iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:33:12 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 11/18/13, 6:31 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:35:30 -0500, iBoaterer wrote:



But LEO use the tags. They know all about you before they pull you over
because they've run your tag. As a matter of fact, I got pulled over one
time because the cop was one number or letter off. I knew I didn't do
anything wrong, and when the cop came up to the car, said, "stand up", I
did so, and he handcuffed me!!! Seems as though the tag similar to mine
was a wanted felon, so it was a felony stop for him. He ran the tag
number again because I didn't fit the description, plus me telling him
I'm not a criminal, and let me go, of course.

It is typical that you start out with an assertion and then prove it
wrong.

You started with a guy involved in a hit and run accident properly
seeing and remembering a tag number of a car speeding away, then you
give an example of a cop who couldn't even get it right when he was
stopped behind you. ... and he is supposed to be a trained
professional doing his job calmly, not an untrained person who was
just in a car accident.

We all know the only purpose of license plates is to generate bucks for
the state, right, Greg?

Certainly in the states that tack on a huge excise tax every year.
It can be almost $600 a year in Indiana (one year old $42,000 car)

I already said, I think tags should be issued by insurance companies.
No insurance, no tag. That is far more relevant for most victims of
bad drivers than the tax stamp they have become. You would know
immediately which insurance company you should be calling and the cops
could more easily identify uninsured motorists.
The current DMV records are dreadfully inadequate for that. The
insurance company has no easy way to get the record updated when a
person drops or simply fails to pay their insurance. If it was
controlled by the insurance company, the tag would be made invalid in
the cops computer immediately.

I suspect we will all have transponders in our cars soon anyway and
the whole tag thing will be an anachronism. The cops will have the id
if every car and likely driver they get close to popping up on their
computer. They already have tag scanners that do that on the fender
but it is somewhat flawed by the artistic designs if the tags.

Here insurance proof is electronic. No insurance, no tag, don't even
have to show a paper copy. Insurance lapses, tag is deemed invalid, LEO
runs the tag, finds out that uninsured and therefore tag is invalid, go
to jail, car towed.

Not in California. Not any room in jail anyway. Besides, insurance seems
to be on a less than yearly payment cycle and tags are yearly.

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:46:03 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

iBoaterer wrote:

Here insurance proof is electronic. No insurance, no tag, don't even
have to show a paper copy. Insurance lapses, tag is deemed invalid, LEO
runs the tag, finds out that uninsured and therefore tag is invalid, go
to jail, car towed.

Not in California. Not any room in jail anyway. Besides, insurance seems
to be on a less than yearly payment cycle and tags are yearly.

Yeah Kevin really seems to believe the cops spend all their day trying
to catch uninsured motorists.

OTOH if the tags were issued by the insurance company, they would
simply send a minimum wage goon over to repossess the tag if you let
your insurance lapse. It would still belong to them.

Actually tags are a problem in this state. People take a razor blade and
peel off a valid sticker and place it on their car. Looks like car is
registered. Other odd thing is costs more for a replacement sticker than
for replacement plates with sticker. Learned that when getting replacement
boat trailer (boating related post) and the guy next to me is getting a
replacement sticker. And he is paying a couple bucks more.

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:46:03 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

iBoaterer wrote:

Here insurance proof is electronic. No insurance, no tag, don't even
have to show a paper copy. Insurance lapses, tag is deemed invalid, LEO
runs the tag, finds out that uninsured and therefore tag is invalid, go
to jail, car towed.

Not in California. Not any room in jail anyway. Besides, insurance seems
to be on a less than yearly payment cycle and tags are yearly.

Yeah Kevin really seems to believe the cops spend all their day trying
to catch uninsured motorists.

OTOH if the tags were issued by the insurance company, they would
simply send a minimum wage goon over to repossess the tag if you let
your insurance lapse. It would still belong to them.

Actually they should impound the car. Who needs insurance? Not the poor.
Legally they are supposed to have it to drive, but with no assets and no
jail room, as well as who is going to take care of the family while in
jail. They do not need it as they have no assets to protect. My wife was
in an accident yesterday. Stop light and a lady in a rental Chevy Tahoe
hit the car in back driving that car in to the wife's. Wiped out the
plastic bumper. I asked the insurance guy who came by to get an estimate
of the damage, about whose insurance actually covered the damage, if the
first car had none. He said both our and the guy behinds uninsured
motorist coverage would be the payee. Luckily my wife only had a small
sore spot on her head where it hit the headrest. The insurance situation
is a major problem. If wife hit someone who is uninsured, they collect in
to the millions. I carry a $2,000,000 umbrella policy as well as car
insurance. The uninsured hits my wife and does the same injuries, and my
insurance has to cover the loss. No pain and suffering, lost wages, etc.
make it so you can only collect as much money as you carry insurance for.
Minimum insurance in this state is $35,000 liability and about $15k
property damage.

On Tuesday, 19 November 2013 21:30:37 UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:46:03 -0600, Califbill

wrote:



iBoaterer wrote:



Here insurance proof is electronic. No insurance, no tag, don't even

have to show a paper copy. Insurance lapses, tag is deemed invalid, LEO

runs the tag, finds out that uninsured and therefore tag is invalid, go

to jail, car towed.



Not in California. Not any room in jail anyway. Besides, insurance seems

to be on a less than yearly payment cycle and tags are yearly.



Yeah Kevin really seems to believe the cops spend all their day trying

to catch uninsured motorists.



OTOH if the tags were issued by the insurance company, they would

simply send a minimum wage goon over to repossess the tag if you let

your insurance lapse. It would still belong to them.



Actually they should impound the car. Who needs insurance? Not the poor.

Legally they are supposed to have it to drive, but with no assets and no

jail room, as well as who is going to take care of the family while in

jail. They do not need it as they have no assets to protect. My wife was

in an accident yesterday. Stop light and a lady in a rental Chevy Tahoe

hit the car in back driving that car in to the wife's. Wiped out the

plastic bumper. I asked the insurance guy who came by to get an estimate

of the damage, about whose insurance actually covered the damage, if the

first car had none. He said both our and the guy behinds uninsured

motorist coverage would be the payee. Luckily my wife only had a small

sore spot on her head where it hit the headrest. The insurance situation

is a major problem. If wife hit someone who is uninsured, they collect in

to the millions. I carry a $2,000,000 umbrella policy as well as car

insurance. The uninsured hits my wife and does the same injuries, and my

insurance has to cover the loss. No pain and suffering, lost wages, etc.

make it so you can only collect as much money as you carry insurance for.

Minimum insurance in this state is $35,000 liability and about $15k

property damage.


$35K??
Man, we had that requirement when I was in high school back in the '60s.
It's been at least 100K minimum for a long time now but everyone carries at least one million PLPD.

True North wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 November 2013 21:30:37 UTC-4, Califbill wrote:
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:46:03 -0600, Califbill

wrote:



iBoaterer wrote:



Here insurance proof is electronic. No insurance, no tag, don't even

have to show a paper copy. Insurance lapses, tag is deemed invalid, LEO

runs the tag, finds out that uninsured and therefore tag is invalid, go

to jail, car towed.



Not in California. Not any room in jail anyway. Besides, insurance seems

to be on a less than yearly payment cycle and tags are yearly.



Yeah Kevin really seems to believe the cops spend all their day trying

to catch uninsured motorists.



OTOH if the tags were issued by the insurance company, they would

simply send a minimum wage goon over to repossess the tag if you let

your insurance lapse. It would still belong to them.



Actually they should impound the car. Who needs insurance? Not the poor.

Legally they are supposed to have it to drive, but with no assets and no

jail room, as well as who is going to take care of the family while in

jail. They do not need it as they have no assets to protect. My wife was

in an accident yesterday. Stop light and a lady in a rental Chevy Tahoe

hit the car in back driving that car in to the wife's. Wiped out the

plastic bumper. I asked the insurance guy who came by to get an estimate

of the damage, about whose insurance actually covered the damage, if the

first car had none. He said both our and the guy behinds uninsured

motorist coverage would be the payee. Luckily my wife only had a small

sore spot on her head where it hit the headrest. The insurance situation

is a major problem. If wife hit someone who is uninsured, they collect in

to the millions. I carry a $2,000,000 umbrella policy as well as car

insurance. The uninsured hits my wife and does the same injuries, and my

insurance has to cover the loss. No pain and suffering, lost wages, etc.

make it so you can only collect as much money as you carry insurance for.

Minimum insurance in this state is $35,000 liability and about $15k

property damage.


$35K??
Man, we had that requirement when I was in high school back in the '60s.
It's been at least 100K minimum for a long time now but everyone carries
at least one million PLPD.

You are ignorant if you carry a million PLPD. First, how much is does your
courts normally award? And much better and cheaper, at least in the
states, to carry $300k liability and buy an umbrella policy for a couple
million. $300k is what State Farm requires on the car to issue an umbrella
policy. The umbrella covers you in a lot more areas than car insurance,
and I think I pay $275 a year for the $2 million policy.

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:10:20 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:


$35K??
Man, we had that requirement when I was in high school back in the '60s.
It's been at least 100K minimum for a long time now but everyone carries
at least one million PLPD.

Most states have moved to an uninsured motorist model where you buy
the insurance to make yourself whole and the insurance company
subrogates the claim when they can.
They understand the state actually being able to make people carry
adequate insurance is spotty at best.
We have illegals here who don't have a driver's license and are
legally barred from even getting one. Any insurance on that vehicle
would be void anyway since most if not all policies only apply when a
legal driver is driving..

California even issues drivers licenses to illegals! Stated they would
then have insurance. And there is plenty of Tort liability to require you
to carry enough insurance to cover your assets. I do not know how many
states have gone to the no fault model, but California has not.

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:08:40 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:10:20 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:


$35K??
Man, we had that requirement when I was in high school back in the '60s.
It's been at least 100K minimum for a long time now but everyone carries
at least one million PLPD.

Most states have moved to an uninsured motorist model where you buy
the insurance to make yourself whole and the insurance company
subrogates the claim when they can.
They understand the state actually being able to make people carry
adequate insurance is spotty at best.
We have illegals here who don't have a driver's license and are
legally barred from even getting one. Any insurance on that vehicle
would be void anyway since most if not all policies only apply when a
legal driver is driving..

California even issues drivers licenses to illegals! Stated they would
then have insurance. And there is plenty of Tort liability to require you
to carry enough insurance to cover your assets. I do not know how many
states have gone to the no fault model, but California has not.

Even the minimum insurance in the cheapest state is probably more than
you could squeeze out of the average American in court.
You can bankrupt them but then you are done. In homestead states you
can't even go after homes or pensions.

What is wrong is if someone with lots of assets causes an accident here in
California he could lose a couple million in court. While if the same
thing happened to him and the causer had no or minimum insurance, that is
all you could get.

wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:36:59 -0600, Califbill
wrote:


Even the minimum insurance in the cheapest state is probably more than
you could squeeze out of the average American in court.
You can bankrupt them but then you are done. In homestead states you
can't even go after homes or pensions.

What is wrong is if someone with lots of assets causes an accident here in
California he could lose a couple million in court. While if the same
thing happened to him and the causer had no or minimum insurance, that is
all you could get.

That is what I said. Insurance is to protect rich people. Someone with
limited resources won't attract the attention of a tort lawyer. There
is no money in suing an illegal alien with 6 kids and a 20 year old
Chevy

So, make it so you can only sue for the amount of insurance you, yourself,
carry. Who **** off those tort ambulance chasers.

On 11/20/2013 1:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 10:36:59 -0600, Califbill
wrote:


Even the minimum insurance in the cheapest state is probably more than
you could squeeze out of the average American in court.
You can bankrupt them but then you are done. In homestead states you
can't even go after homes or pensions.

What is wrong is if someone with lots of assets causes an accident here in
California he could lose a couple million in court. While if the same
thing happened to him and the causer had no or minimum insurance, that is
all you could get.

That is what I said. Insurance is to protect rich people. Someone with
limited resources won't attract the attention of a tort lawyer. There
is no money in suing an illegal alien with 6 kids and a 20 year old
Chevy

So, make it so you can only sue for the amount of insurance you, yourself,
carry. Who **** off those tort ambulance chasers.


I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that's how it works here in CT.