Slashdot Mirror
Cities View Red Light Cameras As Profit Centers
Houston 2600 writes "Chicago could rake in 'at least $200 million' a year — and wipe out the entire projected deficit for 2009 — by using its vast network of redlight and surveillance cameras to hunt down uninsured motorists, aldermen were told today. The system pitched to the City Council's Transportation Committee by Michigan-based InsureNet would work only if insurance companies were somehow compelled to report the names and license plates of insured motorists. That's already happening daily in 13 states, but not here."
because of the DROP in revenue. People weren't running enough red lights to pay for the system any more.
I am not left-handed, either!
--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?
But boy is it safe to drive in Denver now. That's the problem with cities getting greedy, they don't see the positive side of their efforts.
That's news?!? Are you sure?
Ahh, sorry, I have an update coming in. That should be "too bad for the motorists that Chicago is not a bastion of integrity".
You'd think more people would be worried when law enforcement is publicly billed as a revenue source.
It's why they'll never end the war on drugs or even legalize pot: the departments couldn't afford to lose all the free money they get from drug related forfeitures. And pot heads make very easy targets. Which do you think a cop would rather bust: a vegged out pot head or a well armed group of Mexicans with a meth lab in the middle of a corn field?
...in your mad dash to be first post?
Summary says: "...to hunt down uninsured motorists"
I've got no sympathy at all for uninsured motorists.
No sig today...
I still argue that installing walk/don't walk signs with a countdown that turns yellow on zero does more to discourage red light running than the cameras do. Sometimes you just don't know how long the yellow will last or how long the hand is going to blink. Using the countdown I have a decent idea from about 50 ft away and can act accordingly. I feel safer as a result and I think most people would agree.
Cities don't want this, however, because they don't like to think that something they've spent so much money on to catch "evil red light runners" doesn't serve it's purpose as well as a simple countdown.
My insurance company already hits me with one of those twice a year for my wife's modest car. I can't imagine if she was driving something extravagant. I guess the laws are for motivating low-income people to get insurance.
You can't get blood from a turnip. Much of that money will not appear as the uninsured motorists have no money. It may be great for enforcing the law and getting them off of the road but not a great source of income.
Coding Blog
I'm generally opposed to this sort of stuff, but this particular application doesn't seem so bad. Uninsured motorists are a problem for everyone. If you're going to drive a car, you should have a license and your car should be registered, insured, and inspected according to state laws. Yes, this makes money for repair shops, insurance companies, state government, and the police. However, all of this is important for having safe roads and keeping down the cost of insurance.
photo traffic enforcement, public safety or cash cow? *shakes 8-ball* "all signs point to cash cow."
"wipe out the entire projected deficit for 2009" -- you could also do that by eliminating all the graft and corruption, this is Chicago after all, but don't hold your breath on that one. This is chicago after all.
Criminal and administrative fines and for that matter, "punitive" damages in civil suits, should not be used for net revenue for the agency attempting to collect the fine. It creates a conflict of interest.
The best solution would be to hold back just enough to cover most* of the cost of enforcement, and put the rest in a big pile and torch it. Since that's not going to happen, donate the proceeds to a charity that has no ties to the collecting agency, such as one that doesn't serve local clients and who doesn't have any local people on its boards.
*The local police dept. or city should kick in some of the cost of enforcement, after all, it's the local city that wants the laws enforced.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Wouldn't there be an ungodly number of false positives from a system like this?
... would work only if insurance companies were somehow compelled to report the names and license plates of insured motorists.
So the system would scan a license plate, see if it appears on the list of insured motorists and, if it doesn't, then fire off the ticket/fine? They would be basing this scheme on the absence of information?
For many reasons, that just doesn't seem right.
They may not have money, but they have a vehicle. Confiscate it.
What would Lemmy do?
Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor. Oh wait, done and done.
I always stop and I actually slow down for the yellow lights so I can stop at the red. I can't count how many times some asshole behind me has a hissy fit because I didn't blow through the yellow. I've actually had idiots, go around me after I stopped for a red light, and they themselves run the light.
My point? As long as the camera is accurate and not ticketing folks who just stop beyond the white line (as been reported in some cities), I'm all for them - even if the city is making money.
Actually, the accounting is pretty straightforward:
"Starting this year all money from drunk driving fines will go to car crash victims"
Last year:
County hospital spends $1M on car crash victims. It manages to collect $0.8M in insurance. The rest is reimbursed from county general revenues.
County: collects $0.2M in fines for its own general revenue.
This year, after pledge:
County hospital spends $1M on car crash victims. It manages to collect $0.8M in insurance. It collects $0.2M from dedicated drunk-driver funds. It doesn't need anything from general revenue to cover crash victims. Hooray!
County: Good news is we don't have to spend $0.2M to cover hospital deficit, bad news is we lost $0.2M in what used to be unrestricted income.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
They actually tried doing that down here in New Orleans...back before Katrina. The measure got thrown out as that it was branded a 'racist' ordinance. That just blew me away. I don't care what color you are, if you can't afford to have lawful insurance on the car, you shouldn't be driving one. A car costs money (fuel, repair and insurnace)...if you can't afford one, don't drive one.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This means that:
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
2. Case B is RARE. In fact, it happens so rarely that it is never profitable. The cost to install and maintain the red light camera always exceeeds the number of tickets you get waiting for case b.
3. This means that in order for red light cameras to be profitable, the lights they are installed in must be poorly timed.
pre-camera, the police would fix the red light. They used to do examine the red light timing every time they gave a ticket. Post camera, they pay a camera company to deal with the light - both the camera and the red light timing. Surprise, surprise, they don't fix the light's timing. If they do, the camera ceases to be profitable - and the company goes out of business. --------------
I don't like speed cameras because I think they subvert the justice system - but at least they don't cause accidents.
The lights slowly become badly timed, creating more tickets - and more deadly accidents.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Most of the profit centers on the internet are red light district cameras, and very few people complain. I don't see how this is any... ... oh.
Red stoplight cameras. Excuse me.
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/maryland/031009_motorists_seeing_red_over_red_light_cameras
I forget where I read this, I apologize. Somewhere the High School kids figured out it would be fun to make copies of their teacher's plates and put them on another vehicle. Then they would proceed to run several red-lights with cameras. Teachers would get bill in the mail a few days later.
Conservative, mod down for violating
I am old. I've been driving for 50 years. About half that time, I've been a good, insured, licensed driver. The other half, I was a good, uninsured or unlicensed (long story) driver.
I have never (that is not even once in about 25 years) had an accident or been pulled over by a cop *for any reason* when unlicensed or uninsured.
I have had three minor fender-benders when insured and licensed. I was cited for speeding twice in two different states while insured and licensed.
Do I drive carelessly when I know I am legal and insured? Not consciously.
Do I drive more carefully when I need to "stay beneath the radar?" Yes, I am always aware of my illegal status.
Licenses and insurance do not necessarily make for safer streets.
While I'm under the poverty line, I still make sure my car insurance is kept up. Before I could afford a car, I rode the bus.
This isn't discrimination against the poor; it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able. I have about as much sympathy for those folks as I do for the folks that took out mortgages they couldn't afford... or is that "discrimination against the middle class"?
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
In Calgary Alberta Canada, the Red Light camera's now have incorporated photo radar as well. They cash in either way...
That's a really easy opinion to hold until you try riding public transit four hours each day to and from your menial minimum-wage job. And I'm not making this up, I know someone with a college degree who is in this position.
When public safety is a profit center they will make decisions that make people less safe. And if I wanted to live in a police state, I would just move to China.
I have always kept my car insurance up also. My point isn't about fiscal responsibility, only that the idea of using this as an income center is a silly one.
Coding Blog
In some states, I think the cops can repossess your license plates for failure to pay insurance.
In other states, you have to show proof of insurance to get a drivers' license, whether you have a car or not.
I'd recommend having repeat-offender insurance scofflaws' licenses and license plates expire every 30 days unless they pre-pay for more than 30 days of insurance. Or, require auto-lease companies to hold an insurance escrow similar to a mortgage escrow and don't a title transfer or new title unless the person has pre-paid 6 months of insurance or entered into a wage-garnishing or similar escrow agreement with the state, and prohibit short-term rentals without liability insurance being bought at the time of the rental.
Between this and "real time insurance checks" at routine traffic stops, the problem goes way down.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Corruption can happen to organizations just as sure as individuals. It has the potential to happen whenever goals are placed in conflict, particularly invovling money.
Police and courts exist to keep order by administering justice fairly and impartially. When police or their political civic masters receive the fines levied, they are corrupt or at least can appear to be so. That undermines the entire justice system by undermining the credibility and impartiality of police.
Much the same happens with District Attornies. There the currency is not money but plea-bargains. The DAs can be corrupt by overcharging/oversentencing and offering a plea-bargain to make their jobs easier, reduce court costs, raise conviction rate and make themselves appear effective.
The worst corruption is that which happens openly yet no-one pauses to consider it.
Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor.
How about we don't exaggerate to make a flimsy point. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and if you can afford a car then you can afford to insure it.
Rarely does a single article capture so much of what is wrong with a culture. We have:
- Broken window
- Excessive fines
- Government corruption/collusion with private businesses
- Legislated business models
- Original sin as defined by the One True Authority. And, of course, only they have the cure.
Disgusting if you think about it for more than 15 seconds.
Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
In this country, driving is a privilege in the same way that needing a job is a privilege.
Silly me, I think that if you work a full-time job, you should be able to afford a modest apartment and a safe car no matter who you are.
Well, life is tough my friend. And in the US, equal opportunity, does NOT mean equal results. Things (like owning and driving a car) cost money, and you have to work to earn it. Some have to work a little harder for do to luck of the draw at birth (genetics, parental skills of parents, etc)....if you are poor and want a car, then work that extra time to educate yourself. If you blew it the first time around it was offered to you, well yes, it will take more effort when you're older, but other people have done it, and so can you.
If you cannot afford to follow the rules for a private car, they you should not have one.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Hello. I am Mr. Reality Check. Let us examine this proposal in detail.
Chicago, the shining star of all good and right, wants to install a sophisticated network of cameras to (a) track every motor vehicle in operation in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, (b) record the license plate tag, location, and time of motor vehicle operation, and (c) cross reference the license plate tag information with a comprehensive insurance coverage database in in order to (d) send out $500 citations via mail to potential offenders.
Unfortunately, this system is not realistic and poses some massive privacy concerns. While it may be feasible to create the network of cameras described in (a), it is substantially difficult with current technology to implement the optical character recognition required to implement part (b). Furthermore, the privacy implications of tracking every motor vehicle in the Chicago Metropolitan Area are enormous. This network would take public surveillance to United Kingdom levels.
Assuming that (a) and (b) were implemented successfully, there are major jurisdictional and scale issues with (c). In order to assure a minimum of false positives, the State of Illinois would have to implement a comprehensive insurance-to-registration tag database that would be automatically updated by the insurance companies within seconds of issuing or changing a policy. The cost of this type of project are enormous. The coordination of all involved stakeholders is extremely difficult given the various processing cycles, business policies, cross jurisdictional politics, and potential for error. There is also problems with the handling out of state registration tags. The system must be able to effectively deal with the tags of every state in the United States. If this system only processes Illinois residents, there may be some serious constitutional repercussions under Amendment 14 (equal protection of the law).
Finally, after gathering the data in (a), processing the information in (b) and (c), we get to the collections portion of the process, (d). Now, assuming for the moment that this system works and is accurate, we can now send citations to every uninsured vehicle driving on the road way. However, since most citations carry the weight of a parking ticket, most people tend to ignore them. Since these uninsured motorists usually (i) can not afford the cost of insurance or (ii) do not want to pay for insurance, it is logical to conclude that they will not pay for their automated traffic violations. While the "more than $200 million" figure is impressive, I would be even more impressed if they managed to collect 10% of that number.
In conclusion, this system will not work. It is technologically, politically, fiscally, and logistically unfeasible given today's technology and political climate.
This is Mr. Reality Check and I am signing out.
-Valen
or you live in an area like the suburbs of Chicago where there is no public transportation (like buses) anywhere! if you don't have a car you don't get a job because there is no other way to get to work.
some people will say to ride a bike, or call a cab..
but there are no shoulders or sidewalks on most of the roads to safely ride your bike, and a cab is going to cost you more money then you make if you have a job but can not afford a car.
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
if you can't afford [a car], don't drive one.
Some parts of America are blessed with good transit systems. You can go your whole life and never drive.
Others have no mass transit to speak of. The choice is rent a taxi, mooch off of friends, drive, or move.
Let's try this on:
I'm a middle-income head of household. I just paid off my car and have a mortgage and lifestyle appropriate for my income. My wife's car is 2 years in.
I get laid off, and the best work I can get in this economy is flipping burgers by day and working at a movie theater by night. We've got 3 toddlers and the best job my wife can get wouldn't cover the added costs of day care. We've resorted to moving to a much smaller/cheaper house, selling one car, selling furniture and other assets we don't need, and doing everything but dipping into retirement accounts. My wife has started babysitting. It's still not making ends meet. We cash in what little retirement savings we have and pay the taxes, but that only extends life a few months.
We've been in this situation a couple of years and are still hemmoraging. Our choices are:
1) Give up one of the kids for adoption, knowing just talking about it will get sympathy and donations to cover the kids, freeing up enough to make ends meet.
2) Start cheating on our taxes and not declaring my wife's day-care income for social security and income tax purposes.
3) Stop paying car insurance.
4) Other things even more unethical than #3.
The bottom line:
In today's day and age when transportation is required to get to and from work and other necessary services, governments have an obligation to either provide affordable transportation such as a good bus system, or to subsidize private car ownership and operations for those who are too poor to afford them.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
They can afford a car and gas, but not insurance...?
Methinks insurance evasion isn't 100% about money.
No sig today...
Having possession of a car and being able to afford the insurance are not mutually exclusive.
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
The point still stands - if you can afford a car, you can afford to insure it - simple as that. Liability insurance is all that's needed to keep legal, and when talking liability only, car insurance is pretty cheap. I've seen prices the neighborhood of $25-30 per month if you're a safe driver. If you "need the car for work" then you obviously have some source of income and that is part of your required bills. End of story. It's as much required as the gas you need to fuel that car. If you DON'T need it for work, then take the insurance off and park the car - you've got more important things to pay for anyways.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Insurance is mandatory because people who don't have it can hit things with their car and ruin other people's lives.
If your insurance premium seems high, it's most likely because of insurance fraud, not because they don't have enough customers.
PS: More customers = more fraud.
No sig today...
For some, "take the bus" means losing 4 hours a day for what would be a 30-minute trip. That's 4 hours they can use to hold down a 2nd job or be their for their children.
For others who live in cities without mass transit, "take the bus" means moving.
Did you know there it at least one city in America with over 1/3 of a million residents but no public transit system?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
My brain is obviously off as I can't think of the right way of putting that..
I'll STFU for now..
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
The system is engineered to force all to pay for a personal car and insurance whether they can afford it or not. After mortgage and insurance is paid, I literally come up short on food and beer, and sometimes have to make some truly horrifying decisions.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Mayor Daley has stated Chicago has a goal of putting a camera on every street corner. Obviously there are not now cameras on every street corner, which means that red light cameras cannot even catch all the uninsured drivers; they can, at best, deter uninsured drivers from taking routes that would pass red light cameras that might report them. Being uninsured doesn't necessarily mean poverty - they just might not be able to pay for insurance because of a previous accident or number of outstanding moving violations - but it does mean that more people will likely be driving through the neighborhoods and staying off the thoroughfares. I anticipate this will lead to a significant increase in pedestrian fatalities particularly affecting the elderly and the young.
g=
Nope, there wasn't any when then installed the cameras.. They told us .. They wouldn't never take advantage of it later. They promised.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
but there are no shoulders or sidewalks on most of the roads to safely ride your bike
Because you don't know how to ride in the correct position?
I have to agree. Having lived in a remote area with no public transportation without a car employment is near on impossible. what i think needs to happen in those kind of cases is a severe overhaul of insurance rates. however I do believe that in most major cities where public transportation is easily available a car is not needed at all.
I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
Have you ever thought about forming carpools? There's carpool lanes everywhere and you'd probably find someone living somwhere in the vicinity who can take you to work for a small shared costs.
If you're living next to nowhere, have no bike, no sidewalks, no buses and no money to buy any old car or call a cab or employ another jobless guy WITH a car to do your driving, well, you're hosed.
But that still doesn't allow you to skimp on insurance, because when you cause an accident, you still hurt people or make them unable to do THEIR jobs. Mandatory insurance is NOTHING about you and all about the other people that may cross your path and fender.
At what point will people wake up and start attacking these devices?
There is a light bulb within 50' of the ground.
There is a camera within 20' of the ground.
If they are going to have a policeman sitting there 24/7 to protect the device it takes away the profit and purpose of the devices.
I'm for stopping red light running- and it has been *repeatedly* shown that raising the yellow light duration by 1 seconds stops 99% of red light running. In cities with cameras they have been *repeatedly* caught lowering the yellow light duration to force more violations.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Can we? Can we PLEASE?
I'm a lifelong pedestrian. Running red lights, gunning it on yellow, and the Pittsburgh left don't bother me. What bugs me is the endless supply of $%$#%@! who stop at a red light ON THE CROSSWALK, instead of at the line well behind it. This behavior forces those of us who are on foot to either walk behind the offender, or worse (when the offender realizes their mistake, tries to back up, and the car behind them just Does Not Care), walk out into traffic.
Find a way to ticket THESE idiots for being a public nuisance. You'll make the pedestrians happy and you'll be rolling in dough. :P
Same crap in Philadelphia. Half the cars are uninsured. Then, about maybe 5 year ago, city councilman Angel Ortiz, who was one of the more vocal about not beating down on the uninsured, was caught driving (a city vehicle) without a license. Turns out, he had been doing it for 17 years. His excuse? One worthy of Steve Martin - "I forgot."
(And the pinheads wonder why they're a laughing stock in the rest of the state)
Sorry, I forgot to point that out.
Hypothetically speaking, the person either wouldn't be helped by moving or moving is not an option.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If project Y previously was funded only to $Z, and dedicated revenue source X brings in more than $Z. In this case you must either increase spending on Y, bank the difference to Y's rainy-day fund, or refund the difference to X's rate-payers/customers.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
... this poses to many ethical and privacy issues to even consider being effective.
but seriously.. screw uninsured motorists.. i got T-boned by one once (driving one of my parents cars)... thanks for your stupidity costing my parents a perfectly good vehicle with no compensation.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
The real solution is to have decent public transit then, not allow selfish assholes to drive uninsured!
Of course, racists oppose public transit too (can't let the <euphemism>undesirable element</euphemism> get into the white areas of town...).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Insurance is a pain. I remember when it was required and how hard it was to scrounge the cash. But I did it. Of course, I did not have to do so until I was working. I wasn't one of these kids that had a car. In fact, many times I did not have a car so I took the bus.
I do not necessarily agree that insurance should be mandated, but understand why it is. Anyone can cause huge amount of damage using a car, kill any number of people. Teen girls back from a game can kill an unborn child and several others. Teen girls coming back from a game can run into a semi, perhaps severely damaging it, and some family depends on that semi to eat. Some otherwise innocent person can be run off the road and destroy a house. I know of two houses that have been partially destroyed by cars running into them. And who should pay for these things? Since most of us drives car, perhaps the government and taxpayers. Or we cover our own financial responsibility.
Really we must get out of this idea of entitlements. I am an Amercian so I am entitled to a car even if I can't afford it. If I damage something the state will take care of it. And since I do not produce enough to purchase everything I want, I should be given special dispensation so the normal laws do not apply to me.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The city of Philadelphia does this.
If you are caught driving without insurance in the city of Philadelphia, your vehicle is confiscated ON THE SPOT, and you will walk home (or ride SEPTA, but walking may be faster/easier).
People were predicting this would happen as soon as all these cameras were being installed.
One has to wonder what'll be proposed as the next use of these cameras once they exhaust the supply of uninsured motorists. I'm betting that something else will suddenly become "illegal" and used to justify the continued use of these expensive systems. Anyone know just how much money has been spent on these red light cameras and how much their purchase has contributed to Chicago's budget deficit? Because, frankly, I'm getting a little tired of hearing about what increasingly seems to be self-inflicted red ink in their budget. (Ald. Ed Burke -- the proponent of this use of the cameras -- can't retire or be defeated in his next election soon enough to satisfy me.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
They actually tried doing that down here in New Orleans...back before Katrina. The measure got thrown out as that it was branded a 'racist' ordinance. That just blew me away. I don't care what color you are, if you can't afford to have lawful insurance on the car, you shouldn't be driving one. A car costs money (fuel, repair and insurnace)...if you can't afford one, don't drive one.
That's the logic of the black "leadership". If there is a measure, policy or law which has a disproportionate effect on black people, then it's racist.
(I'm waiting for them to condemn NBA player hiring)
carpool lanes HA! what are these things you speak of?!
/. members is what is the true problem with America.
seriously, It is real easy to sit back and brainstorm ideas, but for the 6 months I was driving with out insurance I tried all of your ideas, the problem is that people are so afraid of the people living near them being serial killers out to rape and pillage more then the Vikings could ever hope to do, they they refuse to help anybody.
(thank you over hyped news stories)
That my fellow
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
I'm insured. I drive lots of cars. Not all are registered to me but my insurance policy covers me when I'm driving them. How will the state ever link the status of my insurance to some unknown vehicle plate?
Have gnu, will travel.
Remember when government's purpose was to serve the public rather than screw it?
Wouldn't the governments time and energy be better served, for example, by looking into ways to better synchronize and schedule the stop lights rather than turn them into revenue generation tools?
Oh, by the way, lots of cities cheat when they put red light cameras in. Just in case you still actually think that safety has anything to do with it.
For some, "take the bus" means losing 4 hours a day for what would be a 30-minute trip. That's 4 hours they can use to hold down a 2nd job or be their for their children.
For others who live in cities without mass transit, "take the bus" means moving.
Did you know there it at least one city in America with over 1/3 of a million residents but no public transit system?
What part of this justifies allowing uninsured drivers on the road?
None of it. You may not think this is an important issue right now, but once you or someone you car about has been injured or had their car destroyed by some uninsured idiot, you do.
If you want to rant about the lack of useful public transportation, fair enough, but the GP was correct in saying that uninsured motorists cannot afford the price of being road users, and they unfairly burden the majority of road users who do obey the law and conscientiously maintain liability insurance on their vehicles.
Why should we pay for the cost of someone else's inability to insure their car? I assert that we should not, and that they should not be on the road.
If you think about it, if they sold their (uninsured) car and moved someplace where they could use public transportation, they'd probably be ahead. They'd no longer be paying for registration, fuel or parking, and they'd never get a traffic ticket or risk being cited for not having insurance (an automatic $500 fine where I live - I pay less than $500 for a year's insurance on one of my cars). Sounds like a pretty good deal.
Putting moderation advice in your
Generally speaking, those without insurance are those without money. Those without money are not good places to go for a revenue source. Chicago wants to fix their budget woes by targeting those who can't even afford to pay their current bills? Good luck with that; they'll be at court, they'll tie up lines, and they won't be able to pay. In the end, it will have cost more than it gained, and you'll simply have made the worst off even worse off.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not against getting uninsured motorists off the road, but not as a method for generating revenue. That's just absurd.
I happen to live in city of Calgary where the city council has decided that they are not satisfied enough with the revenue they are generating with red light cameras. What they have decided to do is to start putting up camera at intersection that will get you for both a red light infraction and potentially a speeding infraction as well.
Run a red light and you are potentially looking at hundreds of dollars in tickets arriving to your mail box.
Problem with that is we have a nation built around needing to have a car to get to most jobs, housing, etc. Hell, some places don't even bother putting in sidewalks anymore.
Because you don't know how to ride in the correct position?
you mean resting your head on the cushion, moving the peddles with your hands, and steering with your feet is the wrong way?!?!?!?!?
In other words..... what the hell are you talking about? Your comment has no context.
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
In his short story, "The Jigsaw Man," they talked about how using the death penalty to help restock the organ banks led to a loosening up of what constituted a capital crime... particularly as the number of repeat offenders was considerably reduced, but the number of law-abiding citizens who needed medical help rose.
The same thing is happening here, folks. First the fine is used as a deterrent, then it becomes a revenue stream, then it expands as the demand for services increases.
And it won't stop with red light cameras, either. What's going to happen when a state that funds schools via tobacco taxes sees a need to increase that tax... and people decide to quit instead?
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
That's a good point! They should use their gas money for insurance, so they'd have insurance and an unfueled car, or use their car money for insurance, so they'd have fuel and insurance for the car they don't have.
You're an idiot.
That is a major part of the problem. A LOT of uninsured drivers are illegal immigrants and as such don't have any incentive at all to even consider insurance. (I am getting this from talking to cops about it) They'll just abandon a car and walk away from a crash. A lot of the time the license plate on the car is stolen or just cobbed from some other state and reused, even painted to look like a local plate. The chicago area has hundreds of thousands of them. A lot-not all but a lot- of them are also part of the huge narco terrorist rings that operate and cause a lot of the violent crime.
It's hard to differentiate between someone here illegally who just wants to work, and those who come here for the easy crime opportunities and the lack of effective immigration law enforcement, but the loons who want full no questions asked amnesty don't care either (for some odd reason). Between the profit pigs who want cheap labor no questions asked and the misguided politically correct folks who think there's something wrong with having a sane controlled legal immigration policy, we'll just see more and more of the same now, cameras or no cameras. You look at what is happening in Mexico now, close to civil war because of the combination of the war on some drugs keeping prices high which leads to smuggling and crime, and the constantly borked and collapsing general economy..it's going to get real ugly soon.
Remember when your teachers told you that unless you started showing some effort, you would not amount to anything?
You should have listened.
Actually, the Sun Times FA emphasized the revenue issue too. Though I do agree that cracking down on uninsured motorists is a worthy goal.
That's the problem: instead of generating revenue, the system will probably just improve compliance. So much for ending Chicago's deficit. But also so much for the usual "red light camera" outrage.
Which really, really irritates me. People talk about red light cameras and speed traps as if they were some evil violation of the constitution. When you point out that speeders and red light racers kill people, they spout conspiracy theories about doctored cameras and shortened yellow lights.
Meanwhile, it's not safe to cross the street where I live. (And no, it's not suitable for a speed bump.) People's ability to rationalize bad driving is really evil.
That's a really easy opinion to hold until you try riding public transit four hours each day to and from your menial minimum-wage job. And I'm not making this up, I know someone with a college degree who is in this position.
That, of course, is assuming public transportation is actually usable at all. The local bus is a senior-citizens only affair. Its fine if you want to go grocery shopping or such but it doesn't get to anyplace I needed to get to. It was actually faster to ride my bicycle.
There are many parts of the US where owning and driving a car is mandatory if you want to work. There are vast tracts of rural land where there is no public transportation. If you live there, and want to work at all, you need to drive a car. It is the rural working poor that are hardest hit by things like required auto insurance and increased fuel and mileage costs, not those who live in cities where work is available within walking/biking distance.
I don't mind uninsured motorists and, face it, there will _always_ be uninsured motorists -- not least because of the droves with insurance who have a lapse due to bureaucratic technicalities. Besides, you msot likely have insurance to cover your damages when they can't. With the police by default assigning 50/50 guilt outside of one party doing 100 in a school zone, it's generally sort of pointless to bother thinking about the other person's insurance anyway. You both get nailed on you collision line and if the other guy doesn't have it, tough.
The only time uninsured motorists are a personal problem is when you yourself are uninsured or underinsured and want to bleed the other guy's insurance dry. Unless he _really_ screwed up and was 100% at fault, that's generally not going to happen anyway, so, basically, stop worrying about it and enjoy the fact that you're covered.
This isn't discrimination against the poor; it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able.
And how else do you expect a poor person to get to work in rural Alabama? Hint: we don't have buses or trains, and not everyone is able to hitch a ride to work.
Remember when your teachers told you that unless you started showing some effort, you would not amount to anything?
You should have listened.
uuh.. yeah.. I put in the effort, graduated top 10 (out of over 700) in my class and applied myself equally hard at a top 20 university.
I now cannot get arrested because I was studying instead of partying (they call it "networking".. right).
Care to tell any more big lies about how hard work pays off?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
I agree that the privacy issues (running all tags going through an intersection) seems to be unusual. As for ticketed red light offenders, why not require them to send a photocopy of their up-to-date insurance? That would put the burden of proof on the offender, and would require no extra work on the city's part. From what I read above, when an officer pulls somebody over for the same offense, they ask for proof of insurance anyway. If you're making them mail a check to you anyways, have them include a copy of their insurance. That'll be $2 million, city of Chicago. :-)
Considering how little the Underinsured/Uninsured insurance is on most policies, I don't have much sympathy. But then again, I'm in a state that doesn't require auto insurance, so those rates might be different.
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
There's a big difference between "socialism at the bottom rung of society" where you pretty much guarantee everyone something to eat, a safe place to live, clothing for their back, and the minimal-education/limited-purpose-transportation/partial-health-care/other tools needed to get a job appropriate for their talents and make a meaningful contribution to society, and "socialism for everyone" under the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" socialist banner.
The former is just plain human decency. The latter simply does not work. History shows it to be a failure, and it completely ignores human desires and ignores how to motivate people to help each other achieve their "non-need" wants.
We can quibble what is and what is not a true need, what is and is not "a good idea" even if it is not a need, i.e. providing people the means to find gainful employment. A mix of free-market capitalism with allowances for those who, if left to the market, would not be able to take care of themselves and their families at some minimum level of human dignity and decency, is probably the best solution. Also throw in a small amount of regulated monopolies in industries where a regulated monopoly provides a better solution than capitalism. Debating exactly when and where capitalism should be set aside is probably best suited for another thread, and no two slashdotters will agree in all situations.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Recently I heard of passage of auto insurance "reforms" in georgia.
I've heard the insurance costs are much higher here than the national average to begin with, and recent laws have stripped the insurance commission of their capacity to limit rates.
The right-wing echo-chamber here touts it as "a great leap forward for competitive markets".
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
That's the theory, anyway. The practice is often different, unfortunately.
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.
hrrm.
Step 1: Leave rural Alabama.
I wrote this up off the cuff, not for a debate class. There are no doubt logical problems in the details that could be worked out and still show the bottom line. If you do not see this, then either 1) you lack imagination or 2) I'm wrong at some fundamental level and I'm just not seeing it.
Let me generalize the situation a bit, fill in the details as needed to make the strongest possible argument then attack the result:
A family was once living at their means. Their means suddenly changed and after awhile they find their savings and other assets exhausted and are not able to keep up with the daily cost of living. They have no realistic means to immediately increase their income any more - they've already done everything on that front. They've already done all the legal and ethical cost-cutting they can think of. What's left requires either breaking the law or bending their ethics, or both.
There is one thing they can try afresh every day: Ask others for help. They've already done this by going to public assistance, and they are contemplating it through their plans to give up their kids for adoption. Other options include contacting charities, which depending on the local economy, may or may not have resources available.
By the way, when I said "moving" I meant relocating. Being paralyzed is irrelevant.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The point still stands - if you can afford a car, you can afford to insure it - simple as that.
So if you can afford a $300 hoopty, then obviously you can afford $100+ a month to insure it. (Yes, that is how much it often costs for liability insurance for a typical teenager or young person.) Yeah, that follows.
What about a college student who barely gets paid enough to eat?
What about a small businessman who is barely scraping by?
What about the hundreds of other examples I can give you of situations where someone may have a car, and may be able to scrape up enough gas money to get back and forth to take care of business, but just can't afford insurance?
You say that "if a person can afford a car, they can afford insurance." Bullshit. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Sorry for being an ass, but this kind of talk pisses me off. I HAVE BEEN THERE, in that situation, where I simply could NOT afford insurance, or even food to eat. Just because you have never been in that situation doesn't mean it's not possible or even unlikely. I know plenty of other young guys that are just getting by, especially in this economy. I know guys that have been out of work for months. They still got to drive. They still got to take care of business. Taking the bus isn't an option, because there AREN'T buses.
If you "need the car for work" then you obviously have some source of income and that is part of your required bills.
Yeah, and when you're getting paid $5/hr to work at the local university, 20 miles away, and are limited to 20 hours a week, and that's the only job you can find, well you gotta do what you gotta do.
Quit fucking judging people.
At some point, people are going to need to just start smashing security cameras simply as a statement against monitoring.
This is my sig.
Yep. Where I live now I could fairly easily get around without a car, but when I lived in the midwest a car was required between the longer commutes, weather, and lack of public transportation.
I guess I shouldn't have had that green beer before I came to work :-)
:-)
Meant to say that checking everyone's tags that go through the intersection seems to be way out of line. Saying that it's "unusual" makes no sense
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
Problem is a lot of places don't have a bus system that's worth a damn. Fresno, CA for one is horrible. If the buses are even working and not broken down somewhere, they're never on time and it still takes three hours to get across town.
From the headline, I thought cities were going to put cameras in red-light districts in order to blackmail the punters.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I'm normally against corporate and government abuse, but what "privacy" is involved here?
you're expected to have a unique identifier (license plate) on your vehicle and clearly visible at all times. You can be ticketed for not having it properly lit at night for easy viewing, and police have internet uplinks for the specific purpose of running your plates at their leisure.
The state mandated insurance racket is another fish to fry entirely, and should be much more heavily regulated than it is, but direct your wrath properly, this is not a privacy concern.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Rent -> 325/month with a roommate
Utilities/Internet (yes, a necessity in college when all your teachers think homework should be turned in online) -> 150/month
Food -> 100/month
Just the basics brings you up to 575. Now take into account the cost of school without FAFSA (bullshit system with ridiculous requirements to declare yourself an independent) and there's no way you're going to get insurance at $25-30 when you're 20. Having income doesn't mean you have enough to pay the ungodly amounts they're asking for, especially when you're trying to get through school, even with working two jobs for 50 hours a week. Hell, if I lose my job with the state due to this however many billion deficit, or my job at a pizza place due to the lack of business from the economy, insurance is bound to be one of the first things cut because of how much it cost and isn't a necessity for actually living like eating is.
In short: either you haven't been a broke student in a long time, or your parents wiped your ass for you when you were young and you never had to worry about money issues like that. Either way, your argument is flawed.
And your opinion is really easy to hold when you don't know someone that has been put in a wheelchair by an uninsured driver. I wouldn't like this at all for privacy but I really do believe that if you have no insurance you shouldn't own a car at all.
What part of "THERE IS NO FUCKING ALTERNATIVE TO OWNING A CAR IN MANY AREAS OF THE COUNTRY" don't you retards understand?
How the fuck are you supposed to "WORK TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO OPERATE A CAR" if the only way to get to work is by driving a car?
Just because YOU live in an area of the country where public transportation is readily available doesn't mean that millions of people DON'T.
I can't think of all the aggravation I've put myself through by not carrying the up-to-date PROOF of insurance. I've never been uninsured, I'm just an idiot about keeping the newest printout in my car.
I can't imagine how often I'd have had my car taken from me. Though, given that "proof" in Illinois is a printout from your email that doesn't get checked by officers, only looked at, I should probably just print out the next 5 years worth of them and put them in my glovebox.
Have your insurance pays your bills, and allow the insurance company to go after whoever is at fault for the money. If said person has insurance, then their insurance company covers them and pays your insurance company.
In other words:
You are insured, but hit by an uninsured motorist. Your insurance pays your repair/hospital bills. Then they sue the uninsured motorist for damages.
You are insured, but hit by an insured motorist. Your insurance pays your repair/hospital bills. Their insurance pays their repair/hospital bills. And your insurance collects the debt from their insurer.
You are insured, but YOU hit an insured motorist.
Your insurance pays your repair/hospital bills. Their insurance pays their repair/hospital bills.
Your insurance pays their insurance for the debt they incurred.
You are insured, but YOU hit an uninsured motorist. Your insurance pays your repair/hospital bills. And your insurance pays their hospital bills as well.
You are uninsured. You hit an insured motirist. Their insurance pays their hospital bills. Their insurance goes after you for the money. You're screwed, but you chose to take that risk.
Neither of you are insured. It doesn't matter who is at fault. You're both screwed. But the person ate fault can sue the other person in civil court to try to recover damages.
See? You have insurance, you're covered. No matter what. You have peace of mind. You don't have insurance, and you risk losing everything, but the other party in the accident is covered, as long as they chose to have insurance. And if neither of you have insurance, well, that's a risk you both chose to take, and maybe you can get something out of them if they've got money, but maybe you can't. If you can't get anyhting though, you have nobody to blame but yourself because you chose not to have insurance.
and if you can afford a car then you can afford to insure it.
Sounds like someone who is not under 25 (or is it 27 now?) and lives in NY or NJ where the insurance rates are outrageous. When I graduated college, I bought a V6 2002 Mustang, which cost about 19k in total. My car loan of ~14k was about $250/month, but my insurance was $226. This was a lower end mustang not designated as a performance vehicle so the cost was not much difference between that and say a new Altima. If I wanted the V8 Mustang GT, which was well within my ability to buy with it being only about 10% more, my insurance would have been a bit over $500/month! This was in Suffolk County on Long Island, I hear it is even worse in NJ.
I should also add that I had 1 maybe 2 moving violations on my record at that point. My point: affording car insurance is not "easy" for everyone in the US.
I'm curious why you point out specifically teen girls? Are teen boys less likely to cause such accidents? Teens in general tend to have higher accident rates due to inexperience. They are also more easily distracted by friends in the car and/or have a higher tendency to be reckless. Take out "girls" from your example and I think you will find a way more accurate generalization.
Support a true independent artist - Leila Lopez
In which case you go Here and then show up in court with the light's timings. Should be fairly easy to get it dismissed, and then figure out who shortened it to get them to change it.
At the point the family is in dire straights, they have only one car, which is necessary to get the person to and from his job. While I didn't specify which car was sold in this hypothetical scenario, assume we sold the one that makes the most sense to sell, after factoring in sale price, taxes, loan payoff amount, remaining fixed and variable costs of the remaining car, etc.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
But being uninsured just leaves you responsible for a fat civil suit.
They may not have insurance, but it won't stop you from taking them to court and wiping out their equity, credit, and savings accounts.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Seems like you'd need face recognition rather than license plate recognition. Err... good luck.
Not to sound trite, but bipedal locomotion coupled with an early departure would be my first answer...
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
They just never change no matter where you stop. Then you have to run the light, and you get a ticket in the mail. Profit!
Cities View Red Light Districts As Profit Centers
Now that's a story!
Then confiscate their cars and sell them at auction if they can't pay the fine. Rest assured, the lenders and leasing companies WILL crack down. A few will be unsellable clunkers, but at least the uninsured vehicles are off the road.
The revenue is secondary. This entire idea is mostly about justifying the continued existence of traffic cams. They are desperate to find a way to use these things without having it look like a blatant money-grab.
Traditional efforts to curb uninsured driving have been largely unsuccessful. This idea has the virtue of being new.
If you are too poor to have a car and the public transit system is broken, then ride a bicycle.
I have been on bicycle/public transit for 30 years. Yes. That is car-less for 30 years.
And yes, that includes 5, 10, and now a 23 mile commute by bicycle.
Yes. It can be done.
And yes, it's good for your health.
I've lost 40 ugly pounds doing this.
Luv
Cleara
"Driving is a privilege, not a right,"
Why? I have yet to read any logical argument to back that up.
Can I choose to walk and not pay taxes?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The correct position to ride a bike is on the road.
(Clarification: in the UK, it's illegal to ride on the pavement. But we don't have roads that are three lanes wide with 45mph traffic in each direction intersecting our towns.)
"if you can afford a car, you can afford to insure it -"
I can get a drivable car for 500 bucks. That means I can afford the 360 a year to insure it? your logic is weak.
"then you obviously have some source of income and that is part of your required bills"
and? you have no idea what there outgo is. Are they working in a canning plant from 9PM to 5:30AM supporting a house of people?
Contrary to what bus companies and unthinking greenies want you to believe, it is often cheaper to drive.
It costs me twice as much to take the bus every month, then it does to drive, and yes that's total cost.
You want to toss in free bus fare for everyone under the poverty line? then you ahve an argument form taking the bus.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"...if you can't afford to have lawful insurance on the car, you shouldn't be driving one."
That doesn't give the state the right to take your property away.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
ride a bike, carpool, bum a ride, cover gas for someone else to drive, move...
seems to me there are ways for a determined person to get to work to get this money that you need that do not require me being at risk of paying for your mistakes.
Where I live in the USA (I don't know how it is in other parts of the USA) it is recommended that you ride on the street, but there is no law.
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."
They gave up on this after about a week for the same reason Oakland gave up on seizing the cars of "johns" visiting prostitutes: Fear.
If you threaten to take away someone's most valuable possession, they may fight back. It's not worth the risk of getting shot (as a police officer) just to stop someone from driving without a license or visiting a hooker.
Maybe by moving somewhere else? This is the twenty-first century. You have a choice about where you live now, you don't have to live in the same hamlet that your parents and grandparents lived in. If you can't afford a car (or don't want to own a car) then live somewhere which is within your means.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What part of 'there is an alternative you living in those parts of the country' do you not understand? I have friends living and working here who come from Europe, Asia and America. Being unwilling to move somewhere else within your own country to find a better standard of living is a view I find amazing (although not one unique to the USA, by any means).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is particularly true for the under 25 crowd, and especially under 18 crowd. ... . In my mind, if one can own a 20 thousand dollar truck, one can pay insurance.
Virtually all of whom are broke. That teenage girl you're talking about simply DID NOT buy a $20K truck on her own. Her parents bought it and THEY should pay for the insurance. If THEY gave her the truck but wont' pay for insurance THAT'S THE PARENT'S FAULT! They should have bought her a cheaper car and actually paid the insurance.
A handful of rich kids whose parents are too stupid to pay for insurance should not be the basis of American public policy. Besides, there's a remedy here: Sue the parents.
I live in Minnesota where all drivers are required by law to carry insurance. It sounds like a good idea and there's a load of people who want to scream about personal responsibility. What nobody talks about though is that nobody really pays the same for insurance. Men pay more than women, people who drive certain models of vehicles or live in certain zip codes pay more, or if they live within x miles of a certain intersection. These factors can play a far larger role on a person's insurance rates than their driving record -- case in point, I know a woman who has been in four accidents, has three speeding tickets, an couple illegal turns, and a DUI. Her insurance is still half of a man I know who got one speeding ticket. They are the same age, and live in the same zipcode -- the difference is gender and the vehicles they drive. Insurance companies aren't required to publish their methods of calculating what rates a person will pay out, and they certainly would fight tooth and nail to have such methodology scrutinized. Like the rubbish about how men are more prone to accidents (thus justifying the higher fees) -- this was true in the 1970s when women didn't routinely own vehicles, but these days the accident rate is a lot closer to parity than it was then, but nobody has updated their methods because while parity in per capita accidents has closed, the difference in pay between men and women didn't keep up -- so men pay more because insurance companies can charge them more.
This is the problem with insurance -- it's not based on a person's ability to drive, or their record, but rather those very intangibles like race and sex. Insurance is a fundamentally discriminatory institution.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Gee, in NYC we're using red light cameras to rein in killer drivers. Sounds like a good use to me.
The college student gets no sympathy from me. Half my friends who were at college to me didn't even have a car for many of the reasons you listed. They walked or caught rides.
The rest - I'm sorry, but that's about as compelling as saying that some poor slob who can't afford to eat automatically gets a get out of jail free card when he goes and robs a grocery store. YOUR problems are not an excuse to deprive the rest of society, and the plain and simple truth is that an uninsured driver is a financial hazard to every single person on the road. If you can't afford insurance, either park your fucking car or don't be surprised when you get the book thrown at you when you get caught.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
This is bull.
I recently acquired a car for 150$. I drive it to and from work and school every single day, as does my fiancee.
Now insurance on it, just because I am 20, is 125$ a month, every month. To say that if you can afford a car you can afford insurance is simply not true.
I do not live near any type of mass transit(no bus, no shuttle, no train, no kind of mass transit period) and I have tried to bike the necessary 45 minutes it takes to get to work, but when I show up sweating, I am scolded for not being "professional".
Besides, confiscate my car for driving uninsured, I can get another one of equal value in two days, cheaper than insurance in fact too. And it'll get me to work and at least I won't have to worry about not being able to make it in(which equates to being thrown out of my apartment, if you have lived to greatly to know how much that sucks, it sucks to lose your home).
Your answer there is simple: get a job either on campus (what I did when I was in college), within walking distance, or within biking distance.
Driving without insurance is ILLEGAL and for good reason. Your personal issues don't give you exemption from the law (and particularly in the case where, unlike so many others, it's actually a GOOD law). If you can't afford to eat and steal in order to, you still go to jail. If you can't afford to drive (and the reality is that if you can't afford insurance, then you cant' afford all the required items to drive), then no matter your reasoning, you STILL get punished, and rightfully so.
I already find it HIGHLY ironic that you have the audacity to suggest that *I'm* the one coddled, having my parents "wipe my ass" when you're basically throwing a temper tantrum screaming to get you way. Tough shit, society doesn't work that way, and no matter how much you kick and scream you're not getting out of it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Step 1: Install expensive cameras/software/process/ticketing mechanism ....
Step 2: Blindly ticket people
Step 3:
Step 4: No profit, people didn't pay or they fought it in court & won because these ticketing methods are notoriously unreliable and judges hate them.
Imagine getting ticket 1 at first light for speeding...still speeding through second light? another ticket. Another light? Another ticket. Hey you went speeding through 5 lights and got 5 tickets. If it were a police officer you would get 1 ticket and would slow your ass down. But go on chicago, that will solve your issues.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Besides, confiscate my car for driving uninsured, I can get another one of equal value in two days, cheaper than insurance in fact too. And it'll get me to work and at least I won't have to worry about not being able to make it in(which equates to being thrown out of my apartment, if you have lived to greatly to know how much that sucks, it sucks to lose your home).
And when they impose a fine against you for driving uninsured, you're than not going to be getting replacement tags for your car. Without those, you're going to get pulled over pretty quickly. Then you're going to stack up even more fines.
BTW, depending on your state, you can get jail time for driving without insurance. And you can bet if show up often enough for the same offense, that penalty will be handed down.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
No one is forcing you to live in poverty like that. Like it or not, you always have the choice to live off the land.
The fact that you can only find a shitty job is nobody's problem but yours.
Is more people take public transit, it'll make more money and thus be able to get better. If everyone insists on owning a car, it should be no surprise that public transit bites. It is probably a net loss for the government and thus they've no interest in building it out. If people make extensive use of it, then they are going to want to expand it to make more money.
I find it odd that the raving lunatic hobo your replied to got modded up and your sane, rational comment got no moderation at all.
Sad, Slashdot, just sad.
My mom keeps getting these automatic mailed in tickets from this company that the state police outsources redlight violations too. Every time there'd be a picture in the letter, a picture of some random car with some random plates that somehow through the magic of computer computation and image recognition linked to our address. She tried calling those bastards up and explaining that it was not her car, that the incident wasn't even in CA. The customer rep was so stubborn, all he did was keep offering implausible scenarios like
1)Are you sure you weren't on vacation at that time out of state and rented the car?
2)Are you sure one of your relatives didn't rent the car out of state in your name?
3)Are you sure you didn't sell your previous car to someone who lives in the state where the violation occurred?
It's like WTF?! And because it's actually a private company that's doing this, they feel zero pressure to resolve the situation whatsoever. They kept coming up with excuses and this violation will eventually end up on my mother's traffic records. I have a feeling that the government has a part in this too: they allow these ridiculous incompetent companies to implement their piece-of-shit image recognition software which has like 80% FPR, and then the state collects funding from the wrongfully cited traffic tickets. Those traffic cameras can't tell a red corolla from a black civic, much less a 5 from an S on a license plate.
That would be OK with me.
You're forgetting my only two options are:
1. Wake up, get in car, go to work, get paid, pay rent, live in house.
2. Wake up, don't get in car, don't go to work, don't get paid, don't pay rent, don't live in house.
Living in jail is better than being homeless, and without that car, I cannot keep my home secure.
The people who come to the conclusion to drive uninsured do so for a reason. Sometimes it is just greed, I will admit. However, sometimes it is out of a logically-reasoned necessity.
(Disclaimer: I'm not saying I do not pay insurance, but if I couldn't, you could bet your ass i'd be driving until I could eventually afford to pay it again. Just slow and carefully...)
it's the poor trying to live beyond their means by operating a car before they're financially able
That's not always true, and I'd go so far as to speculate it probably isn't even usually true. A lot of them probably had cars when they could afford it, then fell on hard times, and still have the car.
I'm a decent example. When I left my parents' house at 19, I had an old 1986 Volvo, then a fourteen-year-old car -- a total beater, but it worked. The only place I could afford was on the ass-end of town with nowhere to work within walking distance and the busses were too infrequent to realistically use. So, since I had a car, I was able to get a really lame, low-paying job, but the place was far enough that driving there was the only option.
Being young and stupid and poor, I drove uninsured for much of the time. I felt I didn't have a choice -- I couldn't afford insurance (especially at the rates they charge young males), but I had to get to work somehow. Even looking back, the only "option" I can see was maybe quitting my job, getting an even lower-paying job at the Wendy's three miles away, and somehow scraping together enough money to get a bike. With the reduction in income there I'd never have been able to pull myself out.
The point is, having a car and being poor doesn't mean one purchased a car one couldn't afford; this isn't analogous to the idiots extending credit they don't have to buy houses they can't afford.
And in many ways, the current traffic laws are discriminatory against the poor: Even a simple, non-moving violation can run a few hundred dollars, which is disasterous for someone who can barely afford rent. Yet someone pulling in six figures gets charged the exact same amount for that same violation, and it's practically pocket change to them.
If the point is deterrence, then the fine should scale to the person's income. A $200 dollar ticket would ruin many low-income people, and be barely noticed by someone more wealthy. Of course, many higher-income types can afford a lawyer for an hour to get the ticket reduced or thrown out entirely before it ever goes to court -- an option poor people don't have, and there are no court-appointed attorneys during the pre-trial shenanigans in traffic court.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
You missed option #3: find job closer to where you live (or reverse, find house closer to where you work) and walk. "Yeah, but what if you're poor." just doesn't work as a valid excuse to break the law for me.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
the kids just like reading cursing in caps i guess.
Thankfully my sense of self worth isnt tied to judgements from the slashdot zeitgeist
If someone legitimately can't afford car insurance what makes you think they can afford to move?
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Seriously, why are people surprised in these ages about corruption anymore?
If you can't afford to insure it, you shouldn't be driving it.
Living in rural Alabama isn't a birthright. If you can't afford to live there then you have to move.
No sig today...
20 miles? Get a bike. You'll save the gas+repairs money as well.
No sig today...
It may be different for public transit, but car owners should always be third-class citizens in a city. People should not need to understand traffic to be a pedestrian, and in cases where pedestrians are not being intentionally obnoxious, they should be considered right in any conflict between private automobiles and themselves.
We have okay public transit in Pittsburgh. Take the bus. Otherwise, get used to the pecking order:
People on foot roughly equal with Public transit
People on a bike or similar
People on a lightly motorised device (segway, vesper)
People in cars
Idiots in SUVs or limos
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Looks like it's finally time to quit white-outing and remarking the expiration date on my temp tag. It's been a good run.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
Sure, if you feel like putting forth the expense and time outlay to take a probably dirt poor hourly wage worker to court to get their meager paycheck garnished a few bucks.
I'm not thinking the majority of uninsured motorists have much in the way of equity, credit or savings.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Vitriol aside, I grew up poor. Having been poor, we learned to be gypsies. Sometimes an apartment got sold out from under us, sometimes jobs changed, sometimes we chased lower rents, sometimes we wanted to start over, move near family, etc. Sometimes we didn't have a car, other times we did. Sometimes we changed cities, schools, whatever.
The overriding factor was that we were willing to compromise to make up for what we didn't have. Sometimes it meant bussing, or getting food donations, or just plain doing without until situations improved one way or another. There are many places a man can't work without a car; people who can't afford, or don't want to depend on a car should not live where vehicle ownership is an implied prerequisite. Ignoring the inconvenience and expense, it just complicates everything.
Poor people can move. We did, dozens of times, sometimes with only the most precious of our possessions. Sometimes starting over is better anyway. But there's this: I personally wonder about the sense of entitlement some cling to. We made it, just barely, by doing what we could to get by. I stuck to the books so I could escape into college and the real world, but some of my upbringing remains: even if I lost everything, I'd find a way to make it work.
Something tells me someone claiming they can't get by without a car is not being creative, or is simply lazy or unwilling to change their situation. But, I can't really feel any other way, considering. I understand they may have it hard, but an excuse is an excuse.
Read: Rabbit Rue - Free serial nove
I guess you've never been hit by an uninsured motorist, and been on the other side, just barely squeaking by, paying for your minimum liability insurance.
Guess what? You're outta luck, and no way to fix your broken vehicle.
I've been there, not able to afford to get a vehicle fixed (that someone else hit) and/or insure it. Guess what, I road the bus. It stunk, it always ran late (so I had to leave even earlier to make sure I was on the earlier bus than I needed to be), they didn't make the right stops near my house due to construction, so I had to ride 30 minutes out of the way and back on some evenings.
If you cannot afford insurance, you cannot afford to drive. Suck it up and get a bike and/or ride the bus and/or carpool.
Right now I'm in a tough spot as I've a salvage title vehicle, cannot afford to get something else, but at least I'm legal. It makes no sense for me to get full coverage right now as they won't pay out on a salvage title.
Having said that, your excuses for inability to afford insurance still does not give you a right to put my vehicle in jeopardy when you hit my car.
Bus lines often have a flat rate pass. In my town it is $41/month for regular and $31/month for students. The only thing cheaper is a bike.
My answer to this is simply that fine, nobody will judge you- but you will go to prison.
Do you think an adequate excuse for theft is that you 'couldn't afford it'? That 'you gotta do what you gotta do'?
That might make you sleep better at night. But the justice system is still perfectly happy to throw you in prison.
I notice you haven't provided any solutions to the problem. You want a car, and with that car comes an appreciable risk. Society has decided the best way to compensate for that risk is by requiring insurance (or in some places a bond). You can't afford that insurance or bond- fine. How do you ameliorate that risk? Risk to yourself is irrelevant here- it's risk to others.
Your argument is basically that because you're poor, risk to other people doesn't matter.
That might be your opinion- and society has a perfect right to throw you in prison for being a selfish, negligent asshole.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
The law is the same in the UK: if you're caught driving without insurance, you'll be walking home. You don't need to carry proof of insurance though, as records of insured cars (and descriptions) are given to the police. If they stop you for any reason, they'll radio your number plate in and check that the car is insured, that the car isn't stolen, and that the registered owner isn't wanted for some crime.
There's also the ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) system, a camera attached to the front of the police car with some OCR ability, which does the check automatically on any number plate it sees. If the car in front isn't insured (etc) it alerts the police car driver.
Point to the exact sentence in the constitution that specifically permits the government to outlaw murder.
Why would it follow that because the government can prevent you from one mode of travel, it must necessarily mean it has the right to prevent you from using any of them? This presumes a false all-or-nothing dichotomy. All modes of transportation are not equivalent. A car is a lethal weapon easily capable of mowing down others, a bicycle much less so, and walking hardly at all. Insurance is required by law to protect bystanders, not vehicle operators. This is, or should be, immediately apparent, yet the parent post disingenuously ignores the effects on innocent bystanders in order to cast it as a matter of personal responsibility.
The problem with red light cameras are that they are marketed as a fine producing product, ie you run a red light and you will get a fine.
They should be marketed as an automatic system that will dispense a temporary, one use license for you, the motorist to proceed through the red light. Fees and charges may apply.
Motorists will then see the red light cameras as a vending machine which empowers them to get to work quicker.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
im in a state that does require it.. and MY insurance has underinsured/uninsured coverage on both my and my wife's vehicles.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Even looking back, the only "option" I can see was maybe quitting my job, getting an even lower-paying job at the Wendy's three miles away, and somehow scraping together enough money to get a bike. With the reduction in income there I'd never have been able to pull myself out.
There was your solution, had you chosen it: a bicycle.
The point is, having a car and being poor doesn't mean one purchased a car one couldn't afford; this isn't analogous to the idiots extending credit they don't have to buy houses they can't afford.
It's trying to live beyond your means before you're able. We'd like to own a dog, for example, but with bills being tight, we're responsible enough to make the choice to wait until we can AFFORD to own the dog. In short, they bought a dog, can't afford to FEED it, and wonder why it bites them in the leg later... TCO {total cost of ownership} at work here.
And in many ways, the current traffic laws are discriminatory against the poor: Even a simple, non-moving violation can run a few hundred dollars, which is disasterous for someone who can barely afford rent.
As indicated earlier, we're tight on rent at my house.... which means that I have the responsibility to NOT operate my car in a manner that'll get me a ticket. Do I feel discriminated against? Of course not. I drive safe, and so don't garner any violations. Being broke doesn't mean you have to make bone-headed decisions.
If the point is deterrence, then the fine should scale to the person's income.
As indicated by many municipalities, this has nothing to do with deterence... and good luck with the fine-scaling. While I wholeheartedly agree with the fairness of such a doctrine, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that'll you'll ever get it implemented.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
"Insurance Lobby figures out how to use local governments as a vehicle to sell more insurance, as well increase the premiums for existing policies....and pass on the cost of the program to the aforementioned local governments and their citizens."
Yay for us! Da economicy is saved!
>> Let's just go one step further and outlaw poverty by making it a crime to be poor.
> How about we don't exaggerate to make a flimsy point.
Exaggerate? He's not exaggerating. Here where I live, it's actually a crime to be homeless. You may not have anywhere to go, but you'll get arrested if you stay here. In other words, it's against the law for them merely to exist. They don't have to panhandle or do anything that bothers anyone else to trigger the law. They can be arrested for being in a public area.
It really, honestly is a crime to be poor here. I petitioned against the law, but it's not like the city council listens to me.
As for the uninsured, I do in general agree that people need to have insurance to drive. However, there are other problems with that. I have a friend from another country on a student visa. She left her car here while she got a job a few states over. She'll probably return to sell it just before she goes back home. The problem is that she didn't bother to insure it while she's away. Now there's a legal mess for her. She hasn't been driving. The car has been parked the whole time. But they seem to think it needs insurance anyhow and she's in trouble. Go figure.
There was your solution, had you chosen it: a bicycle.
.
Not sure where you think I was supposed to get the money for that; guess I could have sold my car, but then that'd be another couple thousand dollar thing I'd have to replace when I eventually did pull myself back out of the hole. Of course, things within biking distance were basically just minimum-wage jobs with no hope of ever getting out. Lots of people are in similar situations and making generalisations is pretty short-sighted.
It's trying to live beyond your means before you're able. We'd like to own a dog, for example, but with bills being tight, we're responsible enough to make the choice to wait until we can AFFORD...
It wasn't really a choice; I was kicked out, like many are. It wasn't my idea to get a shithole apartment in the middle of nowhere, with no job skills or education. I was doing what I could to get by. Lots of people are in similar situations. You're honestly trying to compare that to waiting a while to get a dog?
which means that I have the responsibility to NOT operate my car in a manner that'll get me a ticket
Your choice seems to be whether to drive like a jackass or not. It's not a hard choice to make. For some people, the choice is whether to drive at all or not; that's a much harder choice to have to make. Don't try to equate the two.
Understand: I'm not saying that driving without insurance is a bright move. I'm saying that many people feel forced to go that route for one reason or another, and a broad sweeping statement like "If you can afford a car you can afford insurance" isn't as black-and-white as some seem to think.
In a situation like that, which is not at all uncommon, it comes down to a risk-reward sort of equation: "I can keep my slightly higher-paid job, and risk driving there, or I can obey the law by not driving, which means I'd have to take a much lower-paid job." Is it really hard to fathom why many people will choose the first option? Especially younger people, who think they're invincible, won't get in an accident, and won't get pulled over?
Like I said, it's not necessarily a bright move but it's easy to see why people do it.
While I wholeheartedly agree with the fairness of such a doctrine, there's not a snowball's chance in Hell that'll you'll ever get it implemented.
You're right, but I was pointing out an aspect of how traffic laws are prosecuted and penalized, which disproportionaly impacts the poor.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
wtf, why should you have to insure your car? if you drive responsibly, then you will not cause accidents and you don't need insurance. i would go so far as to say they should ban car insurance (except 1st party and against theft) and make people criminally responsible for any damage they cause while driving.
Some of the choices (non-exhaustive list) you had and chose to ignore include:
1) not move out of your parents' house at 19 years of age.
2) start working at a younger age than 19 while you still lived at your parents' house (part time with companies can start as young 16 in many states and a lot earlier than that for independent work like mowing lawns, raking leaves, shoveling snow, etc) and save up the money to afford a car (not just the bloody initial payment but all the costs that really come with it; although you've denied it, you are exactly like those idiots who took out loans to buy houses they could not actually afford).
3) move to a different town with a better combination of housing price + accessibility to public transportation.
Paying to put gas and (periodically) oil into the car was part of affording the car but you didn't unilaterally decide that shouldn't be part of affording a car and go around stealing gas from other people's cars or oil off the local auto-mart's shelves, did you?
If you can't afford gas to drive the car out of the parking space, then you can't afford the car. If you can't afford insurance to drive the car out of the parking space, then you can't afford the car.
Update on red-light camera controversy in Texas, in which some claim red light camera operators must be licensed as private investigators: The Texas Pivate Security Bureau has issued a legal opinion in favor of traffic camera operators. --Ben
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
"Sure, if you feel like putting forth the expense and time outlay to take a probably dirt poor hourly wage worker to court to get their meager paycheck garnished a few bucks."
-There's not much in terms of time to spend, seeing as how the police report will show that he is uninsured. Plus, a defendant can make there payments in installments instead of signing over their paychecks, while you can get the settlement money quickly after the trial (or whatever a civil court/non-criminal matter is called), and the defendant will pay the loaning company in installments.
"I'm not thinking the majority of uninsured motorists have much in the way of equity, credit or savings."
-No, you're definitely correct in that matter, but they would have to disclose that to the court when they figure out an installment plan. Still, the financial pain of having to pay the balance will still make a dent in their long-term earnings, albeit relatively temporarily. What happens to them in terms of law enforcement is another issue altogether, as only law enforcement can ask for criminal (and civil) penalties, such as fines or driving restrictions, and only the court can impose them.
Still, regardless of what the DA asks for, it is up to the court to decide appropriate criminal punishment, as they are definitely liable for actual civil damages and resulting costs.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Forgot to add:
Some hourly wage workers make quite alot of money (longshoremen, truck drivers, some cooks, and skilled craftsmen).
I know garbage truck drivers can make upwards of $35.00/Hr. plus full benefits, while tractor-trailer drivers can make upwards of $100,000/Hr. plus full benefits. Although hourly, it's still a big chunk of change.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Something like this will simply fuel a black market in fake license plates to beat the cameras. Right now we have a problem with that in PA. There have been articles in the Pittsburgh papers regarding people fighting tickets issued in Philadelphia for vehicles that were proven to be 300+ miles away at the time of the infraction.
Basically, counterfeit plates carry a forgery charge, but one that will almost certainly be plea-bargained down to something insignificant when the case actually gets to court.
The big problem with cameras is that they don't have a cop on-site to ask for "license and registration" (thus dropping a part of what amounts to a public-private key pair - the publicly available plate number, plus the registration number). In a live traffic stop, the officer will verify all documents, plus the car type. Done photographically, that chance is lost.
Anyone can print random letters and numbers on a plate-sized piece of paper, and it's really pretty easy to make a metal license plate. Prisoners can do that one.
Even worse, having cameras for this type of enforcement makes the forger's risk much lower, as each camera displaces several "traffic cops".
They would have benefits as well, and those could be diverted to pay their debts.
Assholes like you need to be put in the same situation of the people you so casually condemn. It seems that only then will you change your holier-than-thou attitude.
Gas taxes instead of individual insurance policies 10 cents a gallon+ based on your state's population to pay for fault insurance coverage at the state level. Everyone who buys gas in the state, pays into the state insurance pool.
The mechanism to collect the money is already there, and you get 100% coverage of drivers, licensed or not, legal or not. If you are injured in an accident, you're covered.
Why do we need to have such a messy, expensive, hard to over see system to insure drivers again?
And what is the ratio between those cripples and people who don't have money for insurance. Inquiring minds want to know.
Because you don't know how to ride in the correct position?
Yes, do try and ride a bike in a big city with crappy bike lanes, like Chicago or Houston. Just make sure your affairs are in order first....
Shorter version: here, take your bootstraps, and then piss off, cause I got mine.
Something tells me someone claiming they can't get by without a car is not being creative, or is simply lazy or unwilling to change their situation.
Well, you're wrong. There are many areas of the country where a car is REQUIRED to live.
So if you've lived your entire life in rural Alabama, then if you experience hard times then you should pack up and move to Texas, leaving everything you own and all your friends/family behind? Yeah, that's a real smart idea. I mean, seriously. It's a hell of a lot easier to just NOT have insurance--or other luxuries--for a while until you can afford to do so, instead of taking drastic measures like moving.
Did you even read my comment?
If you did, then I guess your imagination just sucks. Where the hell do you live? I live in Alabama, and for a long time I lived way out in the country. Not by choice, but because that's where I grew up and always stayed. When you live 20 miles off the beaten path, you CAN'T "ride a bike", "carpool", "bum a ride", or "cover gas for someone else to drive". And if you can't afford insurance, you damn sure can't afford to move. And why would you WANT to move just because you're experiencing some tough times?
The UK has had a non-insured database for years. Even tough the system here is a little different (both the car and driver have to be insured together) the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems indicate that around 5 percent of cars are uninsured. Add to that those stopped for one reason or another for whom it transpires there is no valid insurance for that person in that vehicle. Add to that those driving a company van for social purposes or vice versa and it is not difficult to see the penalty coffers filling fast. Except they don't. The penalty is typically about GBP 200 (say USD 300) and six points on the licence (disqualify for six months at twelve points). New systems allow the police to seize the vehicle at the roadside and driver has to show valid insurance before they can collect - and pay the fine plus towing charge.
It's getting better....but slowly. The real money maker here is the speed camera.
... and not the car. I'm insured at rates that conform to the vehicle I normally use; however I can drive any vehicle up to 25000 GVW and still be insured. So, insured fellow borrows a vehicle from the uninsured, and they get a ticket for doing nothing wrong. That's pretty stupid, honestly.
It's a big dragnet, will lack any needed safety controls to fight false tickets, can only be fought by those with means (everyone, guilty or innocent, should have a chance to stand in court and face their accuser), and relies on very accurate reporting by insurance carriers. Yeah, this is a bad idea whether you like uninsured motorists or not.
Here's one place where I unsympathetically side with the cameras. Keep in mind:
- You're in public and have no expectation of privacy. If someone wanted to stand on a sidewalk all day with a camera taking pictures of red light runners, the publishing them--license plates and all--on the Web, that would be legal. If you want anonymity in public, lace up your shoes, since pedestrians and bicyclists don't carry around number plates.
- Speed/running red lights kills. Period. The same people who think that red-light cameras violate their "right" to run red lights will be screaming the inverse when they lose a loved one to a red-light runner who won't be charged because there's no record of who ran the red light.
- Safety first, revenue second. Red-light and speed cameras hold dangerous drivers accountable for their actions--and for that matter, uninsured drivers. I, for one, am tired of paying higher insurance rated for "uninsured motorist protection". If public safety cameras cause accident fatalities to plummet, it's worth it. While that sounds like the same "nothing to hide" argument used to stomp on the Constitution, think of it this way: public-safety cameras ARE NOT in the Constitution. You're on public ground, and the cameras are capturing a publicly readable license-plate number.
- Let's put it in perspective: traffic accidents in the USA kill more than a 9/11 every month. I'm surprised the public doesn't demand action, but on the other hand, the public also want the Right(TM) to drive as dangerously as THEY want when THEY're the ones who are late for work.
Yesterday, ./ had a blurb about "safety improvements" to roads having an inverse effect, since drivers effectively go into autopilot--for example, a 6-lane interstate vs. a 2-lane road. Also mentioned was that, for this very reason, roundabouts are SAFER than signalized intersections. Let's get rid of all traffic signals and replace them with roundabouts. They keep speeds down and there are no red lights to run, so no cameras necessary. And since right-of-way is marked by pavement markings and signs, it'll be obvious who caused an accident if there is one.
Make those who can't afford insurance, PAY for not having it!
Same thing in ... if not Illinois, then at least Chicago. Over the age of 12 you have to ride on the street or you can be issued a citation (I don't think you can be ticketed for it). On certain routes if you ride your bike on the sidewalk it can be confiscated on the spot. This is especially true right by the lake by the "retirement" high rises.
recording video cameras at street corners is NOT a methdod to wipe out deficits, but to raise future spending and invade the privacy of individuals.