Curmudgeonly & Skeptical presents Boned Jello: Muy Good Idea

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Muy Good Idea

Has Dallas , TX got a good idea or what — true or not?

^“_”

Recently, the City of Dallas , Texas , passed an ordinance stating that if a driver is pulled over by law enforcement and is not able to provide proof of insurance, the car is towed.

To retrieve the car after being impounded, they must show proof of insurance to have the car released. This has made it easy for the City of Dallas to remove uninsured cars.

Shortly after the “No Insurance” ordinance was passed, the Dallas impound lots began to fill up and were full after only nine days. 80+ % of the impounded cars were driven by illegals.

Not only must they provide proof of insurance to have their car released, they have to pay for the cost of the tow, a $350 fine, and $20 for every day their car is kept in the lot.

Accident rates are going down and… Dallas’ solution gets uninsured drivers off the road WITHOUT making them show proof of nationality.

Wonder how the ACLU or the Justice Department will get around this one.

I can't find a single news source for this, but there are enough Google hits to suggest it's gone viral. And for good reason; it's a brilliant idea. And I don't think the results are too fanciful in the telling. .

Sid

Rodger the Real King of France 7/20/2011 01:05:00 PM 18 Comments

"If the number of Islamic terror attacks continues at the current rate, candlelight vigils will soon be the number-one cause of global warming. "
Argus Hamilton

18 comments:

Chuck Martel said...: Beginning January 1, 2009 the Dallas Police Department will begin enforcing the Uninsured Motorist Ordinance, approved by the Dallas City Council on May 28, 2008. Under this ordinance drivers stopped for a traffic violation who cannot show proof of auto insurance meeting state requirements will be issued a citation and will have his or her vehicle towed at the owner’s expense. The City already tows the vehicles of uninsured motorists involved in traffic accidents.

The new ordinance is in response to the large number of people driving in the City of Dallas without the proper state required auto insurance. These uninsured drivers place an unfair burden on those who comply with state law and maintain auto insurance. The Dallas Police Department currently issues about 75,000 citations a year to motorists with no auto insurance. With the new ordinance, the city anticipates fewer of these citations as more drivers comply with the law to avoid having their vehicles towed.

http://tinyurl.com/3s87ffd; 7/20/11, 1:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Why would they want to retain 'their' car & pay fines etc.
It'd be cheaper just to go out and steal another one :-(

c.f. the UK's 'benefits-class' . . .; 7/20/11, 1:37 PM
Kristophr said...: Stolen cars get seized anyway.

Eventually, the pool of available plated cheap cars will vanish. When the city sells these, they will not have plates on them.

It will have the desired effect ... Illegals will go elsewhere.; 7/20/11, 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: CA has had the same impound law for years, but exempted illegal aliens from it in 2005:

http://tiny.cc/loeua

S2; 7/20/11, 1:49 PM
RavingDave said...: It's a great idea except for one thing. The state should not compel by law participation in a third party business. If it is required by law, insurance should be provided by law through the state. In addition to that, Insurance is a form of "Prior restraint." It is requiring financial responsibility for liability which has yet to occur. This presumption of "guilt" before the fact is a dangerous precedent. So is the Fascist like relationship between the State and the Private Insurance companies.; 7/20/11, 2:39 PM
Anonymous said...: RavingDave,

That's a silly attempt that has been beaten down a hundred times already.

You are free to choose to not buy vehicle insurance - but you relinquish your priveledge to drive.

S2; 7/20/11, 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Tilting at Windmills...It is our Constitutional RIGHT to travel on the highways of the USA. That PRIVILEGE Clap trap came about slowly in the first half of the 20th Century. It is widely accepted but, it is wrong.
Insurance Company's= Privateers;Piratical thieves Licensed by the state.
RAK; 7/20/11, 3:25 PM
ibendtin said...: they tried that in louisiana. The NAAPC or whoever griped so much the law is moot. There is a tow if uninsured law but apparently it's difficult to enforce after screaming discrimination.; 7/20/11, 4:37 PM
RavingDave said...: Hey anonymous, Use of the Public roads is a RIGHT! Educate yourself.

http://thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-1.html; 7/20/11, 5:34 PM
Ragin' Dave said...: Use of public roads might be a right, but the freedom to operate a motor vehicle is not. You can walk from coast to coast and nobody can say "boo" to you. Get stupid behind the wheel, and you can have your license yanked.

What insurance is, is proof that you can cover any financial liability that you may incur through dumbassery on your part. Having known people who were hit by uninsured drivers and had to pay all the associated costs from the dumb-ass idiot who hit them, I have no problem with the state making sure you can pay for your mistakes before you get behind the wheel. You don't want to drive? Find another form of transportation. They're out there. I've used them. But the freedom to travel is not the freedom to get behind a multi-thousand pound road-rocket and do whatever the hell you want.; 7/20/11, 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Ragin' Dave,

A most interesting link. I'll have to reconsider my long held belief.

S2; 7/20/11, 7:13 PM
Jim - PRS said...: In Jersey, if you're caught driving without insurance, the car gets towed, and you lose your license for either three or six months (I can't remember which).

I know a lawyer who lost his license this way a few years ago. I asked him if he had some kind of defense. He answered, "No, and I know I have no defense, because I helped write the statute."

Great lawyer; horrible driver.; 7/20/11, 9:58 PM
CarlS said...: About the doubts that driving is a privilege, here is what the supreme Court had to say, back when the Constitution was adhered to by judges:

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will."
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929

And remember, if it was declared, adjudged, found to be a Constitutional right then, and there has been no Amendment to the Constitution which would change that, it is still a RIGHT.

It's only a privilege because we let the criminals in the courts say it is.

I begin to believe it would be better to live in lawlessness (anarchy, like mnay places I've lived overseas), than allow this claptrap to continue.; 7/20/11, 11:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Raging Dave you have made the same argument for government regulation of private transportation, that the Brady Campaign makes for Semi auto rifle and pistols. Citizens could travel on the public highways in massive wagons drawn by half broke horses and mules; big dangerous things OH MY! No license or permission needed then.
RAK; 7/21/11, 12:02 AM
Juice said...: BRA0-VO!!!; 7/21/11, 12:21 PM
RavingDave said...: # posted by Blogger Ragin' Dave : 7/20/11 7:05 PM

I would very much like to debate you on this issue. Do you have a preferred forum?; 7/21/11, 12:43 PM
RavingDave said...: What insurance is, is proof that you can cover any financial liability that you may incur through dumbassery on your part. Having known people who were hit by uninsured drivers and had to pay all the associated costs from the dumb-ass idiot who hit them, I have no problem with the state making sure you can pay for your mistakes before you get behind the wheel.
# posted by Blogger Ragin' Dave : 7/20/11 7:05 PM

And who does he pay for the re-attachment of your head should you lose it in an auto accident? When you place yourself on the roadway, you accept the consequences that you will be injured in such a way that no amount of money will ever make you whole. If you chose to risk your life in this manner, you should not object to risking your property. If you do not wish to accept the risk, then it is YOU who should remain off of the roadway, especially as your "solution" places an onerous financial burden on poor people, or consequently deprives them of the ability to even make a living.

I have far more to say on this issue, but the comments section is not the place for it.

I debate on Free Republic under the name "DiogenesLamp" and at Talk Polywell under the name Diogenes.

Use of the public roads and ways is an Ancient and Natural right stretching beyond Roman times.; 7/21/11, 12:55 PM
Anonymous said...: This whole "Raving" vs. "Ragin'" Dave thing confused the piss outta me for a good little while. Y'all need to pick less similar pseudonyms.

And for the record, Raving is correct, Ragin' is dead wrong.

--Anon2112 from Dallas

wv: foress -- The state has no business trying to foress me to buy insurance; 7/21/11, 5:54 PM

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Muy Good Idea

18 comments:

Post a Comment