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