View Full Version : Vehicle Tag Readers Coming to Oklahoma?



BBatesokc
06-01-2016, 08:05 PM
Apologize if this thread exists elsewhere (couldn't find it and I don't trust the search feature)....

Bill authorizes use of cameras, automated systems to catch uninsured motorists (http://newsok.com/article/5501459)

Thoughts?

Uninsured motorists is a huge problem in this state, but do these scanner cross the line?

I tend to lean towards less gov't is always better - so, I'm not a big fan of these. But, primarily only because I haven't read enough about what (if any) restrictions are going to be on the use of the data that is collected.

Right now I can type a person's tag number into one of a few databases and see each time its been photographed. Just the other day I used this technology to inform OKC Vice that a human trafficker's vehicle they were actively seeking (to place a court ordered GPS on it) had literally just been photographed several states away. The information comes complete with a photo, GPS coordinates and a date/time stamp.

Had a client have me run her tag to see how easy it would be for her to be found after her pimp is released from prison and her car was photographed so many times at a particular business park that it was obvious that is where she is employed.

Will Oklahoma's database be made available in such a way or will it only be used for insurance complaisance? Will this data be stored anywhere where it could potentially be subpoenaed?

These details may have been outlined somewhere, but I hadn't look deep enough to find it.

ctchandler
06-01-2016, 08:37 PM
BBatesokc,
Tonight I'm running off at the mouth, so let me tell you my opinion. I could easily be a Libertarian if there was any chance that a Libertarian candidate could win in this state. So, obviously, I am not a fan of government interference in my/our lives. I don't trust cameras for speeding or running red lights, but catching uninsured motorists seems to be fairly harmless. If an individual is caught, and the records are wrong, all he/she has to do is provide proof of insurance. End of story. Yes, it's an inconvenience but hopefully, the records will be properly maintained and those caught don't have insurance and proper actions will be taken. And if they do, simply provide proof of insurance to the right folks and that would be the end of it. I have spent $6,000 for uninsured motorist insurance (an estimate) and I am actually getting ready to cancel it since nobody rides in my car except me and I am medically insured. There's something wrong with this picture.
C. T.

Martin
06-01-2016, 08:42 PM
Thoughts?

you've pretty much outlined my primary concern. i'm ok (academically) with a system that scans a plate, compares it against a database of insured motorists, and informs an officer if an uninsured motorist is detected. otherwise, the plate number is immediately and completely forgotten. however, i think that the reality is that if law enforcement has nine-tenths of a system that can persistently track and store the time and location of plate numbers, then there will be a push for that ability under the guise of public safety.. and i'm not sure that i'm entirely comfortable with such a tool being in the hands of law enforcement. -M

mkjeeves
06-01-2016, 09:05 PM
They are already in use locally by law enforcement.

http://okcfox.com/archive/youre-being-tracked-aclu-says-license-plate-readers-put-you-at-risk

One of the major players. (Besides law enforcement.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/vigilant-solutions-surveillance/427047/

Midtowner
06-01-2016, 10:38 PM
If it's the government doing this at their expense, fine. If they're partnering with private companies and sharing in the ticket revenues, that may be problematic.

BBatesokc
06-02-2016, 06:16 AM
My fear is in several states a private company provides the equipment and data storage for little or no cost - in exchange for the ability to monetize the resulting data. One of the ways they often monetize the data is to make it available on certain data bases.

stile99
06-02-2016, 07:43 AM
The thread doesn't *quite* exist, but the topic was touched on as being a possible 'real' reason for the new plates in the new plates thread, but got derailed by the fee/tax debate.

The thought crossed my mind at that time, but then wandered away, and now it is back. Remember all those comments about Great Britain being a nanny state a few years back, and how at any given corner you're on at least three different cameras? It seems we're pretty well along that slippery slope ourselves. All those 'crazy people' who said we have no privacy left? Turns out they weren't that crazy after all. Not even in our own homes, I've seen stories about people's houses being monitored by hanging a camera on a nearby light pole and aiming it at their front door.

Zuplar
06-02-2016, 09:16 AM
I'm completely against it. We hardly have any privacy anymore. I get that uninsured motorists are a problem, but still some of this monitoring and automation is just too much. Next thing we know the government will be introducing Skynet and how it's going to make all of our lives easier. Then it will become self-aware.

terryinokc
06-02-2016, 09:35 AM
OK...just a thought from someone that has worked in local insurance offices for more than 25 years.
Uninsured motorists are out there....a lot of them....average 25% of the cars on the road in Oklahoma are uninsured. Oklahoma has some of the highest auto (and home) insurance premium in the country.

A few years back, I was in an accident with an uninsured motorist. He didn't yield on a turn and hit my car. He was 19 years old...out on probation from 2 felonies...and no insurance.
Wanted to give me $500 to not call the cops. Told him that wasn't going to work. Police came...he was arrested...and my insurance company paid about $3000 for damages to my car...after I met my deductible.
Shoulder started hurting about 2 weeks later....after 2 MRI's and 2 rounds of physical therapy I was much better....and my Uninsured Motorist coverage on my auto policy paid for this.

So....long story short....I pay premiums for Uninsured Motorist coverage on my auto in the amount of $125.00 per six months. To cover medical related expenses after an accident with an uninsured motorist. In Oklahoma--the Uninsured Motorist coverage does not cover damage to your vehicle--just medical bills.
Because this guy didn't have insurance....I had to pay $500 deductible to get my car fixed.

If you multiply the cost of my (and the average collision deductible on auto policies) times the number of accidents that uninsured motorists cause each month in Oklahoma....the amount of money the average Joe is out of pocket is staggering...ALL BECAUSE SOMEONE ISN'T RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH TO HAVE INSURANCE IF THEY DRIVE A CAR.........

Something needs to be done....if it's cameras that work....so be it...Take their license plates when they're stopped and don't give them back until they can prove they have insurance....and don't give them back until it's proven that the policy stays in force for a while....otherwise you have the same situation as now....people come in and buy a policy...get their ID cards...go to the tag agency and get their tag...and then never make another payment on the policy--and it lapses for nonpayment. That's another big expense that trickles down the to average Joe...it costs the insurance companies money to underwrite and issue the policy...it if never gets paid for...and they go along their merry way and drive again without coverage.

Sorry for the rant but that's 25 years of frustration with people getting away with this and nothing being done....and we are all paying for it in more ways than we know.

The one's that don't have insurance whine that the cost is too much for them to pay....too bad....don't have a vehicle if you can't pay for the insurance. You're out there damaging other people's cars and causing lots of injuries because of your lack of responsibility.

Pete
06-02-2016, 10:33 AM
Why can't we do what California does?

They have a database that requires anyone with a car tag to have valid insurance on file.

They cross-reference with insurance databases and you get a notice from the DMV of intention to suspend your tag if you aren't current.

Zuplar
06-02-2016, 10:36 AM
Why can't we do what California does?

They have a database that requires anyone with a car tag to have valid insurance on file.

They cross-reference with insurance databases and you get a notice from the DMV of intention to suspect your tag if you aren't current.

Probably cause that makes way too much sense.

stile99
06-02-2016, 11:24 AM
Something needs to be done.

You will find no one, and I mean NO ONE, who agrees with that more than me. However, the cameras are going to do absolutely nothing, and the "25% uninsured" figure has been bantered about for twenty years now as an excuse to get whatever it is they currently want. If all the 'solutions' for the past two decades didn't solve the problem, there's no reason to believe this one will either. That said, you do touch on a solution that will work, but I'm going to take it a step or two further.

Take the license plates right then and there when they are stopped...but they're not getting them back. After 30 days in jail, they need to go get insurance, then go get new plates. Don't have 30 days to spend in jail? Don't have the money to re-register your car? Easy solution...BUY THE INSURANCE. Don't want to buy the insurance? Again, easy solution, take public transportation. This is step one. Step two is if you get caught driving without insurance again, no problem! No worries, you're not going to jail again, we've already proven that didn't work for you. And we're not taking your license plates this time...because we're taking your car. You can have it back when you get insurance and pay the towing/impound fees.

"But these cameras will help us catch them!" Sure will. But if you're not going to DO anything about it, then nothing is going to change. Yes, something needs to be done. Two decades of nothing has gotten us...nothing.

Pete
06-02-2016, 11:27 AM
I mentioned that when I was recently stopped by OKC police that they did not even ask for proof of insurance.

It's pretty clear this has not been a priority of law enforcement for whatever reason.

Zuplar
06-02-2016, 12:09 PM
I mentioned that when I was recently stopped by OKC police that they did not even ask for proof of insurance.

It's pretty clear this has not been a priority of law enforcement for whatever reason.

Little bit of enforcement and training would a long way.

jerrywall
06-02-2016, 02:02 PM
I mentioned that when I was recently stopped by OKC police that they did not even ask for proof of insurance.

It's pretty clear this has not been a priority of law enforcement for whatever reason.

They can run your plates and find out if your insurance is valid. It's more secure than asking for a physical proof.

https://www.dps.state.ok.us/OCIVS/

I've had a few mention they don't ask for verification anymore for this reason.

Ozmondo
06-02-2016, 02:37 PM
What do they do if they find out you don't have insurance? Do they write you a ticket/ Tow your car?

Pete
06-02-2016, 02:53 PM
They can run your plates and find out if your insurance is valid. It's more secure than asking for a physical proof.

https://www.dps.state.ok.us/OCIVS/

I've had a few mention they don't ask for verification anymore for this reason.

Right, but I assure you this cop did not do that, as he wrote that ticket and no time flat then went right back to his speed trap.

jerrywall
06-02-2016, 03:20 PM
What do they do if they find out you don't have insurance? Do they write you a ticket/ Tow your car?

Either. They added impounding your car as a penalty a few years ago. Then a couple of years later they added the ability to take your license plate. (Note: this is exchange for towing). Here's the potential penalties for first offense:

Fine: of not more than $250.00

Imprisonment: for not more than 30
days, or by both such fine and
imprisonment, addition thereto

Suspension of License: Until proof of
security is furnished and a total of up to
$275 in fees are paid under 47-6-212.

Impoundment: the law enforcement
officer issuing the citation may seize
the vehicle being operated by the
person and cause the vehicle to be
towed and stored as provided by
subsection B of Section 955 of this
title.

jerrywall
06-02-2016, 03:22 PM
Right, but I assure you this cop did not do that, as he wrote that ticket and no time flat then went right back to his speed trap.

So he didn't run your license and check you for warrants or anything? I've sat in the police car during an insurance check, and it's quicker than running a license. Some have cameras on the hoods that automatically run it as well, and will alert the officer is there is no current insurance on the vehicle.

stick47
06-02-2016, 03:37 PM
Take their plates and they'll just steal plates off someone elses car. We even had a rash of stolen year stickers off plates where I once worked. I vote for mpounding the car.

jerrywall
06-02-2016, 04:31 PM
Take their plates and they'll just steal plates off someone elses car. We even had a rash of stolen year stickers off plates where I once worked. I vote for mpounding the car.

The other problem with taking plates is you're asking, in many areas, a solo officer to be bending down behind the car of a suspect.

BBatesokc
06-02-2016, 05:07 PM
Right, but I assure you this cop did not do that, as he wrote that ticket and no time flat then went right back to his speed trap.

I'd almost guarantee they ran you for insurance. Its a very fast process these days. I can run you from my computer and know in literally seconds.

Its no sweat to them and they literally get 'points' for adding such items to their daily activity log.

As for "what do they do if you don't have insurance?" Someone I know was stopped less than a month ago and they had to uber home. Their car was impounded on the spot. Ended up costing probably $600-$1000 when it was all over.

stile99
06-02-2016, 05:31 PM
The other problem with taking plates is you're asking, in many areas, a solo officer to be bending down behind the car of a suspect.

I'm fine with jumping right to impounding the car, take the plates off at the lot. We need to make this REALLY inconvenient.

DowntownMan
06-02-2016, 05:57 PM
I'm fine with jumping right to impounding the car, take the plates off at the lot. We need to make this REALLY inconvenient.

What can we do to get rid of the paper tags that are 6 months old. These always scare me because I assume if they can't afford the tt&l they probably don't have insurance as well

bradh
06-02-2016, 08:59 PM
It's all a slam against the poor. They can't afford it so they don't buy it. You want to get tough? Get prepared for groups to cry foul because "if you take their license or car they can't get to work!".

I understand the privacy deal, but if we as a society can't follow the law, them maybe we are not worthy of said privacy. I am with the insurance agent, it's a problem.

Stew
06-02-2016, 09:06 PM
Well lets just hope these tag readers are as successful at ridding us of uninsured motorists as the DUI checkpoints have been at eliminating drunk driving.

jerrywall
06-02-2016, 09:15 PM
Well lets just hope these tag readers are as successful at ridding us of uninsured motorists as the DUI checkpoints have been at eliminating drunk driving.

Probably up with with homicide detectives and anti murder laws ridding us of murder.

stick47
06-02-2016, 09:18 PM
It's all a slam against the poor. They can't afford it so they don't buy it. You want to get tough? Get prepared for groups to cry foul because "if you take their license or car they can't get to work!".

I understand the privacy deal, but if we as a society can't follow the law, them maybe we are not worthy of said privacy. I am with the insurance agent, it's a problem.

Really? I'd say it's a slam against those of us who are responsible since we're the ones that pay the price when an accident happens. I've been poor. Most go through poverty in some form. Poverty is the natural state of man. You escape from it through making good decisions. If I can do it, anybody with normal abilities can also.

Bill Robertson
06-02-2016, 10:18 PM
[QUOTE=jerrywall;954322]They can run your plates and find out if your insurance is valid. It's more secure than asking for a physical proof.

[url]https://www.dps.state.ok.us/OCIVS/[/url[QUOTE]I noticed the last couple of times I had tags renewed they didn't ask for proof of insurance. I asked and they said they can pull it up on the system now. If it's not there, you're not insured.

I've had a few mention they don't ask for verification anymore for this reason.

kevinpate
06-03-2016, 01:18 AM
Grab the plate and/or the car, not the person. Fer the luv o mike, not the person.
OK CO is already triple celling and quadruple celling people in cells meant for two.

There simply is not adequate bed space to scoop up everyone.

stile99
06-03-2016, 08:09 AM
It's all a slam against the poor. They can't afford it so they don't buy it. You want to get tough? Get prepared for groups to cry foul because "if you take their license or car they can't get to work!".

My reply here can't be said in this forum, but I can tell you it sounds a lot like "Tough Quit". Cry all you want, that sort of emotional terrorism is why we've had that same 25% uninsured rate for over two decades. "They can't get to work!" No, they just don't want to. The bus isn't that expensive, it's just not convenient. I don't know anyone who has no friends at all (that's sort of by definition, I would suppose), get a ride from a friend. If all else fails, you have two feet. "Waaa, but I'm too poor to buy insurance". Good, then you're too poor to buy a car and buy gas, so you won't be driving uninsured anyway. Terry shared a story about being hit by an uninsured driver. I have a similar story. At 25%, I imagine several others here have their own story. It's time to put an end to this bullquit and tell these people no more. Don't like it? Tough Quit!

bradh
06-03-2016, 08:12 AM
Really? I'd say it's a slam against those of us who are responsible since we're the ones that pay the price when an accident happens. I've been poor. Most go through poverty in some form. Poverty is the natural state of man. You escape from it through making good decisions. If I can do it, anybody with normal abilities can also.

I was joking, just jumping ahead of the people that will cry foul against taking away plates and cars of people who don't buy insurance.

When I was an auto adjuster I'd say it was easily 25% or more of accidents I handled that involved uninsured motorists.

stick47
06-03-2016, 08:24 AM
Thanks for the clarification. I would hope that we on this forum are in 100% agreement about the need to toughen these laws and stop enabling irresponsible actions that jeopardize the people who take full responsibilty for their lives. You have to wonder why anyone would want to be lenient in these cases? What benefit could possibly result from not taking strict measures to eliminate uninsured drivers?

bradh
06-03-2016, 08:44 AM
My reply here can't be said in this forum, but I can tell you it sounds a lot like "Tough Quit". Cry all you want, that sort of emotional terrorism is why we've had that same 25% uninsured rate for over two decades. "They can't get to work!" No, they just don't want to. The bus isn't that expensive, it's just not convenient. I don't know anyone who has no friends at all (that's sort of by definition, I would suppose), get a ride from a friend. If all else fails, you have two feet. "Waaa, but I'm too poor to buy insurance". Good, then you're too poor to buy a car and buy gas, so you won't be driving uninsured anyway. Terry shared a story about being hit by an uninsured driver. I have a similar story. At 25%, I imagine several others here have their own story. It's time to put an end to this bullquit and tell these people no more. Don't like it? Tough Quit!

I agree, my post was tongue in cheek.

Filthy
06-03-2016, 08:45 AM
I support this 100%, and would hope for a quick implementation. I would also champion the idea of impounding the vehicle upon first offense. I would love to see this technology on every patrol car, supervisor car, and HWY Patrol unit on the road today. Maybe after all of the "Non insured" motorists are targeted, and somewhat cleaned up, we can then focus on ridding the streets of the Chrysler 300s, and Dodge Chargers with 6-8 month old paper tags.

Jersey Boss
06-03-2016, 10:11 AM
The other problem with taking plates is you're asking, in many areas, a solo officer to be bending down behind the car of a suspect.

Shouldn't be a problem as a tag less vehicle can't be on the road anyway. The tag could be removed when the tow truck shows up and the cop is not alone.

Jersey Boss
06-03-2016, 10:16 AM
The question that really needs to be examined- Is driving w/o insurance a symptom of other conditions such as unavailability of mass transit, or employers such as Wal Mart expecting people to live on wages that qualify them for food stamps?

Jersey Boss
06-03-2016, 10:24 AM
[QUOTE=BBatesokc;954240]Bill authorizes use of cameras, automated systems to catch uninsured motorists (http://newsok.com/article/5501459)
I can type a person's tag number into one of a few databases and see each time its been photographed. Just the other day I used this technology to inform OKC Vice that a human trafficker's vehicle they were actively seeking (to place a court ordered GPS on it) had literally just been photographed several states away. The information comes complete with a photo, GPS coordinates and a date/time stamp./QUOTE]

Does displaying a tag upside down defeat the tag readers?

Here is a link to a report from 2013 on government collection of this data and how things such as data retention periods vary from different jurisdictions.
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf

Jersey Boss
06-03-2016, 10:33 AM
Grab the plate and/or the car, not the person. Fer the luv o mike, not the person.
OK CO is already triple celling and quadruple celling people in cells meant for two.

There simply is not adequate bed space to scoop up everyone.
Nor are there enough PD's to defend these folks

stick47
06-03-2016, 10:41 AM
The question that really needs to be examined- Is driving w/o insurance a symptom .....

I agree!!
I would bet the majority of PPL who drive w/o ins are often in that position due to past legal problems. Often they're who cause the accidents due to overall bad judgement, risk taking, drugged and drunken driving. Society would be much better off if a lot of those folks would never get behind the wheel again. They can move closer to public transportation lines, walk or ride bikes to get to work.

rezman
06-03-2016, 11:19 AM
Here is a link to a report from 2013 on government collection of this data and how things such as data retention periods vary from different jurisdictions.
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/071613-aclu-alprreport-opt-v05.pdf

This is the very reason I don't like them. If it were only catching insurance offenders, and the unusable data quickly dumped, that may be one thing, but they're not only used for that, and anyone who thinks they are is blind. They are an intrusion on our freedom of movement and just another step in "big brother is watching" and government over reach. Which seems to be quite fashionable these days.

jerrywall
06-03-2016, 11:24 AM
Shouldn't be a problem as a tag less vehicle can't be on the road anyway. The tag could be removed when the tow truck shows up and the cop is not alone.

What they do when they remove the tag is replace it with a 10 day temporary tag (with 10 day temporary insurance) and let the driver drive home. So not that case you're talking about,

Jersey Boss
06-03-2016, 11:33 AM
What they do when they remove the tag is replace it with a 10 day temporary tag (with 10 day temporary insurance) and let the driver drive home. So not that case you're talking about,

Post # 22 indicates knowledge of the car being impounded. Per your reference of 10 day temp tag, have the driver either take off the tag, if they refuse call a wrecker.

jerrywall
06-03-2016, 12:27 PM
Post # 22 indicates knowledge of the car being impounded. Per your reference of 10 day temp tag, have the driver either take off the tag, if they refuse call a wrecker.

That's definitely an idea. I have no ideas how the laws and regulations work on that, and how much discretion officers have. I'm all for anything within reason that can remove illegal drivers from the road though.

stile99
06-03-2016, 01:11 PM
I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this, because I'm really not the "lock 'em all up" type. When I suggested the 30 days in jail, I did so with the complete and utter assurance in my mind that someone would point out the overcrowding issue. I believed this more strongly than I believed the sun would rise this morning.

That said, I'm not advocating a change in the law, as I understand it. I believe that is ALREADY the law. My point, as I've mentioned, is that doing nothing has gotten us nothing. Enforce it, throw the person in jail like we're already supposed to be doing, and stop using overcrowding as an excuse to let them walk free and do it again tomorrow. If the jail cell has only two beds and there are four uninsured motorists in there, guess whose problem that is not? But letting them go free and plow into my car, THAT is suddenly my problem. You want to make this about the poor? Fine. See me standing here? With my arm in the air. We're talking about me. I am *not* rich. I can *not* afford for these idiots to destroy my vehicle. I can *not* afford for these idiots to send me to the hospital. I can *not* afford months of doctor's bills because someone else wouldn't (and make no mistake, the correct word is wouldn't, not couldn't) pay for insurance as required by law. As for public defenders? No need. This is 60 seconds in the courtroom, at most. Judge: "Did you have insurance?" Uninsured motorist: "No." Judge: "We're done here, next case please."

Look folks, I'm not kidding around here. To this very day, I have physical problems stemming from being hit by an uninsured motorist almost thirty years ago. This is not an academic issue, this is a real issue. You want to say putting them in an overcrowded, uncomfortable jail is cruel? Come talk to me when you are unable to remain standing for an extended period. We'll have a nice, long discussion about cruel.

jerrywall
06-03-2016, 01:26 PM
You don't need to throw them in jail to keep them off the road. Impound the car, and after a certain amount of time sell off cars that haven't been picked up. The impounding could pay for itself with fees and revenues from selling off impounded cars could generate money for law enforcement or something else. If someone can't afford insurance they probably won't be able to afford to replace that car with another uninsured one.

There's no excuse... there's some pretty cheap basic coverage out there (although I wouldn't recommend folks doing that... maintain higher than the minimum liability and full coverage on everything if you can afford it). Even the illegal immigrant dishwasher with no legal license who hit me a few years back had insurance. Didn't keep him out of jail, but at least his insurance *eventually* paid for my car (after my insurance had already replaced it).

Jersey Boss
06-03-2016, 02:14 PM
[QUOTE=stile99;954433
As for public defenders? No need. This is 60 seconds in the courtroom, at most. Judge: "Did you have insurance?" Uninsured motorist: "No." Judge: "We're done here, next case please." [/QUOTE]

Two important things here that you fail to realize about this country and the criminal justice system. 1. People are entitled to a trial by jury unless both sides waive for a bench trial. If you can't afford the insurance, you more than likely entitled to a public defender. 2. The judge does not get to ask a defendant a question such as "Do you have insurance?" The judge and prosecutor are not the same. While your 60 second populist approach sounds good, there are serious constitutional flaws with it. Jerry is spot on with his administrative/civil solution.

BBatesokc
06-03-2016, 02:24 PM
Two important things here that you fail to realize about this country and the criminal justice system. 1. People are entitled to a trial by jury unless both sides waive for a bench trial. If you can't afford the insurance, you more than likely entitled to a public defender. 2. The judge does not get to ask a defendant a question such as "Do you have insurance?" The judge and prosecutor are not the same. While your 60 second populist approach sounds good, there are serious constitutional flaws with it. Jerry is spot on with his administrative/civil solution.

Wait, are these city or state court proceedings? That makes a huge difference on right to jury trial, who asks what and access to a public defender.

I don't know, I'm just asking.

Jersey Boss
06-03-2016, 02:35 PM
Wait, are these city or state court proceedings? That makes a huge difference on right to jury trial, who asks what and access to a public defender.

I don't know, I'm just asking.
Well if a highway cop gives you a ticket on the interstate it is fo sho a state proceeding. Even in muni courts of not record you are entitled to a jury trial( Title 11- Article 27-119) I would imagine then in a muni court of record one would have the same right. My post of course related to state court proceedings. BTW, can a tag reader correlate an upside down tag?

jerrywall
06-03-2016, 02:42 PM
Well if a highway cop gives you a ticket on the interstate it is fo sho a state proceeding. My post of course related to state court proceedings. BTW, can a tag reader correlate an upside down tag?

Don't know about upside down. It really shouldn't make a difference...

However, there are products like this out there - http://www.phantomplate.com/

stile99
06-03-2016, 02:49 PM
Two important things here that you fail to realize about this country and the criminal justice system. 1. People are entitled to a trial by jury unless both sides waive for a bench trial. If you can't afford the insurance, you more than likely entitled to a public defender. 2. The judge does not get to ask a defendant a question such as "Do you have insurance?" The judge and prosecutor are not the same. While your 60 second populist approach sounds good, there are serious constitutional flaws with it. Jerry is spot on with his administrative/civil solution.

Fine. I hereby amend my statement.

1: If the person requests a jury trial in an attempt to cost money/time, they are absolutely free to do so. They'll wait patiently in the jail cell until such time as a defender is available, the jury is formed, and the case is seen. Or they could go the quick route. Entirely their choice. 2: Prosecutor, to defender (which the defendant deliberately chose to use, knowing it would add time to the matter): "Did the defendant have insurance?" Defender: "No." Judge, to jury: "Go do what you need to do."

The point here is there is no defense. If the uninsured motorist wants to play games, well then that's their problem. Again, I am not advocating "lock 'em up all up and throw away the key", the jail time is meant to be an inconvenience, not to get them off the road. As Jerry said, getting them off the road is easy to do without jail time. What I am suggesting (again, this is not new, this is part of the current law) is the law be enforced. Not enforcing it is why we're here discussing this issue today. The way it stands now, any given person can ask what the penalty for driving without insurance is, and the answer is "Well, you COULD go to jail, but probably won't", so one in four risk it. Change the answer to "You're going to jail, we're taking your car, impound fees are going to cost X, getting your tags back is going to cost Y, and you're STILL going to pay Z for insurance before you get the car and the tags back. Or you can just pay Z for insurance and not even worry about it" and I suspect that number will change.

One more time, just to be clear. Make it easier to have insurance than not have insurance. Right now, to one in four Oklahomans, either option seems equally easy. Change the equation.

jerrywall
06-03-2016, 03:11 PM
Change the equation.

Here's what I'm worried the equation is.

Insurance is expensive therefore lots of drivers don't have insurance therefore insurance is expensive.

Rinse and repeat?

Jersey Boss
06-03-2016, 03:21 PM
Here's what I'm worried the equation is.

Insurance is expensive therefore lots of drivers don't have insurance therefore insurance is expensive.

Rinse and repeat?

Like

stile99
06-03-2016, 03:24 PM
Here's what I'm worried the equation is.

Insurance is expensive therefore lots of drivers don't have insurance therefore insurance is expensive.

Rinse and repeat?

Yeah, no kidding, where's the like button on this? I wanna press it a few hundred times.

kevinpate
06-04-2016, 03:31 PM
There are folks who decide to not buy insurance.
There are folks whose payment is lost in the mail, or the digital universe.
There are folks who depend on relatives and the relative fouled up on making the payment and never whispered a word.
Any of these folks can be in an accident. Only one of the three examples involves a driver likely to know the insurance is not present.

Treating all the same is, well, a certain kind of special.
An, by the by, you can't make a defendant answer questions, even at a trial. Pesky little matters like the right to remain silent and presumption of innocence that we all want for ourselves apply to the folks none of us want to meet on the road too.

Been there, done that on the uninsured driver. More than once in my family. There is a reason I carry Med pay coverage and UM coverage, even on the older cars where cost/benefit says there is no sound reason to pay for collision or comprehensive coverage.
UM and Medpay are cheap coverages. Despite numerous reliance on the same over the years, I enjoy coverage by the same company since I was 16 and the rates are not ugly.

I don't mind if someone takes an uninsured's car and/or license. But parking them in limited jail space? Nope, not a fan, not ever going to be a fan. Has nada to do with feeling bad for those folk. It has to do with we do not have, and can not afford, bed space for such people. And no, let them sleep on the floor isn't an answer. If the government is going to risk unconstitutional conditions, I truly hope they do so for the folks we need to be in fear of, not the folk who annoy the crap out of some of us.

stick47
06-04-2016, 03:41 PM
IMO insurance companies and lien holders ought to be the bird dogs reporting lapsed coverage since it's in their best interest to keep ppl insured. Not a big fan of license plate cameras unless the data is never shared.

ctchandler
06-04-2016, 10:01 PM
There is a reason I carry Med pay coverage and UM coverage, even on the older cars where cost/benefit says there is no sound reason to pay for collision or comprehensive coverage.
UM and Medpay are cheap coverages. Despite numerous reliance on the same over the years, I enjoy coverage by the same company since I was 16 and the rates are not ugly.



Kevin,
I have always carried the proper insurance, but as a retiree on a fixed income, and someone that will only have health insured passengers, is there a reason why I should carry uninsured motorists insurance? It's a $87.00 every six months. I can't afford to carry it any longer.
Thanks,
C. T.

kevinpate
06-04-2016, 11:27 PM
CT, most health insurance plans do not cover 100% of the expenses, and do not include any funds for pain and suffering compensation or lost wages, transportation. And a minimum liability policy on an at fault driver is often a 25/50 limit. this does not go very far when one more two people needs access to those funds.

Over the years we've been into our UM a few times. For us, even in lean times, it has been more than worth the 13 or so a month it costs per vehicle for it to exist when it is needed.

ctchandler
06-05-2016, 11:49 AM
CT, most health insurance plans do not cover 100% of the expenses, and do not include any funds for pain and suffering compensation or lost wages, transportation.

Keven,
Thanks, but I am fully covered and my only passenger is from London and she comes over once or twice a year. She purchases a great travelers policy and has no need for anything else. Plus, her travel to OKC is about to come to a halt due to my health. Good info though. I have never been involved in an uninsured motorist accident and I have been driving since 1959. I should also mention that I won't be driving much longer, probably a couple of years is going to be it.
C. T.