Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site leadsv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!cae780!leadsv!rhode
From: rhode@leadsv.UUCP (Chris Rhode)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal
Subject: re: uninsured motorists
Message-ID: <586@leadsv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 22:50:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: leadsv.586
Posted: Tue Aug 13 22:50:10 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 23:26:28 EDT
Distribution: na
Organization: Lockheed Research Labs  Palo Alto CA
Lines: 53
Xref: linus net.auto:6629 net.legal:1707

[mmm...munchies and crunchies in here somewhere...CHOMP]

> From: msb@lsuc.UUCP (Mark Brader)
> Newsgroups: net.legal,net.auto
> Subject: Uninsured motorism

> Which suggests that, in jurisdictions where motorists are allowed
> not to have insurance (that's most of them in North America, isn't it?),
> insurance companies should sell policies that protect you not only
> against your own liability but also against that of the uninsured
> driver who runs into you.

(please, net.legal people, correct anything I say that is incorrect; I'm
 just a naive programmer :-))

Here in CA, liability insurance is REQUIRED.  Unfortunately, it seems that
you never have to present proof of this fact in the process of getting (or
maintaining) a driver's license.  The upshot is that I hear more than a few
stories of people involved in accidents where the person-at-fault turns
out not to have any insurance.

Recently, a law was enacted requiring every driver to have proof of insurance
with them at all times.  Typically this consists of a small card supplied to
a driver by his/her insurance company.  The law states that an officer can
ask to see this card any time you are stopped....failure to have the card is
an offense punishable by something like a $500 fine, and possible license
revocation.  Unfortunately, I don't see this as helping much, since if a
person can avoid a run-in with an officer he/she can still get away with
driving uninsured.  Unless officers routinely ask to see the proof-of-insurance
for things like traffic tickets, the only time it will be asked for is, of
course, when the person is involved in an accident....and if the person doesn't
have one at that point, then it's not any different than before (i.e. the
other person is stuck without somebody to pay the medical and repair bills).
Except maybe the possibility of license revocation will scare a few people
into getting insurance.  I hope they do revoke licenses in most cases.

I'm not sure if this is something available nationwide or not, but I -do-
have "uninsured motorists" coverage which I pay for (through the nose) every
six months.  This, I believe, serves to provide you with the money that you
would normally get from the "other guy" if s/he is uninsured.  However, I
don't think the other person is then liable for the money "owed" to the
insurance comapny (i.e. he gets off the hook, except, again, that he may
lose his license).

I don't understand why they can't just require you to provide the DMV with
proof of insurance every time you register your car (yearly here in CA).
No insurance, no registration...pretty simple.  Can somebody explain to me
why this is so impossible to do?

    -Chris Rhode  (in the Silicone Valley :-)
     Lockheed R&D  Palo Alto, CA
      ihnp4!amd!cae780!leadsv!rhode
      ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!rhode