Why aren't penalties stiffer for people who drive without a valid license/registration/insurance?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If they're too poor to be able to drive legally, then they should find another way to get to work. Ride a bike. Carpool. Ride a bus. Walk. Being poor doesn't excuse driving illegally, and like was said by a previous poster, forcing everyone else's insurance to go up...
Are you looking for people to tell you you're right or to answer the question as to why people behave how they do?
 
Wait, I thought these were the folks who wanted less government?
It's not about less government, it's about law and order and the financial responsibility required for having the right to drive.

What's government worth when you have people crashing into each other without consequences?

I've dealt with countless claims of hit and runs and with no insurance where the victim is left pounding sand and up the creek in some cases. The insurance company won't care or hire Matlock to investigate / track down the perp. Insurance will say it's the police's job and if they are too busy well you better DIY tracking the driver down. Usually these people are useless eaters without enough earning potential or assets to pursue anyway. Insurance company subrogation department AFAIK only go after the low hanging fruit.


IIRC one good law on file is in NJ. Supposedly a pay to play statute, from Google:

New Jersey's "no pay, no play" law prevents uninsured drivers from recovering non-economic damages in civil lawsuits for car accidents. This law is intended to reduce the burden on insurance companies.

What does it mean?
  • Uninsured drivers cannot recover non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, even if they win their case

  • Uninsured drivers may also have limited ability to collect for property damage

  • Uninsured drivers may face criminal charges

    What are the penalties for driving without insurance in New Jersey? A fine of at least $300 and up to $1,000, Community service, and A one-year driver's license suspension.

The smaller gov't people IMHO are basically against bureaucrats crafting laws out of thin air without legislation. Overturning Chevron is the solution here.
 
A friend of mine was stopped, his license had expired 2 days before, and he didn't even realize it.
Cop gave him a $175 ticket, and had his car towed.
I told my friend to dispute it in court, so he did.
Cop pulled a no show, and ticket voided.
If I was a cop, and someone had an expired license, I would just tell them to go renew it.
The exact thing happened to me. Two days expired. And I had already sent the check in the mail to renew it. DMV was backlogged. Car got towed. Got a $1000 ticket for unlicensed driver instead of the $175 ticket for expired license.

Called my mom, who called our cousin, a judge, who got me a lawyer on a favor. Met this lawyer at 11 pm at his office. Only one desk light was on. Couldn't see a thing. There was a mysterious man in the corner shadows smoking a cigar. It was a scene right out of the Godfather. I was sworn to secrecy.

The lawyer told me to show up at the court date but not to enter the courtroom. He was very specific about this. He talked to the judge in his chambers and took care of everything. The strangest thing in my life.
 
It's not about less government, it's about law and order and the financial responsibility required for having the right to drive.

What's government worth when you have people crashing into each other without consequences?

I've dealt with countless claims of hit and runs and with no insurance where the victim is left pounding sand and up the creek in some cases. The insurance company won't care or hire Matlock to investigate / track down the perp. Insurance will say it's the police's job and if they are too busy well you better DIY tracking the driver down. Usually these people are useless eaters without enough earning potential or assets to pursue anyway. Insurance company subrogation department AFAIK only go after the low hanging fruit.


IIRC one good law on file is in NJ. Supposedly a pay to play statute, from Google:

New Jersey's "no pay, no play" law prevents uninsured drivers from recovering non-economic damages in civil lawsuits for car accidents. This law is intended to reduce the burden on insurance companies.

What does it mean?
  • Uninsured drivers cannot recover non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, even if they win their case

  • Uninsured drivers may also have limited ability to collect for property damage

  • Uninsured drivers may face criminal charges

    What are the penalties for driving without insurance in New Jersey? A fine of at least $300 and up to $1,000, Community service, and A one-year driver's license suspension.

The smaller gov't people IMHO are basically against bureaucrats crafting laws out of thin air without legislation. Overturning Chevron is the solution here.
Small gov't people should know that that is illegal and that laws can be laws only if they are passed by the legislative body and signed by the executive branch. I really want to know where did "bureaucrats passed a law" without a legislative body. What "law" was that?
 
I've driven without insurance, just wasn't caught is all.
It was long ago, my ex girlfriend and I were washing my car in her parents driveway, and I noticed the sticker on the plate expired about 6 weeks before.
It happens, not ALL of us are 100% perfect!
I'm sure that in my 29 years of being on this spinning rock, I've made thousands of mistakes.
Pretty sure I'll make thousands more to!
 
Small gov't people should know that that is illegal and that laws can be laws only if they are passed by the legislative body and signed by the executive branch. I really want to know where did "bureaucrats passed a law" without a legislative body. What "law" was that?

The Chevron case. It was recently overturned and before it agencies could make up their own rules as long as they followed the spirit of the law or something along those lines.

I stand corrected, these bureaucrats / agencies didn't pass laws but made up their own more restrictive regulations which might as well have been law because they were able to create fines and enforce these regulations which were not part of the original law.


Impact of Overturning Chevron:
  • Reduced Agency Power: By overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court has shifted the balance of power back towards the judiciary. Courts are now required to exercise "independent judgment" in interpreting statutes, rather than deferring to agency interpretations.
  • Increased Legislative Scrutiny: This shift necessitates greater clarity and specificity in legislation. Congress will need to be more precise in drafting laws to avoid ambiguity and potential for differing interpretations by agencies and courts.
  • Potential for Increased Litigation: With courts playing a more active role in statutory interpretation, there's a potential for increased litigation as agencies and affected parties challenge regulations more frequently.
 
I think it is well worth a individual's time to research current and past lawless societies. The benefits and pitfalls of no enforcement of laws. Ample amount of research papers readily available on the internet on the freedoms and pitfalls of a lawless society.
 
The Chevron case. It was recently overturned and before it agencies could make up their own rules as long as they followed the spirit of the law or something along those lines.

I stand corrected, these bureaucrats / agencies didn't pass laws but made up their own more restrictive regulations which might as well have been law because they were able to create fines and enforce these regulations which were not part of the original law.


Impact of Overturning Chevron:
  • Reduced Agency Power: By overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court has shifted the balance of power back towards the judiciary. Courts are now required to exercise "independent judgment" in interpreting statutes, rather than deferring to agency interpretations.
  • Increased Legislative Scrutiny: This shift necessitates greater clarity and specificity in legislation. Congress will need to be more precise in drafting laws to avoid ambiguity and potential for differing interpretations by agencies and courts.
  • Potential for Increased Litigation: With courts playing a more active role in statutory interpretation, there's a potential for increased litigation as agencies and affected parties challenge regulations more frequently.
I know very well what is Chevron case.
There is no such thing as “it might be law.”
I would be less enthusiastic about it.
 
I think it is well worth a individual's time to research current and past lawless societies. The benefits and pitfalls of no enforcement of laws. Ample amount of research papers readily available on the internet on the freedoms and pitfalls of a lawless society.
Ample amount of research papers that specifically talk about issues of insurance etc. Law and Order doesn’t mean no empathy.
 
I think it is well worth a individual's time to research current and past lawless societies. The benefits and pitfalls of no enforcement of laws. Ample amount of research papers readily available on the internet on the freedoms and pitfalls of a lawless society.


Rules, and laws, are good to point.
Problem is that at least here, government, cops, prosecutors, have gone way too far. Numerous times I have seen cops yelling and screaming for no reason.
Lying and lying, and lying some more.
And I witness more cops breaking laws, than regular people do, when they should be leading by example.
A cop even hit my parked logging truck oneday, then tried to blame me. He lied about it all, thankfully there were 3rd party eyewitnesses to it. I was in a brake check pull out, parked, doing a walk around on my truck. He pulled in going ridiculously fast, couldn't slow down quickly enough on the snow and ice, and slammed into the trailer. Or cops who stalk someone, and then terrorize them, but nobody does anything about it, because they are a cop.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, my trust in the rcmp is less than any other group of people on earth.
 
All of this boils down to America’s compulsory car slavery. I despise that our infrastructure mandates owning a car to get around. European cities where majority gets around by walking, public transit, or bike/scooter eliminates so much of this issue.

In the US, There’s limited money to go around, thus there’s no one solution that will solve the impossible balance between sparing poor people or perfectly impartial penalties.

Imagine if people struggling financially could get to work without a car, reasonably and safely.
 
All of this boils down to America’s compulsory car slavery. I despise that our infrastructure mandates owning a car to get around. European cities where majority gets around by walking, public transit, or bike/scooter eliminates so much of this issue.

In the US, There’s limited money to go around, thus there’s no one solution that will solve the impossible balance between sparing poor people or perfectly impartial penalties.

Imagine if people struggling financially could get to work without a car, reasonably and safely.
Both societies have pros and cons. Europe is 1. Much smaller! 2. It developed out of older societies that had to be more compact.
If you ask, most Europeans think the big house in suburbia with a 3-car garage is much better than an 1100sq ft apartment with no parking space, etc.
But then, if you ask Americans, they want that coffee shop in front of apartments etc. The grass is always greener on the other side. I am from Europe. I traveled to pretty much all the countries there. And I prefer it here. It is less constraining and more space, but yes, it is car-dependent. There is no such thing as perfection.
 
All of this boils down to America’s compulsory car slavery. I despise that our infrastructure mandates owning a car to get around. European cities where majority gets around by walking, public transit, or bike/scooter eliminates so much of this issue.

In the US, There’s limited money to go around, thus there’s no one solution that will solve the impossible balance between sparing poor people or perfectly impartial penalties.

Imagine if people struggling financially could get to work without a car, reasonably and safely.
As much as I love cars, I have often thought about exactly what you speak of. I agree and wish the USA had systems similar to Europe. I will always love cars. But it would be nice to have the ability to choose cars or mass transit. Nice if the USA had systems similar to Europe.

A little short story that may shock some folks. Yet in American probably not. Underneath Los Angeles Cal there is a subway system similar to NY city. Some of it still remains walled & boarded off falling into decay since the 1950s. Many who live there today have no idea.
There have been stories (not proven I do not think) that the subway in LA was some how killed off by General Motors and other automobile companies. I have found no proof of that story but I would not be surprised if back door deals and payoffs and bribes to city officials across the USA had a hand in the demise of most mass tranist systems.
Some may enjoy these stories. There are many more about it that can be found.

https://lamag.com/lahistory/inside-l-s-dark-deserted-network-railways

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562007/streetcar-history-demise
 
Last edited:
Ample amount of research papers that specifically talk about issues of insurance etc. Law and Order doesn’t mean no empathy.
Empathy and critical thinking are definitely a skillset law enforcement professionals should have.

In 1980 at age 16, my best friend in high school was on a first date. He was driving his Dad's 1970s era Volvo sedan, likely a four cylinder. My best friend was honest, loyal, super smart, STEM, never in trouble in his life. His Dad was a lifer engineer at International Harvester. His Dad also raced VWs in organized parking lots events. In addition, his Dad commuted in his motorcycle year-round, regardless of weather. A STEM family, very law-abiding people. Also motorheads.

On his first date, my buddy was driving down main street, at age 16, on a Tuesday night. He was speeding, but not excessively. Local LE went to pull him over, and something in his brain went wacky- this 16-year-old that never broke a law, nothing decided to flee and elude. For zero reason.

My best friend was quickly apprehended. Everyone has a bad day, and everyone makes errors in judgments, regardless of a person's values and ethics. It was likely a good thing my friend experienced this. I am sure it was a lifelong lesson. And I am confident he never committed another felony.
 
A friend of mine was stopped, his license had expired 2 days before, and he didn't even realize it.

If I was a cop, and someone had an expired license, I would just tell them to go renew it.

I agree with this. This cop should've just reminded him that his license was expired. I'm only suggesting that repeat offenders
All dependent on 'who' the driver is, of course. I mean, if they have an expensive iPhone, tattoos, etc, no, they don't get that slack. Then what if they "forget" to get their license renewed and get caught again, i.e. a repeat offender ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom