Dallas: Uninsured Vehicles on the Go... Via Tow

[AndyIvey]

It is hard to believe I am the first to post this. I have been eagerly waiting to get on the forum since I first heard the outcome.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/local/stories/012606dnmettowing.3a40ccc5.html
Dallas council approves towing of uninsured vehicles
12:26 PM CST on Wednesday, January 25, 2006
By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News
Drive scared when in Dallas if you don’t have auto insurance, as the City Council on Wednesday approved an ordinance mandating the impounding of uninsured vehicles involved in accidents where police respond.
“They’ll think twice before they get into their car,” Mayor Laura Miller said.
Although the council voted unanimously in favor of the ordinance, several members questioned whether it would prove effective.
“I have heartburn about how this is going to operate,” Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Elba Garcia said, adding that the city’s auto pound needs more staffing, greater capacity and better security to handle the potential influx of vehicles.
Council member Leo Chaney doubted whether the ordinance would prompt poor, uninsured motorists to purchase policies.
And council member Mitchell Rasansky argued the ordinance didn’t go far enough.
“We’re waiting for an accident - smack! - to happen,” he said, slapping is hands together. “I’d confiscate the car when they’re stopped for a traffic violation.”
Under the ordinance, police are directed to ask drivers involved in accidents to provide proof of insurance. Police would order a towing of uninsured drivers’ cars - at their expense -- to the city’s auto pound in West Dallas.
If a driver claims to have insurance, but can’t provide proof, officers are expected make reasonable efforts to validate drivers’ claims, the ordinance says. Council member Pauline Medrano suggested that insurance companies create a toll-free number by which drivers may verify their insurance coverage.
The ordinance will undergo a formal review in two years, officials said. In one year, some council members said they’d like to conduct an interim review to check for racial, ethnic and geographic profiling.
E-mail dlevinthal@dallasnews.com

[Columbus Civil]

“We’re waiting for an accident - smack! - to happen,” he said, slapping is hands together. “I’d confiscate the car when they’re stopped for a traffic violation.”

I'm with Rasansky on this.

[Insidetheloop]

I love this idea. Having been T-boned by an illegal alien a few years ago without insurance I know how bad it can be.

[KBilly]

Having lived a good many years in other locales where you are required to provide proof of insurance when stopped by an officer, I too think that this does not go far enough.

If it's the law, it's the law, and too many uninsured motorists are ruining it for us all.

[Columbus Civil]

The ordinance will undergo a formal review in two years, officials said. In one year, some council members said they’d like to conduct an interim review to check for racial, ethnic and geographic profiling.

So will towing occur only at the officer's discretion? If so, I can see possibilities for abuse.

[Flaming Moderate]

I love this idea. Having been T-boned by an illegal alien a few years ago without insurance I know how bad it can be.

The same thing happend to my inlaws ... however, if we do not expect them to obey our alien laws, why would they get insurance?

[Mballar]

The ideal scenario would be:
1. Impounding the violator's vehicle;
2. Keeping it impounded until damages to the other vehicle have been taken care of;
3. Then, and only then, would the violator be allowed to recover his/her vehicle from the pound (after all storage fees have been paid for the amount of time the vehicle was stored);
4. If the uninsured motorist can't pay for the damages to the othe car, then the uninsured motorist's vehicle would be auctioned, using the proceeds to pay for damages to the other vehicle.

I bet that would stop a lot of uninsured motorists from driving and discourage others from letting uninsured motorists drive their vehicles.

[AndyIvey]

I will make the bold statement. This is just more feel-good legislation geared towards elections instead of public welfare.
What percentage of accidents with police response involves cars without insurance? I bet it is a might bit smaller than the number of uninsured drivers involved in regular traffic stops. If we were serious about cracking down on uninsured drivers, we would listen to Rasansky. However, I do not think anyone is serious about this because:
-There are no plans to expand the city impound. Where are these vehicles going to go?
-Who is going to pay for the cars people walk away from and must be auctioned? Will the highest bid pay cover our expenses?
-Will the number of hit & runs increase, as people fear losing their uninsured car in a traffic accident?
-Will this further tax our police department?

Who is going to report that a driver involved in an accident does not have insurance? Is my wife expected to call 9-1-1 if the other driver is uninsured? Is she expected to exchange personal information with a stranger, call the cops on him or her, and wait? What will be there reaction to the fact that my wife is responsible for them losing their car?

How can we ask for verified response one week and then this the next? Are our police overtaxed or not? If yes, why are you requiring them to tow uninsured vehicles while they could be focusing on more important issues? If no, why do we continually hear that council’s major focus is hiring more officers and improving DPD? You cannot have it both ways.

If you ask me, the 2-year review period is just politics as usual. The plan was obviously flawed from the start and a sunset provision is not anything but a way for elected officials to distance themselves from the problem. As is expected of everyone that posts here, I will provide specific solutions. First, we must satisfy our own city ordinance and have the proper ratio of police officers to citizens. Only then should we include a city impound expansion in a bond package and tow all uninsured vehicles not just those in accidents.

[Random Traffic Guy]

The city auto pound is by far the most frustrating bureaucracy experience I've ever had in Dallas, and that was while being the vicitm of a crime and just trying to get my car back!

The review is stupid if the policy is a firm set of rules. Either you're uninsured or not.

[monogodo]

I was involved in an accident about 4 years ago where I was broad-sided by a car running a red light. When the police showed up to make the report, both the other driver and I provided our proof of insurance. The officer duly noted the information in his report. When I got back to work that afternoon, I called the other driver's insurance company, only to discover that he was no longer insured. I, too, was carrying a card that showed I had insurance, but didn't really. Anyone with a computer and half-way decent skills can create a fake card very easily. Or simply get insurance, and once you receive your proof, stop paying the premium. You now have proof, without the cost.

I have no other solution. I see both good and bad things with it.

[FoUTASportscaster]

^I once showed an old card at a couple of stops. They don't check to verify. They just look at the card and are happy.

On another note, wasn't in Fantroy that said when this topic first came up, that there is no way he'd ever vote for this. Hypocrite

[Lakewooder]

There is a thriving enterprise of people whom I think are called 'macaderos' who provide (for a fee) fake insurance cards, I.D.s of all sorts, etc..and everyone knows that you can get a 'wink-wink' inspection sticker for your car at certain places in the barrio. Think how that adds to our hazardous air days and pollution -- which ultimately will result in penalties for our area.

Toby Shook was on TV last night showing the wares of some of the macaderos in the ring broken up in the Grove.

If the suburbs get tough on people without insurance and Dallas doesn't, we will become known as a haven for drivers without insurance and people will not even want to drive inside the city limits.

This does not go far enough -- and there should be a better proof of insurance at the state level and a way to verify such.

How much more are law-abiding citizens paying for their insurance to cover the 1/3 who drive without?

As a letter to the editor said, if you can't afford a car with insurance, 'take the bus'.

[AndyIvey]

As for vehicle inspections, we should have a system that actually ensures that the cars on the road are safe. Ok, so I apologize for starting to sound like Kinky Freidman and One Tough Grandma. “Everything is obviously broken. Can’t you see?” ::lol:: j/k
I once had a mechanic tell me that he wouldn't drive my car around the block... the same day I had the inspection renewed. I'm all for scrapping the system if we are not willing to make it more stringent. However, my private sector mind often has trouble being patient with public sector problems.

[Boredkid]

Its odd that planes are so strickly regulated yet cars and trucks are not. Always amazed that we get to the point of logging hours flown, logging how much will fill up our planes, Yet cars are the exact opposite. Imagine how much we could cut our pollution level and fatality rate if only we stuck to our standards. On the other hand my friend who had double limo tinted windows would never be able to pass inspection. And I dont know if I am willing to lose that.

[jdwillis]

Here's a bit more information...

http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/southcentral/2001/02/19/features/22323.htm

http://www.ci.corsicana.tx.us/police/crime_commission.php

http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/southcentral/2003/08/18/coverstory/31628.htm

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:icxsJlE6XpUJ:www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-98-09-REV.pdf+Texas+law+on+impounding+cars+with+no+insur ance&hl=en

The last one is the most significant. I like what page 27 has to say about incentive structures...

[frankchitown]

I've had mixed feelings about this ordinance...Of course everyone knows its against the law to drive without insurance. Violators already have to pay a hefty fine and can lose their lisence after repeated violations. I would fully support towing a vehicle after a 2nd or 3rd offense. However, I'm sick of the "holier than thou" attitute from the mayor, city council, and citizens voicing their opinion in the paper and on the news constantly repeating the "driving is a privilege, not a right" phrase like robots. It seems very easy to pick on the poor these days, but I don't believe uninsured motorists are the scum of the earth and deserve to have their private property taken by the government for breaking the law. If this is an acceptible solution, why stop at the insurance issue? If the point is to make streets safer for law-abiding citizens why not impound cars for red light runners and speeders? These people are also breaking the law and making the streets unsafe. If they are going to abuse the privilege of driving they should also have their property taken from them.

What happens if the accident is cause by the insured driver? Say Mary Notrich had to decide between feeding her children one month or renewing her policy...very paraniod about driving uncovered, she makes certain to obey all traffic rules when suddenly Joe Trustfund comes speeding down the street yapping on his cell and sideswipes Mary. Now Mary has to lose her car and get looked down upon, while Joe keeps his. I know that many will say that Mary should have been using DART. But what if Mary worked the graveyard shift at Denny's? Make DART a 24 hour service and increase the frequency of busses (for instance, the 31 leaves dowtown once an hour) before trying to use DART as an acceptible alternative to driving.

[shaun3000]

I like how everyone is crying "racial profiling" because a large majority of the cars impounded belong to <strike>Mexicans</strike> Hispanics. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, it's because they don't have their cars inspected, registered, and/or insured.

[tamtagon]

I think police in GA have the means to verify active insurance coverage from the tag number - not really sure how it works, but I dont think the cards are necessary anymore....

Better than only impounding uninsured vehicles, base traffic violation fines on income to improve road safety.

[UrbanHope]

Say you have a very inexpensive car that is worth less than $1,000. You get towed... do you think that someone is more likely to get it out of the pound

Do you all think that they wil just buy another cash car or pay to get the car back?

Just curious if there's a time limit on how long the car can stay in the pound.

[AndyIvey]

^The DMN mentioned that other cities have had problems funding this type of program because cars of lesser value cannot generate enough bids at auction to cover expenses.

[Flaming Moderate]

I like how everyone is crying "racial profiling" because a large majority of the cars impounded belong to <strike>Mexicans</strike> Hispanics. Maybe, JUST MAYBE, it's because they don't have their cars inspected, registered, and/or insured.

Agreed. I like the standard that has become "law" in our society: if you can get enough minorities to do something wrong - i.e. illegal, unethical, etc. - then the fact they they all do warrants making it right; because pointing out that minorities do something wrong is inherently racist.

[jdwillis]

I've had mixed feelings about this ordinance...Of course everyone knows its against the law to drive without insurance. Violators already have to pay a hefty fine and can lose their lisence after repeated violations. I would fully support towing a vehicle after a 2nd or 3rd offense. However, I'm sick of the "holier than thou" attitute from the mayor, city council, and citizens voicing their opinion in the paper and on the news constantly repeating the "driving is a privilege, not a right" phrase like robots. It seems very easy to pick on the poor these days, but I don't believe uninsured motorists are the scum of the earth and deserve to have their private property taken by the government for breaking the law. If this is an acceptible solution, why stop at the insurance issue? If the point is to make streets safer for law-abiding citizens why not impound cars for red light runners and speeders? These people are also breaking the law and making the streets unsafe. If they are going to abuse the privilege of driving they should also have their property taken from them.

What happens if the accident is cause by the insured driver? Say Mary Notrich had to decide between feeding her children one month or renewing her policy...very paraniod about driving uncovered, she makes certain to obey all traffic rules when suddenly Joe Trustfund comes speeding down the street yapping on his cell and sideswipes Mary. Now Mary has to lose her car and get looked down upon, while Joe keeps his. I know that many will say that Mary should have been using DART. But what if Mary worked the graveyard shift at Denny's? Make DART a 24 hour service and increase the frequency of busses (for instance, the 31 leaves dowtown once an hour) before trying to use DART as an acceptible alternative to driving.

Look at this a little differently.

Can you drive your car without gasoline? Without tires? Without oil? Without brakes?

No?

According to State law, you also cannot drive your car without insurance. It comes down to this simple fact: If you cannot afford insurance for your car, then you cannot afford the car. There no more to the question. If you can't insure your car then it is just the same as if it were out of gas. You shouldn't drive it!

BTW, these days, if you can afford to put gas in the tank, you can afford insurance.

Uninsured drivers cause most of the fatal accidents. One study, as I recall, claimed that one third of drivers (those without insurance) were responsible for two thirds of the accidents.

With statistics like that, who can argue the uninsured drivers are not dangerous?

It really is quite simple. If you want to own and drive a car, then GET INSURANCE! How dense do you need to be not to understand this?

And yes, if it is a choice between food or insurance, by all means, buy the food. But don't drive that car. Bum a ride, walk, borrow a bicycle, take DART, but don't drive that car until you once again can afford insurance.

This is a simple problem (that costs everyone one way or another) with a very simple solution. Take responsibility for your actions. If you don't, then having your car impounded is your own choice as there really is no one else to blame.

[Lakewooder]

Not to mention the fact that a lot of people who don't have insurance don't have driver's licenses, have never taken driver's ed nor passed the test!

I am perfectly fine with also towing the cars of serial speeders, red-light runners AND toll booth deadbeats!

[jdwillis]

Violators already have to pay a hefty fine and can lose their lisence after repeated violations.


No they don't.

One of the links I posted above has this particular passage in it:

"Lax enforcement makes matters worse. It reduces the probability of being caught and increases the likelihood that a motorist will drive without insurance (NAIC 1989a). When the fine for driving without insurance is $100, and when the probability of being caught driving with no insurance is 0.05, the expected opportunity cost of driving without insurance is $5 ($100 x 0.05). Juxtaposed against the $800 or more an inner city motorist has to pay to be in compliance, it is not too difficult to see in what direction the pull will be for the low wealth individual, the unemployed worker, or the low income young motorist. The nature of the penalty also matters. If the penalty for driving without insurance is of a type that involves, for example, impounding the car or revoking the driver’s license, the opportunity cost would have been higher, and most likely the number of uninsured motorists would have been smaller.

Evidence suggests that by increasing the probability of being discovered, database matching has brought about a reduction in the percentage of uninsured vehicles, at least in states for which we have data. For example, in Utah the percentage of uninsured vehicles dropped from 17.5% in January 1996 to 11.9% in April 1997 (Hunter 1997). In 1998 Utah’s bill SB 6 allowed the revocation of registration upon conviction for no insurance and raised the minimum fine for no insurance (Utah Driver License Division 1999). In the meantime, database matching and identification of the uninsured vehicles continued on a monthly basis. By February 1999, the percentage of uninsured vehicles dropped to 10% (Utah State Tax Commission 1999)."

From What We Know About UninsuredMotorists and How Well We Know What We Know J. Daniel Khazzoom December 1997, Revised April 2000 •Discussion Paper 98–09–REV

[jdwillis]

In one year, some council members said they’d like to conduct an interim review to check for racial, ethnic and geographic profiling.


BTW, how do they propose to do this?

It stands to reason that more folks with fewer means will drive with no insurance. It is well understood that most folks of some means choose not to live near folks of limited means.

Of course more poor people will get their cars towed. Studies also show that uninsured drivers are more likely to cause accidents. This being the case, of course more poor people without insurance will get their cars towed.

The solution? Don't drive without insurance and your car won't have any chance of being towed. It does not get any more simple than this.

[monogodo]

I'm amazed at the amount of generalizations that have occured in this thread.

Unless one knows the exact particulars of every single person who chooses to drive without insurance, one should not make judgements about said choice.

[X Factor]

According to State law, you also cannot drive your car without insurance. It comes down to this simple fact: If you cannot afford insurance for your car, then you cannot afford the car. There no more to the question. If you can't insure your car then it is just the same as if it were out of gas. You shouldn't drive it!

Obviously you have never been in bad enough shape money wise where you have had to take chances. I have known people that do not have insurance and had to drive their car because if they dont drive their car they dont work. If they dont work they dont make any money, I think taking care of their family is way more important than having car insurance. Granted everyone should have insurance, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. Not everyone can bum a ride, or take DART isnt at everyones doorstep. Living where I do its 60 miles round trip everyday to work, Walmart, or Mc Donalds for that matter.


Not to mention the fact that a lot of people who don't have insurance don't have driver's licenses, have never taken driver's ed nor passed the test!

what does drivers ed have to do with anything? Drivers Ed is not state required.

[jdwillis]

I like the way folks forget one particular statement I made about taking responsibility for one's actions. This means if you risk driving without insurance and you have an accident, then it is incumbent upon you to make it right, however long it takes and what ever it takes.

Is it cheaper to have the insurance or cheaper to fix the car you ran into? Is it cheaper to have insurance or cheaper to pay the hospital bill (or funerary expenses, etc) for the person(s) you ran into? If the answer for you is to drive without insurance, that is a personal decision. Once made, you must live with the consequences of that decision. Take responsibility.

Again, if you can afford to put gas into your car and pay for upkeep, then you can also afford insurance. If you can't then perhaps other factors, some of which you may have no control over, such as age, and other you may, such as the DWIs you've accumulated, are included in the mix.

For clarity, the "you" I'm referring to is the universal "you" who may be taking exception with the idea of being held responsible for "your" actions.

I'm not making generalizations. If you drive without insurance, you are the only person who put you in that position. If you don't like that position, then find another. You are responsible. No one else. Own up to it.

If you don't like the law, work to change it. I wager you won't find much traction since everyone knows someone who has been in an accident with an uninsured driver. Uninsured is another word for irresponsible. While it may be true that the irresponsible behavior of driving without insurance may be the best of a whole slew of bad choices, nonetheless it is still irresponsible.

[tamtagon]

I like the way folks forget one particular statement I made about taking responsibility for one's actions.

I agree with you. Insurance is part of operating a car. It's the law for a good reason.

Does anyone else think traffic violation fines should be based on income?? Like, list out all current fines amounts, running a redlight, speeding, expried inspection, no taillights etc. Determine a fine percentage using the federal definition of the poverty line. If running a stop sign is $100.00 and that's .01% of the income at the poverty line, anyone who getting a ticket for running a stop sign pays .01% of his/her income. Something like that.

[X Factor]

From the Report: Auto Insurance Redlining in Texas:
Availability Worsens

From the start, the requirement to purchase automobile insurance places a significantly higher financial burden on
poor consumers than on middle-and upper-income consumers because the cost of automobile insurance represents a
greater share of the poor family’s income – an income that has much less available after purchase of basic food,
shelter, transportation and medical care. According to data from the Houston and Austin municipal courts,
police issue hundreds of thousands of drivers citations annually for "failure to maintain financial responsibility" –
driving without insurance. If we extrapolate the 220,000 citations a year in Houston and the 40,000 citations a year
in Austin statewide, over 1,000,000 drivers a year receive citations for driving without insurance.
The number of citations issued for no insurance is increasing faster than the rate of population growth. This may be
an indication of an increase in the number of uninsured drivers.
The costs of unaffordable insurance for poor people are far greater than a ticket and fine for no insurance. Officer
David Powe, a police officer from Richardson, Texas, testified before the House Insurance Committee in 1994 that
fully one-third of the 5,000 prisoners in the Richardson jail facility were there because they couldn’t pay the fines
for driving without insurance. The combination of mandatory insurance and insurer redlining has criminalized
poverty and created modern day debtor’s prisons.
Redlining, combined with high rates for minimum liability coverage, creates an environment where illegal activities,
such as counterfeit proof of insurance cards, can flourish because the cost of illegal activity – including the potential
for fines and other punishment – is less than the cost of purchasing insurance. In addition, there are some areas in the
state where, because strict enforcement of financial responsibility would put half the driving population in jail, the
laws can simply not be enforced.

[jdwillis]

Does this excuse the behavior?

[tamtagon]

Does this excuse the behavior?

It just means law enforcement should be as diligent to scrutinize insurance company pricing as ticketing people without insurance.

[monogodo]

Does anyone else think traffic violation fines should be based on income?? Like, list out all current fines amounts, running a redlight, speeding, expried inspection, no taillights etc. Determine a fine percentage using the federal definition of the poverty line. If running a stop sign is $100.00 and that's .01% of the income at the poverty line, anyone who getting a ticket for running a stop sign pays .01% of his/her income. Something like that.
Yes, I agree with you.

[jdwillis]

Does this mean it is the fault of the insurance companies that these individuals are a high risk?

X Factor seems to be saying, if you'll pardon the paraphrase, Soak the Rich. This passage makes that point:


the requirement to purchase automobile insurance places a significantly higher financial burden on
poor consumers than on middle-and upper-income consumers because the cost of automobile insurance represents a
greater share of the poor family’s income – an income that has much less available after purchase of basic food,
shelter, transportation and medical care.


The author of this piece almost, but not quite, says insurance is a regressive tax. Then the author of this report goes on to say:


The combination of mandatory insurance and insurer redlining has criminalized
poverty and created modern day debtor’s prisons.

The only things being criminalized is failure to maintain insurance.

Let's look at what that means. Here's a different quote from a different study:


Table IV.1 Profile of Uninsured Motorists
Age:
Young Motorists between 18-29 own 28% of registered vehicles and account for 52% of uninsured vehicles.

Motorists 45 and over own 39% of registered vehicles and account for 13% of uninsured vehicles.

Education:
Low Motorists with less than a high school education own 17% of registered vehicles and account for 33% of uninsured vehicles.
College grad or post grads own 23% of registered vehicles and account for 11% of uninsured vehicles.

Residence:
Rent Motorists renting residence own 26% of registered vehicles and account for 50% of uninsured vehicles.
Motorists owning residence own 68% of registered vehicles, and account for 40% of uninsured vehicles.

Job Status:
Unemployed/Part-time Unemployed Motorists own 17% of registered vehicles, and account for 33% of uninsured vehicles.
Retired motorists own 14% of registered vehicles, and account for 5% of uninsured vehicles.

Personal Income:
Low Motorists with less than $7500 own 23% of registered vehicles and account for 40% of uninsured vehicles.
Motorists with $20,000 or more own 34% of registered vehicles and account for 16% of uninsured vehicles.

Gender:
Mostly Male One estimate from California showed 70% of uninsured motorists are male.

Car Age:
Old One example from Texas showed 58% drive cars more than 10 years old.

Ethnicity:
Minority Percentage varies by state; minorities dominant in some states, such as California and Texas.

Driving Record: Evidence of Accident Proneness In 1990, California’s percentage of uninsured motorists was less than 28%; yet CHP data for 1988-89* show that 55.1-60.9% of fatal accidents, 44.6% of bodily injury accidents, and 34.1% of traffic citations involved uninsured motorists

This is from the same study I quoted previously.

All this is to say there are a whole host of reasons why someone may not opt to buy insurance. The bottom line is, people who don't buy automobile insurance are, as a group, a high risk subset of the population. Of course insurance companies will charge them more because the costs of covering the losses incurred by these people are higher.

What is the answer?

Once again it comes back to taking responsibility for one's actions. If you are in a high risk group because of your behavior, then the answer is quite plain: Change your behavior.

[frankchitown]

The bottom line is, people who don't buy automobile insurance are, as a group, a high risk subset of the population. Of course insurance companies will charge them more because the costs of covering the losses incurred by these people are higher.


How do insurance companies charge more for people who don't buy insurance?

[jdwillis]

I'll rephrase that for you.

People who fall under similar demographics as those who fail to buy insurance, but who do find the means to obtain that insurance, also are high risk candidates. As such, it makes good sense to charge more for the product being purchased (insurance) since the cost of covering high risk individuals is, obviously, higher.

BTW, the way insurance companies charge more for people who don't buy insurance for their cars is by charging you and me (if you own and drive a car) more. Why? People who don't buy insurance are more likely to be involved in accidents. See the above quotes for the reference. Since they are more likely to be in accidents and carry no insurance, much like hospitals, they have to make up that amount somehow. They make it up by charging the paying customers for that additional expense. I for one don't like being charged extra for someone else's mistake.

You can throw out semantics all day long. One way or another, we are all paying for those who don't carry the mandated automotive insurance. From higher premiums charged to paying customers to higher hospital district taxes (where do accident victims go for treatment?) we all are paying the way for these deadbeats.

[Boredkid]

I agree with you. Insurance is part of operating a car. It's the law for a good reason.

Does anyone else think traffic violation fines should be based on income?? Like, list out all current fines amounts, running a redlight, speeding, expried inspection, no taillights etc. Determine a fine percentage using the federal definition of the poverty line. If running a stop sign is $100.00 and that's .01% of the income at the poverty line, anyone who getting a ticket for running a stop sign pays .01% of his/her income. Something like that.

How about we just fine the rich for being rich and pay the poor for being poor?

[X Factor]

Im not saying its right... Im just offering the other side of the argument.

[tamtagon]

How about we just fine the rich for being rich and pay the poor for being poor?

The pentalty for breaking the law should have equal impact.

[tamtagon]

How about we just fine the rich for being rich and pay the poor for being poor?

Well, instead of income based fines to discourage repeat violations, maybe people who get more than one speeding ticket in a year, maybe two, should not be allowed to drive fast vehicles. Additionally, the "system" should be dymanic to recognize the evasive tactics of repeat offenders.

[monogodo]

How about we just fine the rich for being rich and pay the poor for being poor?
A $100 fine (for example) is much more detrimental to someone making minimum wage or just above than it is to someone making well over minimum wage.

To put it in perspective:

Someone who earns $75000/year earns $100 in less than 3 hours of work.

Someone who earns $50000/year earns $100 in just over 4 hours of work.

Someone who earns minimum wage ($5.15/hour) would have to work almost 19.5 hours to earn $100.

Even someone earning $10/hour would have to work over a day to be able to pay off a $100 fine.

The above figures don't include taxes, which just extends the time needed to earn the money.

Additionally, wealthier people can afford to hire better attorneys, and have a higher likelihood of not having the infraction appear on their record, thus keeping their insurance rates lower. By having fines based on income, lower income offenders wouldn't have to decide between paying their fine and paying for insurance.

Think of it this way: Is a $100 (or $200 or $300) fine really that much of a hardship for you, personally, to pay? Considering what I know about you (you live in a loft/condo downtown, you work for the federal government, you're into motorcycles and art), I'd guess that a fine of that size wouldn't hurt you financially as much as it would someone who had to make the decision to not pay for car insurance.

[jdwillis]

The problem with this kind of system is you are handing out different penalties for identical infractions.

Traffic fines are not income taxes.

Under this kind of reasoning, all expenses should be graduated according to income. If you make above a certain amount, that $1.25 loaf of bread should cost you $3.00. Why? Because you can afford it.

This isn't Finland. Graduated traffic fines may be a fine system for them. Personally I find the idea distasteful because you are assessing different penalties for identical infractions according to some arbitrary system based on an unknown author's intent. That just ain't right.

In other words, you want to soak the rich. If that is your intent, go ahead and say so. At least that position I can respect, even if not agree with.

[Milkman Dan]

^ (mono)
Silly argument, but what about the rich person whose car has just been totalled by a poor uninsured motorist? The poor person is likely driving a pinto wheras the rich person has to buy a new S500. Isn't that an unfair burden on the wealthy person?

Insurance is the law and we could go back to college and all get degrees in socioeconomics studies as it relates to the auto insurance industry, but I'd prefer it to remain simple.

[jdwillis]

^
Silly argument, but what about the rich person whose car has just been totalled by a poor uninsured motorist? The poor person is likely driving a pinto wheras the rich person has to buy a new S500. Isn't that an unfair burden on the wealthy person?

Insurance is the law and we could go back to college and all get degrees in socioeconomics studies as it relates to the auto insurance industry, but I'd prefer it to remain simple.
If you were referring to my argument above about the traffic fines, of course it is a silly argument. I intended it to be.

The best answer, even for the traffic fines, is the same as for auto insurance. If you don't like the fines (or the possibility of having your car towed for no insurance) then don't engage in that behavior.

Now someone is going to tell me poor folks don't have any choice but to engage in traffic violations!:~)

[warlock55]

The problem with this kind of system is you are handing out different penalties for identical infractions.

Not really, if the percentage is the same for everyone. In theory, government is supposed to treat everyone fairly, and using income-based fines would probably be more fair than what currently exists.

[Boredkid]

The pentalty for breaking the law should have equal impact.

Nothing is equal.

[Lakewooder]

OK, I guess I'm a bit behind the times:

You no longer have to take driver's ed or a test to get a driver's license?

[monogodo]

OK, I guess I'm a bit behind the times:

You no longer have to take driver's ed or a test to get a driver's license?
I don't know that driver's ed is required, but the test is.

[Columbus Civil]

I never took driver's ed and my test consisted of driving on a 500-ft circular closed course with one stop sign.

[Boredkid]

If you take drivers ed then you dont have to do the driving test, just the written.