View Full Version : True, Or B.S., Texas Peeps ???
Jeff '79
08-08-2011, 8:21pm
Recently, the City of Dallas , Texas , passed an ordinance stating that if a driver is pulled over by law enforcement and is not able to provide proof of insurance, the car is towed.
To retrieve the car after being impounded, they must show proof of insurance to have the car released. This has made it easy for the City of Dallas to remove uninsured cars.
Shortly after the "No Insurance" ordinance was passed, the Dallas impound lots began to fill up and were full after only nine days. 80 + % of the impounded cars were driven by illegals.
Not only must they provide proof of insurance to have their car released, they have to pay for the cost of the tow, a $350 fine, and $20 for every day their car is kept in the lot.
Accident rates are going down and... Dallas' solution gets uninsured drivers off the road WITHOUT making them show proof of nationality.
Wonder how the ACLU or the Justice Department will get around this one.
MEANZ06
08-08-2011, 8:23pm
God i love texas!
Datawiz
08-08-2011, 8:24pm
I hope that's true and it should be implemented nationally.
Defib1961
08-08-2011, 8:33pm
Another reason I love my state.:hurray::hurray:
Blue 92
08-08-2011, 8:38pm
The law is real:
Dallas Resident,
Beginning January 1, 2009 the Dallas Police Department will begin enforcing the Uninsured Motorist Ordinance, approved by the Dallas City Council on May 28, 2008. Under this ordinance drivers stopped for a traffic violation who cannot show proof of auto insurance meeting state requirements will be issued a citation and will have his or her vehicle towed at the owner’s expense. The City already tows the vehicles of uninsured motorists involved in traffic accidents.
The new ordinance is in response to the large number of people driving in the City of Dallas without the proper state required auto insurance. These uninsured drivers place an unfair burden on those who comply with state law and maintain auto insurance. The Dallas Police Department currently issues about 75,000 citations a year to motorists with no auto insurance. With the new ordinance, the city anticipates fewer of these citations as more drivers comply with the law to avoid having their vehicles towed.
To find out more about the Uninsured Motorist Ordinance that amended Section 28-4 of the Dallas City Code, please review the ordinance.
If you have any questions about this policy please call 311 (the City of Dallas’ Customer Service Helpline) or 214-670-5111 when calling outside the City of Dallas.
Welcome to the City of Dallas, Texas - Towing Uninsured Motorist Information (http://www.dallascityhall.com/police/towing_faqs.html)
Hard to say about the results.
BuckyThreadkiller
08-08-2011, 8:42pm
If they can't provide the insurance and pay the storage fees the city then sells the car and keeps the revenue.
I'm watching the Dallas city auctions fairly closely for a deal on a '63 SWC.
oahuyahoo
08-08-2011, 8:44pm
You get to keep your car here but when you walk into court and can't prove the goodies, it's a 1000 smackers first offense.
Rotorhead
08-08-2011, 8:44pm
Now the insurance companies will raise rates on the grounds they didn't know there were so many uninsured motorists.
If they can't provide the insurance and pay the storage fees the city then sells the car and keeps the revenue.
I'm watching the Dallas city auctions fairly closely for a deal on a '63 SWC.
:waiting:
Uncle Pervey
08-08-2011, 8:47pm
I wish Houston did that, hell I wish it was state law in Texas. My son and his wife have been ran into 3 times in Houston, nothing major, but each and every time the drivers were illegals and their Insurance ID was invalid.
What they do is go someplace pay 1 month of insurance, get their tag sticker and inspection sticker, then never pay another payment on the insurance. But! They have ID showing they have insurance.
I have heard that the LEOs now have access to the state insurance database and it is keyed off your license plate. When they run the plate it tells if there is valid insurance or not. I do not know if this is true or not. :leaving:
People w/o car insurance should be shot on sight.
Then, their head should be put on a stake in the median of the busiest thoroughfare in town.
People w/o car insurance should be shot on sight.
Then, their head should be put on a stake in the median of the busiest thoroughfare in town.
A man after my own heart. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u138/willbridges1982/Smilies/emot-allears.gif
Stangkiller
08-08-2011, 9:37pm
I wish Houston did that, hell I wish it was state law in Texas. My son and his wife have been ran into 3 times in Houston, nothing major, but each and every time the drivers were illegals and their Insurance ID was invalid.
What they do is go someplace pay 1 month of insurance, get their tag sticker and inspection sticker, then never pay another payment on the insurance. But! They have ID showing they have insurance.
I have heard that the LEOs now have access to the state insurance database and it is keyed off your license plate. When they run the plate it tells if there is valid insurance or not. I do not know if this is true or not. :leaving:
The database is real...if you get new insurance, you'll actually pay a filing fee to file with the state. Unfortunately inspection companies do not have access to the database, so you must still carry proof at least once a year for inspection.
pappytinker
08-08-2011, 10:21pm
I wish Houston did that, hell I wish it was state law in Texas. My son and his wife have been ran into 3 times in Houston, nothing major, but each and every time the drivers were illegals and their Insurance ID was invalid.
What they do is go someplace pay 1 month of insurance, get their tag sticker and inspection sticker, then never pay another payment on the insurance. But! They have ID showing they have insurance.
I have heard that the LEOs now have access to the state insurance database and it is keyed off your license plate. When they run the plate it tells if there is valid insurance or not. I do not know if this is true or not. :leaving:
Here in Indiana, your insurance card is adequate for the officer on the scene. The officer on the scene does a registration and license check with the central database and as long as it comes back as valid you are allowed to go on your way unless the vehicle is too damaged to drive (or you are). However, all of your license and registration information along with the incident report is sent to the BMV in Indianapolis. When you depart from the scene you are given a form that MUST be completed by your insurance agent stating that you had valid insurance at the time of the incident and it will continue to be in effect until the registration expires. If that task is not completed within 15 days, your license is suspended and your registration becomes invalid.
The reason I know is that when an older gentleman tried to move from the left lane to the right lane and my car (not the 'Vette) happened to already be there I had to get the form completed even though the old guy was at fault and was cited.
beadist
08-09-2011, 1:28am
A similar law has been in place here in Louisiana for years.
In Louisiana, you must carry proof of insurance in your vehicle and if you're found driving without that proof, the officer will immediately take your license plates and impound your vehicle. You will then have three business days to prove that you have insurance to the office of motor vehicles of Louisiana. Should you not show proof of insurance, your license plates will be destroyed and you'll be required to register your vehicle and show proof of insurance again. In Louisiana, the Department of Motor Vehicles handles all insurance cancellations. If your insurance lapses, your license will be tagged and you will be unable to renew your driver's license or registration until the tag is lifted. You will be fined if you did not show proof of insurance within 10 days, from 11 to 30 days you incur a $50 fine, 31 to 90 days and you will owe $125, if you do not show proof of insurance in 91 days or more you will be fined $225. So with all of this hassle due to cancellations or no insurance you can bet that in the long run it's cheaper to carry liability insurance in Louisiana.
Kuelblaz
08-09-2011, 5:26am
I like it ... Wonder if they've started the auctions yet?
Vet4jdc
08-09-2011, 6:11am
I hope that's true and it should be implemented nationally.
:iagree:
mrvette
08-09-2011, 6:25am
If they can't provide the insurance and pay the storage fees the city then sells the car and keeps the revenue.
I'm watching the Dallas city auctions fairly closely for a deal on a '63 SWC.
Yeh, you and 19k other vette folks.....
:rofl::cheers:
mrvette
08-09-2011, 8:12am
Hello, Geico, my name is Jose' Jiminez, I needs INsurance,
:rofl::rofl::lol:
I have two problems with this, even though I would personally benefit from everyone else on the road having insurance.
1) Yes, Texas does have some kind of computerized data base with "who's insured by whom". Screw ups happen, and it is very possible that folks that might have valid minimum coverage liability won't be able to prove it upon demand, and then, poof, they lose their car. Ever been pulled over, and in the heat of the traffic stop, can't find and produce upon demand your current insurance card? I have.
2) OK, so we take someones car and lets just say they were indeed driving with no insurance. Fine. If they can't pay the hefty fine and impound fee, along with the cab ride to get their car back, then they lose their car. If it would take a little while to scrape together the money, then they still lose, because daily storage fees keep increasing the cost to get the car back. This is not fair. The punishment is worse than the crime, or to put it another way, it is "cruel and unusual punishment".
If we were seizing a car from someone who has caused property damage or injury to another, fine, but we are seizing a car from someone who has NOT actually caused harm to another.
Finally, what about those folks who actually have liability insurance, but for whatever reason, the driver is not a covered driver, and thus there is no actual coverage on the car, at the time of the stop?
Say your policy covers listed drivers only and your friend borrows your car. Your friend is not covered, even though you paid for insurance, and had you been driving, you would have been covered. Still think it is OK for government to steal the car?
BuckyThreadkiller
08-09-2011, 9:15am
I have two problems with this, even though I would personally benefit from everyone else on the road having insurance.
1) Yes, Texas does have some kind of computerized data base with "who's insured by whom". Screw ups happen, and it is very possible that folks that might have valid minimum coverage liability won't be able to prove it upon demand, and then, poof, they lose their car. Ever been pulled over, and in the heat of the traffic stop, can't find and produce upon demand your current insurance card? I have.
2) OK, so we take someones car and lets just say they were indeed driving with no insurance. Fine. If they can't pay the hefty fine and impound fee, along with the cab ride to get their car back, then they lose their car. If it would take a little while to scrape together the money, then they still lose, because daily storage fees keep increasing the cost to get the car back. This is not fair. The punishment is worse than the crime, or to put it another way, it is "cruel and unusual punishment".
If we were seizing a car from someone who has caused property damage or injury to another, fine, but we are seizing a car from someone who has NOT actually caused harm to another.
Finally, what about those folks who actually have liability insurance, but for whatever reason, the driver is not a covered driver, and thus there is no actual coverage on the car, at the time of the stop?
Say your policy covers listed drivers only and your friend borrows your car. Your friend is not covered, even though you paid for insurance, and had you been driving, you would have been covered. Still think it is OK for government to steal the car?
Dunno all the details Bill, but I was recently pulled over for speeding and couldn't find the current insurance card. Had last years, had the one that expired in April, but not the new one.
The Trooper went back to the cruiser tapped a few keys and had validation that I was indeed covered.
Now if I was latino and driving a 83 Impala with different color doors and 6 unbelted kids in the back I might not have gotten that courtesy, but in my anecdotal case - the system worked.
Stangkiller
08-09-2011, 9:20am
I have two problems with this, even though I would personally benefit from everyone else on the road having insurance.
1) Yes, Texas does have some kind of computerized data base with "who's insured by whom". Screw ups happen, and it is very possible that folks that might have valid minimum coverage liability won't be able to prove it upon demand, and then, poof, they lose their car. Ever been pulled over, and in the heat of the traffic stop, can't find and produce upon demand your current insurance card? I have.
2) OK, so we take someones car and lets just say they were indeed driving with no insurance. Fine. If they can't pay the hefty fine and impound fee, along with the cab ride to get their car back, then they lose their car. If it would take a little while to scrape together the money, then they still lose, because daily storage fees keep increasing the cost to get the car back. This is not fair. The punishment is worse than the crime, or to put it another way, it is "cruel and unusual punishment".
If we were seizing a car from someone who has caused property damage or injury to another, fine, but we are seizing a car from someone who has NOT actually caused harm to another.
Finally, what about those folks who actually have liability insurance, but for whatever reason, the driver is not a covered driver, and thus there is no actual coverage on the car, at the time of the stop?
Say your policy covers listed drivers only and your friend borrows your car. Your friend is not covered, even though you paid for insurance, and had you been driving, you would have been covered. Still think it is OK for government to steal the car?
isn't it the drivers responsibility to ensure the insurance card is in the car? Just like having to display a license plate on the back of your car. Maybe it's time we put a little higher importance on that little piece of paper that is so often misplaced or lost. Everybody bears the cost of uninsured drivers, including the City, it's time to put insurance back into importance. While the City can't force you to buy it, they can sure stop you from driving without it.
Mark C5
08-09-2011, 9:40am
Ever been pulled over, and in the heat of the traffic stop, can't find and produce upon demand your current insurance card?
No I haven't and I've been stopped plenty. Every insurance company that I've ever used always gives me two insurance cards. One goes in my wallet and one in the car as soon as I get them.
The punishment is worse than the crime, or to put it another way, it is "cruel and unusual punishment".
No, it's not. Drive without insurance you lose the privilege. Remember it's a privilege not a right, you have to follow the rules. If you don't you pay the price.
If we were seizing a car from someone who has caused property damage or injury to another, fine, but we are seizing a car from someone who has NOT actually caused harm to another.
While they may or may not have caused physical damage to another by driving without insurance they have caused financial damage. I have to pay extra on my insurance to cover uninsured motorists. That harms me.
Finally, what about those folks who actually have liability insurance, but for whatever reason, the driver is not a covered driver, and thus there is no actual coverage on the car, at the time of the stop?
Say your policy covers listed drivers only and your friend borrows your car. Your friend is not covered, even though you paid for insurance, and had you been driving, you would have been covered.
It is your responsibility to ensure your vehicle is operated by a properly insured driver at all times. Fail to do so, suffer the consequences, period. It's really not all that complicated.
Still think it is OK for government to steal the car?
No one is stealing anyone's vehicle. If you fail to properly insure yourself or fail to ensure your vehicle is operated by a properly insured driver you are forfeiting your vehicle as well as your driving privilege.
WalkerInTN
08-09-2011, 9:46am
No I haven't and I've been stopped plenty. Every insurance company that I've ever used always gives me two insurance cards. One goes in my wallet and one in the car as soon as I get them.
No, it's not. Drive without insurance you lose the privilege. Remember it's a privilege not a right, you have to follow the rules. If you don't you pay the price.
While they may or may not have caused physical damage to another by driving without insurance they have caused financial damage. I have to pay extra on my insurance to cover uninsured motorists. That harms me.
It is your responsibility to ensure your vehicle is operated by a properly insured driver at all times. Fail to do so, suffer the consequences, period. It's really not all that complicated.
No one is stealing anyone's vehicle. If you fail to properly insure yourself or fail to ensure your vehicle is operated by a properly insured driver you are forfeiting your vehicle as well as your driving privilege.
:iagree: Perzactly. :cheers:
PLEASE bring that law to Tennessee. :yesnod:
Houston has SafeClear. :D
SafeClear is about to become another car grabbing pogrom.
Before, the wrecker would take your car (by force), remove it from the freeway, then give you the chance to unhook the car in the nearest parking lot off the freeway. Now, motorists who get hooked have to pay the wrecker driver a fee, or they don't get unhooked and go straight to the impound yard, where storage charges start accruing. So, if you don't have the $ 50 or so cash to pay off the wrecker, then you lose your car. If you need time to get the $ 50, you still lose your car, because storage charges start accruing.
So, your penalty for having a flat tire, running out of gas, or maybe having a blown radiator hose is that you lose your car. Again, cruel and unusual punishment for someone who hasn't even committed a crime.
No I haven't and I've been stopped plenty. Every insurance company that I've ever used always gives me two insurance cards. One goes in my wallet and one in the car as soon as I get them.
You are more organized than most folks I know. :cheers:
No, it's not. Drive without insurance you lose the privilege. Remember it's a privilege not a right, you have to follow the rules. If you don't you pay the price.
I'm OK with losing the privilege, I am not OK with taking someone's car. Again, cruel and unusual punishment.
While they may or may not have caused physical damage to another by driving without insurance they have caused financial damage. I have to pay extra on my insurance to cover uninsured motorists. That harms me.
That driver on that day didn't harm you. He could have, but he didn't. I don't carry UM because I already have health insurance and collision coverage for my cars.
It is your responsibility to ensure your vehicle is operated by a properly insured driver at all times. Fail to do so, suffer the consequences, period. It's really not all that complicated.
:iagree: I just disagree that taking someone's car is the appropriate consequence.
No one is stealing anyone's vehicle. If you fail to properly insure yourself or fail to ensure your vehicle is operated by a properly insured driver you are forfeiting your vehicle as well as your driving privilege.
However you slice it, the car is taken by force. If I took your car by force, we would call that theft all day long. I don't see a difference between me taking your car and the government taking your car.
Chris Fowler
08-09-2011, 10:22am
However you slice it, the car is taken by force. If I took your car by force, we would call that theft all day long. I don't see a difference between me taking your car and the government taking your car.
So you have issues if someone tows your car because you parked it illegally?
Stangkiller
08-09-2011, 10:25am
So you have issues if someone tows your car because you parked it illegally?
I had my truck towed from where I parked it LEGALLY, from a business I had just done business with. Long story short they wanted $200 to give it back. I called the business and raised hell, not sure if they paid it or not, but I got my truck back.
So you have issues if someone tows your car because you parked it illegally?
Imma have to think about that one. :D
Mark C5
08-09-2011, 10:29am
However you slice it, the car is taken by force. If I took your car by force, we would call that theft all day long. I don't see a difference between me taking your car and the government taking your car.
You seriously don't see a difference between forfeiting your property and privilege and having it unlawfully confiscated? You lose your car because YOU made the decision to drive without insurance. No one forced you to do so. You were informed beforehand what the penalty would be if caught. The government isn't taking your car, you are giving it to them.
As far as the uninsured motorist not harming me on that day, wrong again. They harm all insured drivers everyday. Insurance rates are higher in part because of uninsured motorists whether or not you specifically have the coverage.
WalkerInTN
08-09-2011, 10:30am
That driver on that day didn't harm you. He could have, but he didn't.
Lots of drunk drivers could use that same arguement to justify their behavior. Still doesn't make it right.
Chris Fowler
08-09-2011, 11:17am
Imma have to think about that one. :D
I consider it a very similar offense, parking illegally, driving illegally. Both get your car towed. It's not stolen. You can get it back. Pay the fine. Both are preventable by the owner of the car by following the rules.
Chris Fowler
08-09-2011, 11:22am
Are you equating being stopped by a police officer on the side of a public road to parking illegally on someone's private property?
For the purpose of bill's argument that having your car towed is the same as having it stolen, yes.
Mark C5
08-09-2011, 11:39am
They only do harm when they cause an accident. Otherwise, no harm is done which can be assessed in a financial manner.
Wrong. They cause me to have to spend more money for insurance. That can be precisely measured financially. Again, that harms me financially.
If they can't provide the insurance and pay the storage fees the city then sells the car and keeps the revenue.
I'm watching the Dallas city auctions fairly closely for a deal on a '63 SWC.
Sorry Jim, I've got a Constable friend on the lookout for me so I have first dibs. :D
For those that don't know, Dallas has had a big problem with their County Constables, local tow companies and kickbacks.
Although this is one time the City did the right thing, most of time it's total F/U.
Mark C5
08-09-2011, 2:22pm
Read it again.
If an uninsured driver never has accident with insured drivers, please tell me how that would affect your insurance rates.
Insurance rates are higher because some people choose to drive without insurance. Uninsured motorist fees are a line item on my insurance statement. All insured people pay more for their insurance because some choose to drive uninsured. Therefore they cause financial harm to others whether they have had an accident or not.
Read it again.
If an uninsured driver never has accident with insured drivers, please tell me how that would affect your insurance rates.
When uninsured drivers get in accidents (their fault or not) everybody's rates go up.
if your friend borrows the car they are covered. In Texas, insurance follows the car, not the driver. As long as it is not stolen, and the driver had permission to be in the car, they are insured by your policy.
edit before the captobviouspolicestepin. - provided the driver is legally able to drive. has a valid drivers license, not drunk, etc.
Chris Fowler
08-09-2011, 3:44pm
if your friend borrows the car they are covered. In Texas, insurance follows the car, not the driver. As long as it is not stolen, and the driver had permission to be in the car, they are insured by your policy.
edit before the captobviouspolicestepin. - provided the driver is legally able to drive. has a valid drivers license, not drunk, etc.
Yup...but if a roommate of the owner takes the car without permission, gets drunk, comes home to the apartment complex, guns it, loses control, smashes into three cars, drives off and comes back sober then the owners of the three cars have to deal with uninsured motorist insurance, or pay out of pocket if they're not carrying uninsured motorist...
Ask me how I know. :rolleyes:
Insurance rates are higher because some people choose to drive without insurance. Uninsured motorist fees are a line item on my insurance statement. All insured people pay more for their insurance because some choose to drive uninsured. Therefore they cause financial harm to others whether they have had an accident or not.
I'm not sure I follow that.
Let's say a guy drives his whole life and never carries car insurance and never gets involved in an accident. Insurance companies have not made one dollar of premium on that driver, and, conversely, have not spent one dollar on a claim because of that driver. I'd say this person is neutral in relation to insurance rates. It would be akin to the guy who lives off the grid and doesn't have electric service. Unless he steals power from his neighbors or from the power company, his non use of power doesn't make his neighbor's power bill increase.
Let's say the guy drives his whole life, and has accidents, but the accidents are always the fault of the other, insured driver. In this case, you are right. This guy paid no premium dollars, yet got paid by insurers for his damage. Is your argument "if the uninsured guy wasn't there in the first place, there would have been no accident at all?" Possibly, but then another car might have been exactly where our uninsured motorist was when he got hit, at the exact moment. Who can say?
Finally, if the guy is the cause of accidents and carries no insurance, then yes, absolutely he is costing the rest of us money in the form of higher rates.
Edit: In Texas, you can post a bond with the state to prove you can pay for damage if you cause a wreck and then you are not required to carry insurance. Are folks that choose to post bond rather than buy insurance costing other motorists in the form of higher premiums?
Mark C5
08-09-2011, 7:01pm
I'm not sure I follow that.
Let's say a guy drives his whole life and never carries car insurance and never gets involved in an accident. Insurance companies have not made one dollar of premium on that driver, and, conversely, have not spent one dollar on a claim because of that driver. I'd say this person is neutral in relation to insurance rates. It would be akin to the guy who lives off the grid and doesn't have electric service. Unless he steals power from his neighbors or from the power company, his non use of power doesn't make his neighbor's power bill increase.
Let's say the guy drives his whole life, and has accidents, but the accidents are always the fault of the other, insured driver. In this case, you are right. This guy paid no premium dollars, yet got paid by insurers for his damage. Is your argument "if the uninsured guy wasn't there in the first place, there would have been no accident at all?" Possibly, but then another car might have been exactly where our uninsured motorist was when he got hit, at the exact moment. Who can say?
Finally, if the guy is the cause of accidents and carries no insurance, then yes, absolutely he is costing the rest of us money in the form of higher rates.
Edit: In Texas, you can post a bond with the state to prove you can pay for damage if you cause a wreck and you are not required to carry insurance. Are folks that choose to post bond rather than buy insurance costing other motorists in the form of higher premiums?
You've completely missed the point of insurance. Insurance is to protect you from what MIGHT happen. Your rates are based on what possibly could occur as much as what has occurred in the past.
Your insurance company has to consider that the possibility exists that you will be involved in an accident with an uninsured driver and that the uninsured driver will be at fault. The insurance company can not go to the uninsured driver to get the funds, they get them from you in the form of higher premiums. If there were no uninsured drivers this would not be necessary. Therefore, simply by existing the uninsured driver has cost the insured driver money, whether or not either ever has an accident.
Texas isn't the only State with an uninsured motorist fee. Virginia has it as well.It is very expensive and is extremely seldom used. Let's face it, if you are not going to pay for insurance what are the odds you'll pay the fee. But even if you do, yes, as an uninsured driver they are still costing insured drivers money.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.