Should we impound vehicles if they are uninsured?

[Backspace]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Yes that is true which is why I think they should impound on the spot. Still I would probably say they are 99% sure since there is always human error and old datasets.

All this brings me to another question. If someone buys a new or used car and has a loan for X years doesn't the lender require they carry comprehensive coverage? Is the lender notified when they drop insurance? If not by not having insurance they are also potentially hurting loan institutions too which results in increased loan rates for us all.

I'm not sure about the lender question, most require the borrower to keep full coverage on the asset until the loan is paid off but I'm not sure about the notification.

I will say that it's more than 99% sure because if the database by some odd chance is incorrect and it tells an officer you don't have coverage you're still required by law to keep physical proof of your coverage in the vehicle. If the officer's database doesn't match that proof they call the insurance company to verify whether you actually have service or not. The chances of them impounding a car that does have coverage is pretty slim.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by Backspace

I'm not sure about the lender question, most require the borrower to keep full coverage on the asset until the loan is paid off but I'm not sure about the notification.

I will say that it's more than 99% sure because if the database by some odd chance is incorrect and it tells an officer you don't have coverage you're still required by law to keep physical proof of your coverage in the vehicle. If the officer's database doesn't match that proof they call the insurance company to verify whether you actually have service or not. The chances of them impounding a car that does have coverage is pretty slim.

Hey I'm good with 99%. The number of breathalyzers that are calibrated properly is probably less than that.

I think the elephant in the room has to do with the figures of percentage uninsured by these select states:

• Massachusetts: one percent
• Maine: four percent
• Vermont: six percent

That is the number of "foreign nationals" in Texas is much higher than those states hence our high numbers and their low numbers. Some of this also has to do with income and "cultural" influences. The big wildcard is enforcement and I really don't know if those three states have systems that drastically reduce their rates compared to our relatively new TexasSure.

[kenshi]

I have mixed feelings about it. On one side, I really don't like the thought of so many uninsured motorists on the road. Luckily I have uninsured coverage on both of my vehicles but I'd be pissed if I didn't and an uninsured driver crashed into me.

On the other hand, I've been a college student working a part-time job paying $5.15 an hour and you can't really afford insurance on that. Also, I lived in Beckville, went to school in Marshall, and worked in Longview. There's no public transportation covering that area and you damn sure can't ride a bicycle that far.

There's really no great solution. Many (probably most) uninsured drivers are irresponsible but some are just in crappy situations. Public transportation was actually better a century ago. Most towns at least had train stations even if the train only came once or twice a day. We've regressed in that aspect. It may not be realistic to have bus routes going all over rural Texas, but there is definitely room for improvement. I wouldn't be opposed to using Longview transit if it wasn't for the fact that the buses only run once an hour. I didn't feel like I needed a car in Chicago. This is the direction we need to go, and then we can realistically say people who can't afford insurance shouldn't be on the road.

[buzzpost]

Originally Posted by Bo

A simpler solution than all of that impounding is just not to issue license plates/stickers to vehicles that are not insured. Under your proposal, vehicles that aren't drivable would be subject to impoundment. If it's not drivable, it won't need to be registered, so not having insurance won't be an issue.

You already can't get a license plate or inspection sticker without being properly insured.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by buzzpost

You already can't get a license plate or inspection sticker without being properly insured.

What some people do is get the insurance for a month to cover these legal requirements and then drop it. Not sure how it is done now but when I was paying insurance month-to-month the ins. company would issue me a proof of insurance card that showed a one year timeframe at the beginning of the term.

And then some people just drive around with plates and stickers from another state after they moved here.

Others just go around with expired tags and stickers hoping they don't get caught.

All of these and maybe more scenarios add up to almost 1 in 4 Texans not having insurance.

I'm also thinking the liability limits ought to be raised, 25/50/25 covers minor accidents and maybe a bit more. What if you cause someone to become a paraplegic? I would think the liability would be in the 100s of thousands in that case.