Does anyone out there drive without car insurance in a state; that requires it because

[Uncle Joe]

you can't afford it?

[JVS]

1. Well someone out there must, but not me.

[Uncle Joe]

3. I was tempted to pose a second poll asking if people's car insurance premiums dropped

when their states first began mandating them?

[JVS]

4. That's a much more interesting question.

[Donnachaidh]

6. not in any of the states we've driven -- they've always gone UP

And as for driving without insurance, there's much more of that being done now that millions are out of work. We reviewed and downsized our insurance, when we were deciding who we could pay. Our agent said he'd had a lot of customers just stop paying their insurance. Cops have been saying the same thing -- people have to decide to put food on the table or pay insurance -- which would YOU pick?

[Uncle Joe]

8. To my way of thinking people primarily drive

to put food on the table.

[Donnachaidh]

13. true - and that's why some are foregoing insurance

because they cannot afford both. Not now, that is.

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. I used to, until the cops took my car away

I lost over five grand in equity and got a $1700 fine with costs. I quit driving altogether after that.

[REP]

31. I did, a looooong time ago; fines and penalties were less than carrying insurance would have been

I got stopped by some very nice cops who thought they were just going to issue a fix-it ticket for a tail light; they apologized when they found out how, erm, illegal my car was. They didn't impound it, which they could have, and paying the fines and buying cheapo insurance was actually less money than following the law. Luckily, I had the money just at that moment and have been law-abiding since (and for many years before). I'm still grateful to those kind cops and even the DMV folks, who defied every DMV stereotype during that episode!

My situation has changed for the better and I carry an assload of insurance and never get stopped any more.

[lunatica]

5. No. But for now I have minimum coverage

I lowered it a few months ago along with a bunch of other things. I'm having a hard time making it to the end of the month, but I have two part time jobs. I need the car and the condo.

[NYC_SKP]

7. I suppose this poll is limited to folks with little money to spare.

I'm sorry I voted before realizing it.

I can imagine very dire circumstances under which I'd be left with few choices and decide I can't afford it.

I can also imagine circumstances under which I could justify robbing a bank.

Both seem very unlikely and I hope neither set of circumstances happens.

:patriot:

[Uncle Joe]

12. I'm happy for you; not being in dire financial circumstances but I do see a major moral difference

between driving without insurance and robbing a bank.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Think The Former Is Potentially Worse

Harming someone and not having the resources to at least attempt to make them whole again.

In a just society folks would never even have to entertain either notion.

[Uncle Joe]

22. Driving without insurance doesn't necessitate harm; which only occurs

if the driver is at fault in a wreck.

On the other hand, robbing a bank at the very least causes direct financial harm with a strong possibility of blood shed.

Furthermore what suggests to you that a bank robber using violent means would have the resources to make a victim whole again, should they kill someone in the act?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I Don't Countenance Neither

But when an uninsured driver hits s pedestrian or another driver the pedestrian or other driver is left without recourse.

I was thinking of robbing an ATM Machine or a heist of an empty bank where noone gets hurt.


God help a society where any man or woman is left with those as options.

[NYC_SKP]

18. If there's an accident, the difference is only by degrees of severity and level of punishment.

One could have to rob to survive, to feed one's family.

One could have to drive without insurance for similar reasons.

While it's true that driving without insurance does not necessarily cost others money, if you hurt people or damage property and there is no insurance to cover the losses, then it's harming others just as surely as robbing a bank.

[Uncle Joe]

24. No, robbing a bank is a direct use of violence, driving without insurance is not.

[Political Heretic]

16. They seem very unlikely, huh? That's part of the problem.

And it seems to fit completely with your politics.

Realities that just seem so "far fetched" to you...

[NYC_SKP]

20. So driving without insurance is OK with you, like the government can just pay for loss and damage?

When there's a wreck or death or injury???

Unless or until there's universal auto insurance, you're saying fuck you to whomever is damaged by a driver without insurance.

Explain to me how your not saying that.

[Uncle Joe]

27. The key word should be "if", not "when" and a secondary consideration would who's at fault?

"When there's a wreck or death or injury???"

[Political Heretic]

33. It doesn't have anything to do with OK. It has to do with being unavoidable.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

9. I live in CA wihich requires insurance --

and there have been times I have let it lapse because I could not afford it. I drive a small truck and I pay $63 a month for the CA minimum -- a payment of something like 10k to any driver I hit. It is in no way comprehensive insurance. If anything happens to my vehicle, I am hosed. I had two cars stolen and totaled by the thieves -- there was no coverage to help me with anything, including the towing and yard fees. I simply cannot afford good coverage for my vehicles. And there some months that $63 is too much for me to pay even for the meager insurance I have.

[napi21]

10. It's becoming more & more ipossible to do. One of the waays people used to do it

was buy a policy just to register their car & get plates but only pay the first 2-3 month's premium. When the bill came they just never paid it. If they didn't do anything to get stopped, they were fine. In recent years, the ins. co. notifies the State that the policy has lapsed and you get a letter in the mail to return your plate. If you don't send it in, they come & get it. At least that's what they do in Ga.

[Donnachaidh]

15. and if they do take the plate, the person lifts someone else's

We had our plate stolen right off our car. The tag office said that was on the increase too in Georgia.

[earth mom]

11. I just read a book about an America family who moved to Italy for a year

and over there people don't bother with minor fender benders, door scratches and the like.

People could care less and just get on with their lives if someone does minor damage to their car.

I really like that attitude and would love to see it here because the insurance industry is nothing but bloodsucking vampires trying to get every last drop.

[Luciferous]

25. A couple of years ago a teenager hit my car in a parking lot and I

let it slide. The damage was minor, the car was a piece of crap anyway, and I felt bad for the kid (he looked terrified). I don't see the big deal in letting it go if it's a minor accident.

[Political Heretic]

14. YES. I did. Had no choice at the time.

And when I was stopped and fined for it, I could go to court and make a payment plan for the fine that was less than the cost of insurance.

[Luciferous]

19. No, but I have in the past.

[taught_me_patience]

21. If you can't afford insurance, you shouldn't be driving... period.

A car can inflict tremendous damage to another person.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

23. Unless you need that vehicle for work.

No truck, no paycheck for me.

[taught_me_patience]

28. What do you do if you hit someone and seriously injure them?

[Uncle Joe]

32. Then you could be at fault or liable depending on whose to blame, but not before.

Edited to change the word "would" to "could depending on whose to blame."

[taught_me_patience]

36. And if you're liable but don't have insurance

How are you going to pay for damages? If you can't afford premiums, I'm sure you can't afford the $50,000 hospital bill. Basically, the person who gets damaged gets fucked... is that fair?

[Uncle Joe]

40. No it's not fair, but neither is starving or becoming homeless because you can't afford to pay

protection money for your basic transportation.

In this scenario the case is virtually a definite, in most of the nation, if you can't drive, you can't work, if you can't work you can't eat or put a roof over your head.

While your worst case scenario is also unfair, the chances of it happening aren't a definite, with a more remote chance of it happening.

[immoderate]

29. Shouldn't, but maybe you have to.

I was too broke to get insurance for a while. Needed my car to get to work, so I could pay for insurance. Now I'm insured for the time being. I wouldn't be if I couldn't have gotten to work.

--imm

[Political Heretic]

34. So can hunger and homelessness. Hence driving to work is preferable.

Please.... please... I dare you to post "take public transportation" showing how you have absolutely no clue about the fact that there is no public transportation in much of the united States.

When I lived in Idaho, if the only job I could find was twenty miles away and there was no bus, rail or any other sort of transportation that would get me there - the only choice is to drive.

[Roon]

26. I got busted driving without insurance twice

If I was a real scum bag I could reveal how you can get out of trouble if you cause an accident without having insurance. It's way cheaper than carrying insurance. But I digress.....

If I get caught driving without insurance one more time I go to jail for 5 days. Or I could choose home detention for 10 days. (which would be like throwing brier rabbit into the briar patch)

This is why I love riding buses. No one is trying to always throw you in jail.

[kenny blankenship]

30. In some states the rate of uninsured drivers is as high as 29%

Nationwide it's around 16%

[Sebastian Doyle]

35. Mandatory payment to ANY corporation for ANY reason should be illegal

This is just as much bullshit as corporate mandated health insurance is. The only difference is that you can make the argument (however weak and unrealistic it may be) that nobody "has" to drive.

In any case it benefits corporate greed far more than it does the average driver.

[Historic NY]

38. Ny has some costly penalties & you will be arrested & your plates taken

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/broch/c43.htm

I insure 4 vehicles, 3 of them are antiques and covered for full value. We have a big flux of illegal immigrants here (imagine that) the drive w/o insurance. At one time you could go and get a insurance card by paying a portion of the preminum. The state ended that when claims for uninsured motorists went crazy. I actually pay a little more to cover myself for those underinsured motorists. One major accident where you cause injury or death could wipe you out forever. Insurance here protects us against the other guy.

[HopeHoops]

39. I don't, but I know people who do. In PA they will impound the car.

I've had an old insurance card but not the current one and they've given me 48 hours (business hours) to produce one at the station. Some cops aren't so generous. They are allowed to not only cite you for driving without insurance, but take the plate and tag it for towing. You don't even want to think about trying to drive it after they do that.

[mtroyal]

41. why I don't drive with insurance

I used to drive without insurance, back in the years when I only made 700$ per year. Now I don't have insurance because there is a 99% chance I will lose money on the deal and also to protest this bad law. If enough people drive without insurance, the laws will be repealed. (I see a movement in California and Wisconsin to repeal their laws). I can also join the Mennonites since they ban the purchase of insurance. But there is a good study done by Dr Maril that showed 44% said they could not pay rent or buy food due to mandatory auto insurance. Go to http://www.autoreform.org/090998mar.pdf.

I have done three surveys/studies on poor people going on food stamps due to mandatory auto insurance (yes, I know, you have to be poor to collect food stamps after you budget is decimated by mandatory auto insurance) Two of these surveys are at http://www.foodstampstudy.com Included in this is a food stamp survey I had the Montana DPHHS conduct (I went thru a local representative), and it showed that in Billings, MT, in October of 2004, 12 of the 96 food stamp applicants said auto insurance was a reason for needing food stamps. I would think that when they total all the people on food stamps due to mandatory auto insurance, they would reassess these laws. The fiscal notes of these mandatory auto insurance laws are supposed to be saying "there is an increase in food stamp use due to mandatory auto insurance laws", since this is an increase in the expenses to the DPHHS, and since they are not mentioning this, laws are being broken here. Maybe we should suspend driver's licenses of those breaking the fiscal note law.

Another item I have only seen once is the loophole in the mandatory auto insurance law whereby these insurance cards we are required to carry, do not list the names of those listed on the policies. Mrs Smith can get cheap 400$ a year insurance and turn around and let her DUI husband drive, although he is not listed and not authorized to drive the vehicle. This is driving without insurance and the insurance card does not detect this driving without insurance. I could go on for hours, but better close.