[Dren]

What do we really need these things for other than for the government to keep tabs on us all? They call cost money to renew, which probably goes to pay the people who issues them to us and the people who pull us over and ticket us if we do not renew them!

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[progress]

What do we really need these things for other than for the government to keep tabs on us all? They call cost money to renew, which probably goes to pay the people who issues them to us and the people who pull us over and ticket us if we do not renew them!

What are your thoughts on this?

I think license plates are needed so we can all come up with cool little slogans for personalized plates!

Seriously though... How else can one go about IDing a car that just side swiped you and took off? Yes, they are a source of income for the government but if we didn't have plates, we'd have some other form of ID for our cars like big ass stickers or something. If the government wanted to keep tabs on us, they'd install a GPS unit in all of our cars.

 

[SETI20]

They're already working on GPS units. Here in holland they are starting a trial in 2007 to automatically fine truck drivers who are speeding, or exceeding the maximum time limit of driving.

I think tags are a good idea. In fact I think they need to make more stringent regulations to keep the POS cars off the road and make it easier to identify people. Like a barcode or transmitter that activates from a distance so cops can more easily run a plate.

It would take some of the fun out of mark's job...but auto tag reading might keep himself from killing him whyle messing with his MDT.

Either that or a blind typing course :lol:

 

[Dren]

Who's not to say that the insurance companies would figure out a better system? They would use it for insurance purposes and something for the possible hit and run you talk about.

Why should you have to renew your plate every year? Why do you really need a driver's license? These are all forgeable, especially the new plates since you can just print those out, they aren't stamped anymore.

Sure sure we need IDs to buy alcohol, etc... but how many people do you or did you know in college who had fake IDs? Maybe even some of you have them now.

 

[Dren]

If the government wanted to keep tabs on us, they'd install a GPS unit in all of our cars.

Call me paranoid but give the government time. Passports are to have RFID chips in them. Next will be national ID cards...the federal government is inching closer to turning state ID cards into federal ones. Those cards will soon have RFID chips in them or some other similar device. If all cars in the future end up with navigation systems in them, which will be as standard as AC is now, the government will find a way to track each and every car "for your safety".

 

[bobski]

Personally, I wish license plates had small transmitters that broadcast like 200 feet. That way, police would know when they pass by a stolen car or the car of a wanted felon.

With that kind of system, there would be no need for GPS in everyone's cars - only in the police cruiser or a stationary polling unit. When a car passes by, the reader simply relays the RFID number and it's current location back to the monitoring system. I guess the stationary unit wouldn't need GPS since it's stationary... just a pre-programmed location.
I immagine that kind of system is already in place with EZpass and other similar toll systems... I wonder if they've been handing out tickets for speeding.

 

[SETI20]

Personally, I wish license plates had small transmitters that broadcast like 200 feet. That way, police would know when they pass by a stolen car or the car of a wanted felon.

yeah that's exactly what i mean.
They're already working on a prototype for that. Except it's used for automatic payment at toll-booths, instead of something useful.

 

[Dren]

I don't really have a huge problem with the ID tag on a car as long as it is voluntary. I do not like the fact that the government forces everybody to put them on their cars. I think insurance companies or some other company would come out with a better more effective system that would both benefit them and the person driving the car.

For the driver's license here's my thoughts:

Let anybody drive that wants to. Hold them all accountable for their actions if they cause damage to any person or property. I drove and could drive way before I ever took driver's ED. My grandpa took me out on back roads. That is how all of my uncles and my dad learned how to drive. One of my uncles would drive around the rest of them when he was 13 or 14.

Now, here's where some incentives come in to take driver's ED. Insurance companies would charge very high premiums more than likely if the driver did not pass some sort of driver's ED program, but this program should be completely voluntary. Many insurance companies would more than likely give the driver's ED program if they believed it would decrease their claims. I see this kind of stuff at work with our insurance company all of the time. It is actually more for safety than we are, a good thing for both parties.

Of course auto insurance should be completely voluntary as well. Well what if somebody hits you and has no insurance and cannot afford to pay the bill? He will be forced to work off his debt to you and pay court costs most likely under the custody of the insurance company or another company. The '"loan" company would more than likely foot the bill and take the debt upon itself because the consumer would demand to be paid immediately. This is incentive enough to not drive without insurance, and if you cannot afford it, then to not drive.

It will be the insurance companies that will put pressure on the auto manufacturers to make safer cars, not the government. It will be the insurance companies that puts the pressure on the consumer to buy safer cars for lower insurance premiums.

Nobody needs a piece of plastic to be able to drive. Nobody needs driver's ed to be able to drive.

 

[downest]

I never took driver's ed Dren. I learned to drive stick when I was 10 or 11, my uncle taught me on a 4wd truck, and I had ridden enduro bikes around then too. I would definitely say I'm a better driver than most of my friends, despite my speeding. I don't have a problem with licensing, if it's done right. Driving in the US really is a right, not a privilege. It's too easy for bad drivers to get a license. I also think the benefits of having license plates outweigh the drawbacks, so I don't have a problem with that either. One thing I do have a problem with is insurance. Of course I have insurance, and I always will on my cars, but I think it's ridiculously expensive. Also I think it's stupid that we live in a county that requires auto insurance, but not health insurance (there are a few exceptions, NH doesn't require car insurance, and MA now is requiring health insurance).

 

[ryan_long_01]

Of course auto insurance should be completely voluntary as well. Well what if somebody hits you and has no insurance and cannot afford to pay the bill? He will be forced to work off his debt to you and pay court costs most likely under the custody of the insurance company or another company. The '"loan" company would more than likely foot the bill and take the debt upon itself because the consumer would demand to be paid immediately. This is incentive enough to not drive without insurance, and if you cannot afford it, then to not drive.

Nobody needs a piece of plastic to be able to drive. Nobody needs driver's ed to be able to drive.

I guess when my parents were in a wreck 5 years ago and my dad was in a coma for a week and the bills were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, well on their way to a cool million, the guy at fault could have just worked it off at his factory job...after he recovered from HIS injuries. Guess what -- he'd NEVER be able to pay it off, and a "loan company" would never pay the bill assuming he could -- they would be broke in no time flat, "loaning" 500 grand to a guy that makes 30 grand a year! Sure, people would have an incentive NOT to, but look at all the people drving with no insurance even though it IS a law...make it optional, and all the poor people would never buy insurance, and when you get hit by them you would be SCREWED.

You don't have to get insurance in certain states if you post a bond of a certain amount (basically proving that you are rich, have hundreds of thousands in the bank, and could pay for any and all damages you might cause or suffer...it's still not the smartest idea, I'm sure, but it's not 100% required -- there are loopholes IF you can afford it and IF you want to take the chance.

As far as licensing, you don't have to take driver's ed, it IS voluntary (at least in my state), you just have to pass a driver's test at the DMV...and it is apparently *very* easy given the fact that most people on the road drive like total morons. To make the requirements LESS stringent to be allowed to drive a car is flat-out absurd...

You don't think someone who gets picked up for 5 or 6 drunk-driving charges should have their driving privilages revoked? Kinda hard to do with no license.

I'm all for small government and libertarian ideas and all, but there's no way any of this would work at all...I thought this thread was a joke when I clicked on it, I can't believe someone is being serious.

 

[SETI20]

Driving should be a privilege, and not a right.
I'm with ryan on this one.

I think driving lessons should be mandatory, insurance too, and it should be exceedingly harder to earn the privilege to drive. And altho it's often contradictory, I am glad that we have a yearly safety inspection here in Holland. It keeps the really bad pieces of crap off the road.

From what I've seen, the USA lends itself to driving quite nicely. If you can't pass the tests... you obviously have no place on the road.

What you are proposing, makes it easier for the rich and famous to do whatever they want and get away with it as long as they can aford it.
...even more than they already do.

In belgium, just across teh border here, you can get driving lessons from your parents, or anybody for that matter. You have to stick a big red L on your window.
There's a TV show dedicated to following the progress of students. It's hilarious. Every other show there's a serious crash, or some other form of stupidity involved. Aparently it's dangerous to let a dumb teenager loose on fellow road users in a big hunk o' metal with wheels.

Yeah, great idea. I'm all for some comic relief. As long as they stay the hell away from me and my property.

 

[Dren]

I never took driver's ed Dren. I learned to drive stick when I was 10 or 11, my uncle taught me on a 4wd truck, and I had ridden enduro bikes around then too. I would definitely say I'm a better driver than most of my friends, despite my speeding. I don't have a problem with licensing, if it's done right. Driving in the US really is a right, not a privilege. It's too easy for bad drivers to get a license. I also think the benefits of having license plates outweigh the drawbacks, so I don't have a problem with that either. One thing I do have a problem with is insurance. Of course I have insurance, and I always will on my cars, but I think it's ridiculously expensive. Also I think it's stupid that we live in a county that requires auto insurance, but not health insurance (there are a few exceptions, NH doesn't require car insurance, and MA now is requiring health insurance).

Yes, but when you require insurance, it changes the way the pricing works because the companies know you have to buy it. There still is some competition but no incentive to purchase it since you have to. Yes, massachusets just made it mandatory to buy health insurance. This is going to do nothing but increase health care costs and decrease the quality of the care. You will start to hear people complaining about being able to get in and see a doctor or schedule an appointment. I guarantee it 100%. It is just like social security but provided by "private" companies. Everybody is forced to pay, the old reap most of the benefits.

 

[Dren]

What you are proposing, makes it easier for the rich and famous to do whatever they want and get away with it as long as they can aford it.
...even more than they already do.

I am all for an equal maximum punishment for crimes committed. If you beat me up, I should be able to beat you up OR settle between you and me on something else such as a payment. If you wreck my car I should be able to wreck your car of equal value plus be reimbursed for the damage to my property. If you steal $5 from me I should be given my $5 back and then "steal" an extra $5 from you because it is equal to the crime you committed. Make sense?

 

[ryan_long_01]

I am all for an equal maximum punishment for crimes committed. If you beat me up, I should be able to beat you up OR settle between you and me on something else such as a payment. If you wreck my car I should be able to wreck your car of equal value plus be reimbursed for the damage to my property. If you steal $5 from me I should be given my $5 back and then "steal" an extra $5 from you because it is equal to the crime you committed. Make sense?

Wow, who needs a civilized system of justice when we have this plan? These are "interesting ideas" you have, but they have no place in my world, just like your ideas about who should be allowed to drive, plates, and insurance. They make a small amount of sense on some weird sort of purely theoretical level and even though they are so far out of whack that they would NEVER work in reality, you're pitching them on a CRX forum for reasons I can't begin to understand. Didn't see you address your "loan company" insurance idea being the worst business to possibly be in yet, but I'm sure the response will be a doozy.

 

[jaowli]

What do we really need these things for other than for the government to keep tabs on us all? They call cost money to renew, which probably goes to pay the people who issues them to us and the people who pull us over and ticket us if we do not renew them!

What are your thoughts on this?

Driving is considered a priviledge, not a right. License plates are there because there are dumbasses who like to hit other vehicles, drive-bys, steal similiar modeled vehicles...the list goes on...they are necessary.

 

[Dren]

I guess when my parents were in a wreck 5 years ago and my dad was in a coma for a week and the bills were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, well on their way to a cool million, the guy at fault could have just worked it off at his factory job...after he recovered from HIS injuries. Guess what -- he'd NEVER be able to pay it off, and a "loan company" would never pay the bill assuming he could -- they would be broke in no time flat, "loaning" 500 grand to a guy that makes 30 grand a year! Sure, people would have an incentive NOT to, but look at all the people drving with no insurance even though it IS a law...make it optional, and all the poor people would never buy insurance, and when you get hit by them you would be SCREWED.

As far as licensing, you don't have to take driver's ed, it IS voluntary (at least in my state), you just have to pass a driver's test at the DMV...and it is apparently *very* easy given the fact that most people on the road drive like total morons. To make the requirements LESS stringent to be allowed to drive a car is flat-out absurd...

You don't think someone who gets picked up for 5 or 6 drunk-driving charges should have their driving privilages revoked? Kinda hard to do with no license.

I'm all for small government and libertarian ideas and all, but there's no way any of this would work at all...I thought this thread was a joke when I clicked on it, I can't believe someone is being serious.

Hey, you are entitled to your opinions too.

Nothing wrong with drunk driving, driving while smoking, driving with the radio on, driving and talking on the phone, driving when tired, driving over the speed limit, etc.... but there is something wrong with injuring or killing a person or damaging somebody's property.

You pretty much contradicted yourself in the first paragraph. So your dad was in the hospital, that sucks and I'm sorry he had to go through with that, but what if the person who hit him didn't have insurance in the first place? I've been hit by people without insurance. At least with my alternative there is more of a chance the person will be able to pay off some or all of the damage he/she caused. There is also a reason why people purchase health insurance. These things all are a part of taking on the risk of driving.

The person who cannot pay off the damage would not be sent to jail but be a slave to a debt company until he worked his debt off.

Making requirements to drive a car less stringent is ideal. More freedom and personal responsibility. Of course you have to be able to purchase a car or get somebody to let you drive their car first. If I knew you couldn't drive I would certainly not let you drive my car. If I didn't know how to drive I would get somebody to teach me before I bought a car. Same thing when I was going to buy a motorcycle and when my parents bought me my first bike.

 

[Dren]

I am all for an equal maximum punishment for crimes committed. If you beat me up, I should be able to beat you up OR settle between you and me on something else such as a payment. If you wreck my car I should be able to wreck your car of equal value plus be reimbursed for the damage to my property. If you steal $5 from me I should be given my $5 back and then "steal" an extra $5 from you because it is equal to the crime you committed. Make sense?

Wow, who needs a civilized system of justice when we have this plan? These are "interesting ideas" you have, but they have no place in my world, just like your ideas about who should be allowed to drive, plates, and insurance. They make a small amount of sense on some weird sort of purely theoretical level and even though they are so far out of whack that they would NEVER work in reality, you're pitching them on a CRX forum for reasons I can't begin to understand. Didn't see you address your "loan company" insurance idea being the worst business to possibly be in yet, but I'm sure the response will be a doozy.

You know I have my opinions and you have yours, but your remarks are pretty childish.

I know this is a CRX forum...and this is also the lounge section where we talk about all sorts of stuff. I am sorry my ideas are so out of wack with your civilized view on the world. I guess we can go along with our civilized ways and continue to throw non violent criminals into jails and force the rest of us to pay for them. What if the older systems of law are superior to what we currently have? If somebody stole a TV from you would you rather get the TV back and get a reimbursement for the crime or have them put in jail?

So do you have any better ideas or are you just going to continue to make fun of mine?

 

[ryan_long_01]

Nothing wrong with drunk driving, driving while smoking, driving with the radio on, driving and talking on the phone, driving when tired, driving over the speed limit, etc.... but there is something wrong with injuring or killing a person or damaging somebody's property.

You pretty much contradicted yourself in the first paragraph. So your dad was in the hospital, that sucks and I'm sorry he had to go through with that, but what if the person who hit him didn't have insurance in the first place? I've been hit by people without insurance. At least with my alternative there is more of a chance the person will be able to pay off some or all of the damage he/she caused. There is also a reason why people purchase health insurance. These things all are a part of taking on the risk of driving.

The person who cannot pay off the damage would not be sent to jail but be a slave to a debt company until he worked his debt off.

Yeah. The guy my parents were hit by didn't have very GOOD insurance, but he had insurance. When it stopped paying, my parents' coverage took over, since they are insured against uninsured and underinsured motorists.

My parents are very far from wealthy, but they were smart enough to purchase insurance that would not let them fall hundreds of thousands of dollars into medical debt.

Do you really think having people becoming "a slave to the debt company" until they pay off half a million dollars is a reasonable solution and, in fact, works BETTER than just requiring people to carry a very minimal amount of liability insurance? Guy with kids, trying to save money, thrown into a work-camp for 15-20...sounds like a hell of a plan. Like I said, if you HAVE the money you don't have to carry it...for Joe Sixpack to get involved in a fender-bender with questionable decisions on which driver is at fault and end up as a "slave" for a decade or two is not a good system, no matter how much you may believe in increased personal responsibility.

This might be fun to discuss, but don't expect people to start lining up to get behind your plan.

 

[Dren]

Look, you said people drive without insurance now right? I have been hit by people without insurance. Requiring people to have insurance doesn't solve anything. Your parents were smart to have insurance just like I am smart to have insurance.

If a guy gets into a fender bender he probably will be able to settle with the person he hit outside of the insurance companies like many people currently do. I have done this before when I had little to no money. I could take out a loan to pay it off. When you get into huge wrecks, well then yes you are screwed along with the other party. Tough luck but you should be responsible for your actions. Maybe if I shoot somebody I should be let off with a slap on the hand because anything else is too harsh or better yet maybe everybody should be forced to buy health insurance that way if I shoot you some company will pay for it.

 

[SETI20]

Ok, so someone causes an accident, and he has no insurance. A "debt company" thinks to itself "Hell no I'm not getting burned by this idiot! He was drunk, huffing crack and snorting coke. His ass is going to jail!"
...who picks up the tab for me being in the hospital for 3 months?