Should I carry proof...
- Thread starter jorton
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Yes, they (the insurance companies) are required BY LAW to instantly notify the DMV (that is how they "know").
In fact, in some of the towns around here where the LEOs have NOTHING better to do (too many of them, too little crime), they will randomly scan license plates into their laptops, and pull you over for no insurance (or for the cancelled due to lack of insurance, albeit fully paid, registration).
Nice racket/collusion between the state and ins. co.s, and if a cop stops you without insurance (EVEN IF you've done NOTHING ELSE WRONG) he can have your car impounded and towed on the spot, at YOUR expense!!
Of course, on top of this, we pay the absolute HIGHEST car insurance rates IN THE NATION, to the point where all of you "out there in the middle's" eyes would pop out of your skull if you had to fork over these criminal rates in order to drive.
And this is the way it should be.
If you drive a car on the road without insurance currently active on your car, you deserve to have your car taken away from you. You obviously can't afford to have a car on the road if you can't afford car insurance costs.
If you have an accident with someone else, and you don't have insurance, how in the world are you going to pay for the other person's damages out of pocket if you couldn't afford the much less expensive insurance?
Also, if you are required to have an SR-22 to keep your license, maybe next time you will think twice before you do what you did to require you to carry an SR-22. They don't just randomly decide at the DMV office that this person requires an SR-22, while the next 5 don't. That's an item you have to earn.
BC.
Yes, they (the insurance companies) are required BY LAW to instantly notify the DMV (that is how they "know").
In fact, in some of the towns around here where the LEOs have NOTHING better to do (too many of them, too little crime), they will randomly scan license plates into their laptops, and pull you over for no insurance (or for the cancelled due to lack of insurance, albeit fully paid, registration).
Nice racket/collusion between the state and ins. co.s, and if a cop stops you without insurance (EVEN IF you've done NOTHING ELSE WRONG) he can have your car impounded and towed on the spot, at YOUR expense!!
Of course, on top of this, we pay the absolute HIGHEST car insurance rates IN THE NATION, to the point where all of you "out there in the middle's" eyes would pop out of your skull if you had to fork over these criminal rates in order to drive.
And this is the way it should be.
If you drive a car on the road without insurance currently active on your car, you deserve to have your car taken away from you. You obviously can't afford to have a car on the road if you can't afford car insurance costs.
If you have an accident with someone else, and you don't have insurance, how in the world are you going to pay for the other person's damages out of pocket if you couldn't afford the much less expensive insurance?
Also, if you are required to have an SR-22 to keep your license, maybe next time you will think twice before you do what you did to require you to carry an SR-22. They don't just randomly decide at the DMV office that this person requires an SR-22, while the next 5 don't. That's an item you have to earn.
BC.
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
And this is the way it should be.
If you drive a car on the road without insurance currently active on your car, you deserve to have your car taken away from you. You obviously can't afford to have a car on the road if you can't afford car insurance costs.
And this is the way it should be.
If you drive a car on the road without insurance currently active on your car, you deserve to have your car taken away from you. You obviously can't afford to have a car on the road if you can't afford car insurance costs.
I was born on the 4th of July in the USA. I carry a passport, drivers license, CCW permit and two foreign drivers licenses. Works every time. John--Las Vegas.
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Yes, they (the insurance companies) are required BY LAW to instantly notify the DMV (that is how they "know").
In fact, in some of the towns around here where the LEOs have NOTHING better to do (too many of them, too little crime), they will randomly scan license plates into their laptops, and pull you over for no insurance (or for the cancelled due to lack of insurance, albeit fully paid, registration).
Nice racket/collusion between the state and ins. co.s, and if a cop stops you without insurance (EVEN IF you've done NOTHING ELSE WRONG) he can have your car impounded and towed on the spot, at YOUR expense!!
Of course, on top of this, we pay the absolute HIGHEST car insurance rates IN THE NATION, to the point where all of you "out there in the middle's" eyes would pop out of your skull if you had to fork over these criminal rates in order to drive.
And this is the way it should be.
If you drive a car on the road without insurance currently active on your car, you deserve to have your car taken away from you. You obviously can't afford to have a car on the road if you can't afford car insurance costs.
If you have an accident with someone else, and you don't have insurance, how in the world are you going to pay for the other person's damages out of pocket if you couldn't afford the much less expensive insurance?
Also, if you are required to have an SR-22 to keep your license, maybe next time you will think twice before you do what you did to require you to carry an SR-22. They don't just randomly decide at the DMV office that this person requires an SR-22, while the next 5 don't. That's an item you have to earn.
BC.
WHAT is an "SR-22"??!
I did not say that it should not "be that way", and have ALWAYS HAD, and ALWAYS WILL HAVE VERY GOOD insurance.
But it IS excessive here, and cops would be serving us better to keep the drunks and druggies off of the road (and yes, I know that they might be the ones more likely to not have insurance in the first place
).
But what about the western/southern "right to drive" , <
type states where NO insurance is required AT ALL???
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Yes, they (the insurance companies) are required BY LAW to instantly notify the DMV (that is how they "know").
In fact, in some of the towns around here where the LEOs have NOTHING better to do (too many of them, too little crime), they will randomly scan license plates into their laptops, and pull you over for no insurance (or for the cancelled due to lack of insurance, albeit fully paid, registration).
Nice racket/collusion between the state and ins. co.s, and if a cop stops you without insurance (EVEN IF you've done NOTHING ELSE WRONG) he can have your car impounded and towed on the spot, at YOUR expense!!
Of course, on top of this, we pay the absolute HIGHEST car insurance rates IN THE NATION, to the point where all of you "out there in the middle's" eyes would pop out of your skull if you had to fork over these criminal rates in order to drive.
And this is the way it should be.
If you drive a car on the road without insurance currently active on your car, you deserve to have your car taken away from you. You obviously can't afford to have a car on the road if you can't afford car insurance costs.
If you have an accident with someone else, and you don't have insurance, how in the world are you going to pay for the other person's damages out of pocket if you couldn't afford the much less expensive insurance?
Also, if you are required to have an SR-22 to keep your license, maybe next time you will think twice before you do what you did to require you to carry an SR-22. They don't just randomly decide at the DMV office that this person requires an SR-22, while the next 5 don't. That's an item you have to earn.
BC.
WHAT is an "SR-22"??!
I did not say that it should not "be that way", and have ALWAYS HAD, and ALWAYS WILL HAVE VERY GOOD insurance.
But it IS excessive here, and cops would be serving us better to keep the drunks and druggies off of the road (and yes, I know that they might be the ones more likely to not have insurance in the first place
But what about the western/southern "right to drive" , <
- Status
Similar threads
