fine. At least that is what they claim.

[Nighthawk]

Oh yea, in this state, financially covered means something like a million dollar bond or somethig like that.

[memnoch]

In my state, it is a law to carry insurance. Plain and simple. Do I like it? no. I have near 30 years driving and one accident, over ten years ago.. I have been rear-ended, five times, 3 by uninsured people and I always had to pay. I have nearly 5 hundred thou miles driving. Not sure of your laws, but they can remove your license here if you do not provide insurance, as well as give jail time and a fine. At least that is what they claim.

but the way they search about it is unconstitutional...as are DUI checkpoints.

[Amethyst Rose]

My husband would totally agree with you memnoch..... apparently back in December he just decided not to insure the truck again. He actually went into the insurance place and told them that he didn't need insurance cuz the truck broke down. I found this out just a few days ago and nearly tore his throat out.

I think that the reason that insurance is mandatory is because the majority of people cannot afford to pay for repairs and medical bills, or just wont, if an accident is their fault.

What would you do if an accident was bad enough that that person could no longer work? Insurance could pay them a million dollars in damages, both physical and mental, not to mention car repairs/replacement costs. Could you cover that out of pocket??

Yes, it's kinda weird that they would do a random search.... did you know that they do them, or was this out of the blue for you?

[Nighthawk]

So are the seatbelt checks and all, but they still do it. I guess that was your post, about being unconstitutional... so is double taxation.. but we have that too.

[Nighthawk]

I started out a bit irritated, but in rethinking.. we have a ton of things.. you could be branded a terrorist if you had checked out the wrong book and all, so really, in the world of George W., in order for this to become a dictatorship or a police state.. your rights will be taken away, mine too..

[evie_mun]

but the way they search about it is unconstitutional...as are DUI checkpoints.

You can't go around getting upset about something supposedly being unconstitutional if you don't follow the law in the first place. If you won't follow the laws of the state, how do you expect them to protect you with the constitution? Either you're for the laws or you're against them, you can't have it both ways.

[memnoch]

You can't go around getting upset about something supposedly being unconstitutional if you don't follow the law in the first place. If you won't follow the laws of the state, how do you expect them to protect you with the constitution? Either you're for the laws or you're against them, you can't have it both ways.

actually do you have any idea how something gets to the supreme court to be declared unconstitutional. Someone has to break a law, be found guilty, file several appeals, be found guilty several more times before appearing in the Supreme Court. Thanks for playing though and we have a wonderful parting gift for you

sorry, my sarcasm is acting up again

[Darakash]

actually do you have any idea how something gets to the supreme court to be declared unconstitutional. Someone has to break a law, be found guilty, file several appeals, be found guilty several more times before appearing in the Supreme Court. Thanks for playing though and we have a wonderful parting gift for you

sorry, my sarcasm is acting up again

Um, actually, you beat me to it! I was going to say the same thing...the rights guaranteed by the constitution are often violated by EXISTING laws, and breaking those laws is how those laws get changed! Ah, Rosa Parks was breaking a law too! (Edited to say that I am in no way comparing the struggles of the Civil rights movement to Memnoch's car insurance, was just using the example of civil disobediance to illustrate the point)

[memnoch]

might I also add that the more I think about it the more I think I'm going to give in...it just seems so wrong to me.

[Nighthawk]

What seems so wrong?

[memnoch]

What seems so wrong?

What seems most wrong is their process of getting this information, it goes against the search and seizure admendment. Then the second part would be the fact that you have to have insurance. I would be more for, it is in your best interest to get insurance, but if you don't have it take financial responsibility or go to jail.

[Nighthawk]

Well, I am not sure what any of us can do.. unless you are actually very wealthy. In fact, you would have to have more $$ than an insurance company because it is all about making $$ off of the little guy and having more control.

[memnoch]

Well, I am not sure what any of us can do.. unless you are actually very wealthy. In fact, you would have to have more $$ than an insurance company because it is all about making $$ off of the little guy and having more control.

It all goes against my political belief that well...until there is a victim there is no crime. Insurance laws are the equivalent of if we ban guns people won't die. Or taking it further, too many people are allergic to peanuts, they must be banned. Punishment is the best crime preventer, not trying to prevent crime through excessive legislation

[Nighthawk]

To back myself up on that.. I have to carry insurance, AND I have to carry uninsured motorists insurance, which about doubles my cost. YET, in my state EVERYONE who drives MUST have insurance. So, why double my rate by making me pay for uninsured's ...when there are not any..supposedly. If I were running it, you would show proof upon getting license renewed, each year, and if you cancelled insurance, the company would alert police and they would issue a warrant and remove your license.. I do not see this going on in this state, so I feel the whole thing is bogus.

[Nighthawk]

Well, I do agree with you. I really do. But, we are living in Bushland. I am certain we cannot change it right now. Of course, you are 26 and have much more will and stamina. I am old and will chose a different fight. I do agree that they do dumb things. They do smart things. They do things we will never understand.

[Darakash]

What seems most wrong is their process of getting this information, it goes against the search and seizure admendment. Then the second part would be the fact that you have to have insurance. I would be more for, it is in your best interest to get insurance, but if you don't have it take financial responsibility or go to jail.

I want to agree with you due to similar sentiment about insurance; however, it just won't work....your going to jail does not pay the person who needs the medical payments or car repairs, etc. Also, going to jail for not having enough money to pay would be tantamount to debter's prison, which kinda bothers me...and well, let's face it, there are a lot of REALLY bad drivers who think they are great drivers and will never cause an accident so they dont need insurance....and it could get really ugly....maybe if you could prove that you are financially able to cover the same amounts that your state's minimum insurance required you could get a waiver would work, but other than that, I think we are sh*t out of luck

[wolf]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Part of your contract with the state to operate a motor vehicle requires that you carry insurance. You lose the privilege of driving if you do not comply with those regulations.

Bear in mind that the client who represents himself has a fool for an attorney.

[Nighthawk]

Yup. Well put.

[Xander67]

I am sure that memnoch would pay every penny to fix the others persons car/injuries/etc if involved in an accident uninsured.

Wouldn't you?

Yes of course .. In adition to my fines, also I agreed with the other person out of court on the damages to his car ($1000) it took me a while to pay it...

[DarkDancer]

Hey Memnoch, I'm from Ohio also, I seem to recall that when it was first made into a law that you had to have insurance, you either had to have insurance or have a bond with the state for I think $100,000 dollars. If you have done that, I think that you are covered. Otherwise you are probably screwed.

[WokeUpDead]

That's odd. In one of my complaining about getting caught threads you said

In short the security guards did their jobs, you got caught breaking rules, and you feel you should get away with it because others did. Wow.
You fought the law and the law won. It happens.

[memnoch]

That's odd. In one of my complaining about getting caught threads you said

You fought the law and the law won. It happens.

I realize that and am going to deal with it...the law itself is wrong. I'm willing to admit I broke a law and accept that, but I'm going against the validity of the law.

[Old Witch]

I want to know how you could cover the medical epenses for a child injured in an accident caused by you..If that child was so severely injured that he required hospitalization for the rest of his life? If you hit a child with your car and he was basically a vegetable for the rest of his life? Uh Oh! Poor kid! Parents struggling for the rest of their life to take care of him..No insurance, sorry people, your bad luck.......
Please, don't talk to me about the unconstutionality of a law that protects poor people like me......

[Old Witch]

Iin SC and GA, when your insurance lapses, the company notifies the state, state gives you X amount of time to get new insurance and send in proof of that insurance or it comes to get your tags and suspends your license.......

[halfwaynowhere]

well, you say you play the odds... well, you gambled by driving without insurance, and you lost. so, if the risk of driving uninsured isn't too great for you, how is the risk of driving without a license? the laws are there for reasons, no matter how dumb they may seem, they are there to protect the common people. and you may not be the common person, but then you'll have to deal. it wouldn't be fair to say that some people have to have insurance, but since you don't feel its important, you don't. and as far as the search and seizure part is concerned, this shouldn't have anything to do with it.... like when you apply for a job, and they do a background check. all they are doing is looking into your personal information to see where you stand, which is what the DMV did. If you don't want a company running a background check, don't apply there. if you don't want the DMV enforcing the law, don't drive.

[Akhkharu Asgard]

Something I do not understand. If you apparently have the money to pay for any sort of accident that you would get into. Then what is the problem with putting a little aside so you do not have to deal with the law/people in the accident/ etc. Seems like nothing short of a ridiculous risk to me. If you don't like the law, to bad. It does not catter to everyone. A lot of people don't like it, but they live with it.

[memnoch]

I want to know how you could cover the medical epenses for a child injured in an accident caused by you..If that child was so severely injured that he required hospitalization for the rest of his life? If you hit a child with your car and he was basically a vegetable for the rest of his life? Uh Oh! Poor kid! Parents struggling for the rest of their life to take care of him..No insurance, sorry people, your bad luck.......
Please, don't talk to me about the unconstutionality of a law that protects poor people like me......

and it is that attitude that causes the loss of our freedom every day

[memnoch]

Something I do not understand. If you apparently have the money to pay for any sort of accident that you would get into. Then what is the problem with putting a little aside so you do not have to deal with the law/people in the accident/ etc. Seems like nothing short of a ridiculous risk to me. If you don't like the law, to bad. It does not catter to everyone. A lot of people don't like it, but they live with it.

I don't have the money to pay for it...I have access to the money if need be.

[Akhkharu Asgard]

If you have "Access to the money if need be" why can you not access it to pay for insurance? Is it your money or someone elses?

[memnoch]

If you have "Access to the money if need be" why can you not access it to pay for insurance? Is it your money or someone elses?

I can take loans if need be. Quite honestly my family for the most part is upper middle class. I've had to have them cover my ass before and I always pay them back. So I don't have it, but I can get it.

[EJ1096]

something to consider. I dont know how it works in your state but if your isurance status is supposed to be "public record" than its not unconstituional. I dont have any experiance with this because MN. does not do random insurance checks that I'm aware of. it's when you get pulled over they ask you. If you cant prove it then, that's when you get Suspended, pay a fine and or go to jail.

I did almost get my car repoed though because the bank found out I did not have insurance on it. Needlass to say its now insured. and i actually feel quite relived. I dont have to sweat bullets when there is a cop behind me. and I dont care if a tree falls on it. Now if I could just get the money to update my registration (heheh)

I do think that the Idea that Driving is a privledge not a right is a little "old school" thinking. I agree that its not a right but in this day and age its a nessecity. lots of people out there would not be able to get to their jobs efficently. after all the bus does not run everywhere all the time. I think at one point that was a vallid argument but these days its more than a privledge.
It puts some of us in a hard postion. Job requiers car, car requiers job. pay = less than peanuts

[Old Witch]

I don't have the money to pay for it...I have access to the money if need be.Getting money from someone else to pay for an accident you cause doesn't seem like you are taking any kind of responsibility for your actions, you are getting money from someone else...Once again I ask, how are you going to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a serious injury you caused while operatng your vehicle without insurance or a license?

[Old Witch]

I can take loans if need be. Quite honestly my family for the most part is upper middle class. I've had to have them cover my ass before and I always pay them back. So I don't have it, but I can get it.


Ahh! I see! The rich are so much better than the poor! I'm priviledged, therefore I do not have to obey the law! Insurance is just for the lower class masses.........I'm out of this discussion before Xentor has to moderate me!

[CosmicWhispers]

and it is that attitude that causes the loss of our freedom every day
:hmmmmm: Interesting.

[memnoch]

Ahh! I see! The rich are so much better than the poor! I'm priviledged, therefore I do not have to obey the law! Insurance is just for the lower class masses.........I'm out of this discussion before Xentor has to moderate me!

when you make laws "to protect so and so" you are restricting freedoms, this was used in the labeling and restriction on video games. The FCC uses this constantly, we need to protect your children from breasts. We need to get away from protecting people for potential, teach personal responsibility, and punish for what one does, not what could happen

[memnoch]

Getting money from someone else to pay for an accident you cause doesn't seem like you are taking any kind of responsibility for your actions, you are getting money from someone else...Once again I ask, how are you going to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a serious injury you caused while operatng your vehicle without insurance or a license?

If I take a loan, does it matter whether its from a family member or a bank? A loan is a loan is a loan and is taking responsibility. And I have a license thank you very much

[9-2-2]

I can understand not having enough money to have insurance. I've been there before, and if I dutifully, responsibly, and lawfully refused to drive my car, I'd have lost my job, then my home. Happened anyway, heheh. :(
But seriously... your family is upper-middle class, and you could have borrowed anytime? Sorry, I really don't feel for you. Good luck, man.

[memnoch]

I can understand not having enough money to have insurance. I've been there before, and if I dutifully, responsibly, and lawfully refused to drive my car, I'd have lost my job, then my home. Happened anyway, heheh. :(
But seriously... your family is upper-middle class, and you could have borrowed anytime? Sorry, I really don't feel for you. Good luck, man.

I cant borrow $100/month indefinatly

[Akhkharu Asgard]

Another question (because I don't know a lot about you and am just rying to understand this all). Do you have a job? I have a part time job/go to college/have lots of bills to pay for and still have enough to insure my car (as well as make my paments on it). If I were to rate myself I would call myself lower class I suppose. Most college students are (unless they have mom and dad pay for everything). If you have a job there should not be any excuse for not having insurance. In the end, you do have free will and can continue to not be insured, but if certain things happen you may regret your deceision.

Oh great, you live in Ohio too. Now I have to watch out for you. You better not get into a car accident with me!

[memnoch]

Another question (because I don't know a lot about you and am just rying to understand this all). Do you have a job? I have a part time job/go to college/have lots of bills to pay for and still have enough to insure my car (as well as make my paments on it). If I were to rate myself I would call myself lower class I suppose. Most college students are (unless they have mom and dad pay for everything). If you have a job there should not be any excuse for not having insurance. In the end, you do have free will and can continue to not be insured, but if certain things happen you may regret your deceision.

Oh great, you live in Ohio too. Now I have to watch out for you. You better not get into a car accident with me!

I do have a job. But after all of my other bills (including food and habits, cigarettes and the like) I have about 100-200/month, and I'm not going to spend all of that on insurance

[wolf]

Then get rid of the car and use public transit.

Part of the responsibilty of operating a motor vehicle is being able to make restitution in the event that anything you do with the car results in property damage, injury, or death.

Some states do allow a person to be self-insured, but that typically invovles your being able to put the amount of money that meets that state's minimums for coverage, typically $100K.

Let's say hypothetically you get into an accident with a minivan, totalling the minivan, killing two occupants and putting the other three into the hospital. Two of the three have to be treated on a burn unit for 3 months, followed by rehab. One of the three, an infant in a car seat, is severely brain damaged and will need 24 hour care for the remainder of her life.

Guess who pays for that? Not the state. You. That is why you need insurance coverage. No bank will give you a loan because you are that irresponsible.

[Akhkharu Asgard]

Part of being resposible is being prepared. You can't always rely on hoping you might get a loan if you were ever in that situation. Whether you have the option of insuarnace or setting aside the bond, both situations involve the money being set aside for this purpose. Not you saying "Oh i'll find some money sometime." and then possibly being turned down by the bank.

[memnoch]

Then get rid of the car and use public transit.

Part of the responsibilty of operating a motor vehicle is being able to make restitution in the event that anything you do with the car results in property damage, injury, or death.

Some states do allow a person to be self-insured, but that typically invovles your being able to put the amount of money that meets that state's minimums for coverage, typically $100K.

Let's say hypothetically you get into an accident with a minivan, totalling the minivan, killing two occupants and putting the other three into the hospital. Two of the three have to be treated on a burn unit for 3 months, followed by rehab. One of the three, an infant in a car seat, is severely brain damaged and will need 24 hour care for the remainder of her life.

Guess who pays for that? Not the state. You. That is why you need insurance coverage. No bank will give you a loan because you are that irresponsible.

with that logic if I work at a Dairy Queen and I serve a child peanuts on his sundae, and the child has a reaction and dies it would be someones fault, so to prevent that peanuts should be only available with all sorts of red tape. We should be reactive, not proactive. The insurance laws on the book came about because of big business, not because anyone cares. And the minimum (as I've had it in the past) is only 10k

[wolf]

The Dairy Queen has business liabilty in the event that, to use your example, a product that is not supposed to contain peanuts gets peanuts in it.

If an individual employee would put peanuts on something when specifically told not to, then the employee is personally responsible for any harm caused.

[wolf]

I know from personal experience, incidentally, that proactive beats the hell out of reactive.

[ravynbynorthwynd]

you keep talking about constitutionality or taking your driving priledges away.

there's a thing called the constitution of the usa. go read it. its only about 7,000 words. very short.

and tell me where it says anything that would side with you saying that this is contitutional unsound

sorry, but i don't like people saying that things are in documents when they are not.

[memnoch]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[wolf]

You will also need to post the relevant portions of Ohio Statutes and Criminal Code relating to automobile insurance.

[memnoch]

You will also need to post the relevant portions of Ohio Statutes and Criminal Code relating to automobile insurance.

no matter the law, random requests for proof violates the 4th admendment

[wolf]

There is probably a provision in the law (just guessing) for verification checks throughout the year.

In PA I cannot register or continue registration of a motor vehicle without proof of valid insurance. Every year I have to provide the name of my provider, their NAIC #, and my policy number to register the vehicle.

If insurance terminates with a carrier, that carrier notifies the state of the termination.

You are the one who is breaking the law by not having insurance on your vehicle.

Caveat: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV.

[ravynbynorthwynd]

persons, houses, papers, and effects, not records. they have every right to search through your records. these are all things you own. persons or things. i don't think a record qualifies.

[memnoch]

There is probably a provision in the law (just guessing) for verification checks throughout the year.

In PA I cannot register or continue registration of a motor vehicle without proof of valid insurance. Every year I have to provide the name of my provider, their NAIC #, and my policy number to register the vehicle.

If insurance terminates with a carrier, that carrier notifies the state of the termination.

You are the one who is breaking the law by not having insurance on your vehicle.

Caveat: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV.

If it were that way I wouldn't be so annoyed. Its the random search that bothers me

[memnoch]

persons, houses, papers, and effects, not records. they have every right to search through your records. these are all things you own. persons or things. i don't think a record qualifies.

Papers...at the time we didn't have electronic storage, so papers would include all personal documents

[ravynbynorthwynd]

yes, papers in your possession. you don't own your record at the dmv.

[memnoch]

yes, papers in your possession. you don't own your record at the dmv.

The dmv doesn't own my insurance records, the insurance company does. With the DMV sending random letters requiring you show them those papers it is a blatent violation of the 4th admendment

[EJ1096]

Fine Print Gets ya every time. Are you sure that when you went in to get Your D.L. and you put your John hankock on a pice of paper some where on that sheet it did not say something to the effect of "...Shall give permission under state statute____ to authorize relise of insurance status" Or " under state statute ____ shall be subject to random insurance status checks"?

If it does and thats the case its not unconstituional by any means. Its called Consent.

When it comes to searches there are a few diffrent categories. 1) warrent 2) consent 3) Search incedent to arrest I think there is one or two more I cant remember right now.