How does the commissioner plan to fund the enforcement of this initiative? In 1997 Assembly Bill 650 brought mandatory insurance to the state of California. A few months into it there were articles in the Orange County Register in which judges and law enforcement officers openly said they would not enforce it based on the additional workload it represented. Assuming this initiative becomes a reality, look for a 2-3 month surge in business followed by a return to non-compliance comparable to what exists today.
um…how much of a workload are we talking about? a few more citations and that puts more dollars back into the fund. in reality, we are spending too much on insurance because drivers have accidents and don’t carry insurance as stated by the law. we do need to push the issue, if you drive – you need to have insurance.
this is why i like NC, just to have a driver’s license, you must show insurance (even if you don’t have a vehicle). if you think about it, why even have a driver license otherwise? you can always get an id card (again, another revenue source for the government).
Very true wudchuck; if you need id you can get id, the only reason to have a drivers license is to drive and you should have to show insurance.
The only extra work I see is a couple minutes to remove the plates. They’ll have to outfit the cruisers with a nut driver and a couple screwdrivers. A good all-in-one should handle it (fairly inexpensive at WalMart).
Why is California’s Low Cost auto insurance program selling limits that are below the state’s financial responsibility limits? FR requires 15/30/5 and the low cost program offers 10/20/5. If the state is going to be in the insurance business, then they ought to be offering legally required limits.
It’s good from a standpoint that it will force everyone to be accountable and pay for the damages that they are at fault for. The problem is, most of these people are scum, no reputable agency wants these people.
I don’t currently own a car myself, I bicycle to work. But I need a driver’s license for work, it’s a requirement that I be able to drive company vehicles. The company’s insurance is primary, my personal umbrella covers my personal liability exposure and UM/UIM, but I don’t have car insurance or a car.
How do states that require proof of insurance for driver licensing deal with people who need licenses but otherwise have no need for an auto policy?
Great idea! Don’t we already have mandatory insurance in California that is being enforced thru DMV at vehicle registration? No proof, no tags. Still not working is it, why will this be any better? We currently run about 30% uninsured on our vehicle accident claims, about 10% of those do not even have a license. Poizner is looking at Arnold’s job, he craves the attention!
Bart- Unfortuantly there is a loop hole to having to have insurance to registar a veh. There are some insurance companies that offer the very basic insurance for cheap. Those working the system can go purchase insurance, pay the initial sign up fee and one month of ins, registar a vehicle within that month and never pay insurance again. The insurance company drops them and they are suppose to notify the DMV but dont always.
As great as this ballot sounds, unfortuantly it only takes one time for someone to get caught with no insurance, and sometimes that one time is a major accident. As someone had said earlier, some of those people that are UM tend to be “scum” with nothing to lose. The insurance company can bill them for damages caused, but what are the odds they will actually pay? This leaves the insured motorist paying more in premiums to make up for the loss.
I bet Quackamendi is mad that he did not think of this. I am always for trying to figure out how to get the uninsured to buy insurance, but I have to agree with most of you. It will maybe start out with a bang and then fizzle. For one thing, if you were the highway patrol and polled over someone without insurance and maybe without a license, would you really want to kneel down in front of the car? Once the first illegal immigrant runs over an officer, then all hell will break loose.
We offer a non-owner policy that will provide coverage to satisfy the state. Ironic isn’t it, you are concerned about having insurance and you don’t own a car. A refreshing bit of responsibility.
but even still — ur company has the insurance to cover you. but u had to initially have had a license before u had gotten ur cdl. i used to have a cdl and drove otr for 7 yrs (5 of them as a driver-trainer) for 48 states and canada.
but someone made a good comment previously: folks will get the insur, reg the veh and don’t make that next pymnt on the insur. this is one of the bad things happening in most of our states.
the thing that we need to do is require those that do not want to keep the insur, is get an sr22 that is pd in full for 6 months. the other thing i noticed having written most states, we give credit for those driving w/o insurance better than those with curr insurance. why? don’t know! and yet, if they cause an accident – whom is losing money – not the insurance company — only the um cvg. it truly amazes me that society does not truly want to take on it’s own individual responsibility of their own actions.
If you carry an umbrella, with no underlying car insurance, then more than likely your umbrella has a vehicle exclusion attached. A Non-Owned Auto policy with the satisfactory underlying limits wiii remove the exclusion, as well as provide you umbrella protection on usage of your company car, should you exhaust your company’s liability limits. It wil also provide additional laibility protection should you rent a car, borrow a friend’s/relative’s car, or happen to drive a vehicle that may not have insurance coverage. We chose to de-certify ourselves from the Assigned Risk plan, solely because we didn’t want to be selling the low cost auto policy for the pidly income it generates when forced to gather up all the documentation to have it issued…..then cancel when the next payment is due.
Wonderful! To appease those who are going to push back. I believe someone needs to add in a reimbursement clause. If an agent or the states database has a “user” error which results in your car being ticketed and towed. A clear cut reimbursement process must be put in place. Cars may be unjustly towed and the driver will foot the bill. Driving is a privilege, no insurance — no driving. If this ever goes beyond a concept it would be another rare moment when drivers are held responsible for their actions, and my uninsured motorist premium should go down over time — what a concept
When California passed the original Financial Responsibility Law in 1948 lots of citizens then went out and bought basic coverage – but the incapable and the irresponsible did not – and won’t now
Protect yourself w/ all the UM/UIM you can buy and pass a “debtor’s prison” law for folks who create damages they can not or will not address and then you’ll have something.
And bring back appointed Commissioners who know the Industry – not the string of political opportunists we’ve had since the first garamendi term
I HOPE IT’S ENFORCED. THIS WILL HOPEFULLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF IDIOTS ON THE ROAD. I STILL THINK PURCHASING UM/UIM IS A PRUDENT IDEA FOR ANYONE, ESPECIALLY HERE IN CALI WITH SUCH HIGH AMOUNTS OF UNINSURED (IDIOTIC) DRIVERS EVERYWHERE. AGAIN, IT’S RESPONSIBLE DRIVERS HAVING TO PAY MORE IN PREMIUM TO MAKE UP FOR THE IDIOTS ON THE ROAD THAT BOTHERS ME BUT I SUPPOSE THAT’S THE WAY THE WORLD IS. I’M GLAD TO SEE POIZNER IS REGULATING!!
On this mand auto insurance initiative, would Steve Poizner like to get a minimum wage job, and show the world how he would come up with the several thousand dollars needed for some insurance policies?
If a household gets insurance for the safe driver in the household, can the high risk members (teenagers and DUI convictions) still “borrow the car” and drive without insurance? (not be listed on the policy).
If you will go to http://www.foodstampstudy.com, you will see that Santa Fe County, New Mexico had a food stamp skyrocket in January and February of 1985. I will bet you, Steve, that the 1984 mand insurance law caused this skyrocket (New Mexico renewed registrations in Jan and Feb.
Also, Steve, if your initiative increases the nrs on food stamps (those eligible can’t buy food and go on food stamps), you are required by law to state this increase in expenses of the DPHHS in the fiscal note. If you do not, you will be in violation of the law, and maybe we should take away your car, license,etc.
So, Steve, will your initiative increase the nrs of people on food stamps. Remember, if it does, you are breaking the law if you do not state such in the fiscal note. tks
If you cannot afford insurance, then most likely you shouldn’t be able to afford a car. Take the Bus and save up money for a car and insurance! Why should the rest of us be penalized if an uninsured motorist hits us and not pay for their liability (mistake)?
So Don, you are ok that only the people who have insurance should subsidize the poor instead of all of us? Have you not heard of the CA state auto plan? It has nothing to do with New Mexico. Also, my bet is that the majority of uninsured in this state all already on welfare and food stamps or illegal. How much do you want to bet that over 75% of these uninsured drivers have cell phones, ipods, and big screen TV’s as well. It is time for CA to quit being the biggest purveyor of our massive entitlement program. People, get off your collective butts and get a job!
so — the other thing is they have customized their car with huge stereos, rims and other items…willing to spend the almighty $$ on high value items, but they forget about insurance — which to me is even more HIGH Value, especially if you hit someone and don’t have insurance or not enough…
not that wud be interested, to qualify for welfare and our hard earned tax dollar – why not have them drug tested…this wud solve a few things: since drugs are illegal, which wud drive the dealers out of business..and then cause them to get a job, even if min wage…
I don’t really think the founding fathers invisioned a country such as ours is today. Everything we have access to should be ours by right instead of ours by hard work. Pride and responsibility, both in ourselfs and in others, has rapidly disappeared from this society. Welfare should be a last resort, not an entitlement. Responsibility to insure your vehicle should be just that, something you do to protect both yourself and others from financial hardship. Driving is not a RIGHT! It is a privilege as is a lot of the things that we seem to be taking for granted these days.
so since we all agree that it is a priviledge, then we need remove those folks whom do not have insurance and take those licenses away…require them (like NC) to have an insurance just to have a driver’s license…this in itself wud solve problems….the state can still issue id cards to solve the issues of cigarettes and liquor…but the issue at hand is to get those whom don’t carry insurance a hit on the head to remind them they need to be responsible drivers…again: responsible and priviledge go hand-in-hand in this case…
If I still lived in California, I would have to have my license plates welded to my vehicle. When the cops confiscate the plates of those who drive without insurance, the uninsured may find it easier to “borrow” my plates rather than purchase insurance.
How does the commissioner plan to fund the enforcement of this initiative? In 1997 Assembly Bill 650 brought mandatory insurance to the state of California. A few months into it there were articles in the Orange County Register in which judges and law enforcement officers openly said they would not enforce it based on the additional workload it represented. Assuming this initiative becomes a reality, look for a 2-3 month surge in business followed by a return to non-compliance comparable to what exists today.
um…how much of a workload are we talking about? a few more citations and that puts more dollars back into the fund. in reality, we are spending too much on insurance because drivers have accidents and don’t carry insurance as stated by the law. we do need to push the issue, if you drive – you need to have insurance.
this is why i like NC, just to have a driver’s license, you must show insurance (even if you don’t have a vehicle). if you think about it, why even have a driver license otherwise? you can always get an id card (again, another revenue source for the government).
Very true wudchuck; if you need id you can get id, the only reason to have a drivers license is to drive and you should have to show insurance.
The only extra work I see is a couple minutes to remove the plates. They’ll have to outfit the cruisers with a nut driver and a couple screwdrivers. A good all-in-one should handle it (fairly inexpensive at WalMart).
GREAT IDEA- I HOPE IT PASSES. WOULD IT ALSO INCLUDE DEPORTATION FOR ILLEGALS? I SURE AS HECK HOPE SO. I’M GLAD I VOTED FOR POIZNER.
Why is California’s Low Cost auto insurance program selling limits that are below the state’s financial responsibility limits? FR requires 15/30/5 and the low cost program offers 10/20/5. If the state is going to be in the insurance business, then they ought to be offering legally required limits.
It’s good from a standpoint that it will force everyone to be accountable and pay for the damages that they are at fault for. The problem is, most of these people are scum, no reputable agency wants these people.
I don’t currently own a car myself, I bicycle to work. But I need a driver’s license for work, it’s a requirement that I be able to drive company vehicles. The company’s insurance is primary, my personal umbrella covers my personal liability exposure and UM/UIM, but I don’t have car insurance or a car.
How do states that require proof of insurance for driver licensing deal with people who need licenses but otherwise have no need for an auto policy?
Great idea! Don’t we already have mandatory insurance in California that is being enforced thru DMV at vehicle registration? No proof, no tags. Still not working is it, why will this be any better? We currently run about 30% uninsured on our vehicle accident claims, about 10% of those do not even have a license. Poizner is looking at Arnold’s job, he craves the attention!
Exactly right, Bart.
Bart- Unfortuantly there is a loop hole to having to have insurance to registar a veh. There are some insurance companies that offer the very basic insurance for cheap. Those working the system can go purchase insurance, pay the initial sign up fee and one month of ins, registar a vehicle within that month and never pay insurance again. The insurance company drops them and they are suppose to notify the DMV but dont always.
As great as this ballot sounds, unfortuantly it only takes one time for someone to get caught with no insurance, and sometimes that one time is a major accident. As someone had said earlier, some of those people that are UM tend to be “scum” with nothing to lose. The insurance company can bill them for damages caused, but what are the odds they will actually pay? This leaves the insured motorist paying more in premiums to make up for the loss.
I bet Quackamendi is mad that he did not think of this. I am always for trying to figure out how to get the uninsured to buy insurance, but I have to agree with most of you. It will maybe start out with a bang and then fizzle. For one thing, if you were the highway patrol and polled over someone without insurance and maybe without a license, would you really want to kneel down in front of the car? Once the first illegal immigrant runs over an officer, then all hell will break loose.
polled s/b pulled. God, I guess I need to go back and relearn 3rd grade spelling!
We offer a non-owner policy that will provide coverage to satisfy the state. Ironic isn’t it, you are concerned about having insurance and you don’t own a car. A refreshing bit of responsibility.
but even still — ur company has the insurance to cover you. but u had to initially have had a license before u had gotten ur cdl. i used to have a cdl and drove otr for 7 yrs (5 of them as a driver-trainer) for 48 states and canada.
but someone made a good comment previously: folks will get the insur, reg the veh and don’t make that next pymnt on the insur. this is one of the bad things happening in most of our states.
the thing that we need to do is require those that do not want to keep the insur, is get an sr22 that is pd in full for 6 months. the other thing i noticed having written most states, we give credit for those driving w/o insurance better than those with curr insurance. why? don’t know! and yet, if they cause an accident – whom is losing money – not the insurance company — only the um cvg. it truly amazes me that society does not truly want to take on it’s own individual responsibility of their own actions.
If you carry an umbrella, with no underlying car insurance, then more than likely your umbrella has a vehicle exclusion attached. A Non-Owned Auto policy with the satisfactory underlying limits wiii remove the exclusion, as well as provide you umbrella protection on usage of your company car, should you exhaust your company’s liability limits. It wil also provide additional laibility protection should you rent a car, borrow a friend’s/relative’s car, or happen to drive a vehicle that may not have insurance coverage. We chose to de-certify ourselves from the Assigned Risk plan, solely because we didn’t want to be selling the low cost auto policy for the pidly income it generates when forced to gather up all the documentation to have it issued…..then cancel when the next payment is due.
Wonderful! To appease those who are going to push back. I believe someone needs to add in a reimbursement clause. If an agent or the states database has a “user” error which results in your car being ticketed and towed. A clear cut reimbursement process must be put in place. Cars may be unjustly towed and the driver will foot the bill. Driving is a privilege, no insurance — no driving. If this ever goes beyond a concept it would be another rare moment when drivers are held responsible for their actions, and my uninsured motorist premium should go down over time — what a concept
Lowering your insurance rates, what a concept. Actually lowering your insurance rates, priceless!
You folks are all dreamers.
When California passed the original Financial Responsibility Law in 1948 lots of citizens then went out and bought basic coverage – but the incapable and the irresponsible did not – and won’t now
Protect yourself w/ all the UM/UIM you can buy and pass a “debtor’s prison” law for folks who create damages they can not or will not address and then you’ll have something.
And bring back appointed Commissioners who know the Industry – not the string of political opportunists we’ve had since the first garamendi term
I HOPE IT’S ENFORCED. THIS WILL HOPEFULLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF IDIOTS ON THE ROAD. I STILL THINK PURCHASING UM/UIM IS A PRUDENT IDEA FOR ANYONE, ESPECIALLY HERE IN CALI WITH SUCH HIGH AMOUNTS OF UNINSURED (IDIOTIC) DRIVERS EVERYWHERE. AGAIN, IT’S RESPONSIBLE DRIVERS HAVING TO PAY MORE IN PREMIUM TO MAKE UP FOR THE IDIOTS ON THE ROAD THAT BOTHERS ME BUT I SUPPOSE THAT’S THE WAY THE WORLD IS. I’M GLAD TO SEE POIZNER IS REGULATING!!
On this mand auto insurance initiative, would Steve Poizner like to get a minimum wage job, and show the world how he would come up with the several thousand dollars needed for some insurance policies?
If a household gets insurance for the safe driver in the household, can the high risk members (teenagers and DUI convictions) still “borrow the car” and drive without insurance? (not be listed on the policy).
If you will go to http://www.foodstampstudy.com, you will see that Santa Fe County, New Mexico had a food stamp skyrocket in January and February of 1985. I will bet you, Steve, that the 1984 mand insurance law caused this skyrocket (New Mexico renewed registrations in Jan and Feb.
Also, Steve, if your initiative increases the nrs on food stamps (those eligible can’t buy food and go on food stamps), you are required by law to state this increase in expenses of the DPHHS in the fiscal note. If you do not, you will be in violation of the law, and maybe we should take away your car, license,etc.
So, Steve, will your initiative increase the nrs of people on food stamps. Remember, if it does, you are breaking the law if you do not state such in the fiscal note. tks
If you cannot afford insurance, then most likely you shouldn’t be able to afford a car. Take the Bus and save up money for a car and insurance! Why should the rest of us be penalized if an uninsured motorist hits us and not pay for their liability (mistake)?
So Don, you are ok that only the people who have insurance should subsidize the poor instead of all of us? Have you not heard of the CA state auto plan? It has nothing to do with New Mexico. Also, my bet is that the majority of uninsured in this state all already on welfare and food stamps or illegal. How much do you want to bet that over 75% of these uninsured drivers have cell phones, ipods, and big screen TV’s as well. It is time for CA to quit being the biggest purveyor of our massive entitlement program. People, get off your collective butts and get a job!
so — the other thing is they have customized their car with huge stereos, rims and other items…willing to spend the almighty $$ on high value items, but they forget about insurance — which to me is even more HIGH Value, especially if you hit someone and don’t have insurance or not enough…
not that wud be interested, to qualify for welfare and our hard earned tax dollar – why not have them drug tested…this wud solve a few things: since drugs are illegal, which wud drive the dealers out of business..and then cause them to get a job, even if min wage…
I don’t really think the founding fathers invisioned a country such as ours is today. Everything we have access to should be ours by right instead of ours by hard work. Pride and responsibility, both in ourselfs and in others, has rapidly disappeared from this society. Welfare should be a last resort, not an entitlement. Responsibility to insure your vehicle should be just that, something you do to protect both yourself and others from financial hardship. Driving is not a RIGHT! It is a privilege as is a lot of the things that we seem to be taking for granted these days.
so since we all agree that it is a priviledge, then we need remove those folks whom do not have insurance and take those licenses away…require them (like NC) to have an insurance just to have a driver’s license…this in itself wud solve problems….the state can still issue id cards to solve the issues of cigarettes and liquor…but the issue at hand is to get those whom don’t carry insurance a hit on the head to remind them they need to be responsible drivers…again: responsible and priviledge go hand-in-hand in this case…
If I still lived in California, I would have to have my license plates welded to my vehicle. When the cops confiscate the plates of those who drive without insurance, the uninsured may find it easier to “borrow” my plates rather than purchase insurance.