Remember the Red Light Cameras?

I hear they want to expand them to include checking for insurance coverage and much more. You see this is yet another reason something like this should have been put up for a vote rather than to merely lessen constitutional rights for a supposed good purpose. While it appears this will pass the legislature I challenge whether it's Constitutional, especially without a vote by the people.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it would pass anyway "for the greater good." The problem is that personal rights seem to be constantly pecked away "for the good of all." But I'm not so sure it's good at all from the standpoint of liberty and democracy. There is a reason the Constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable search & seizure but apparently you can justify away those rights to the point that you really no longer enjoy them anymore. One day it's over terrorism, another day it's over not paying child support, another day it's a home inspection, another day it's because someone anonymously claimed you mistreated your kids, another day it's finding out whether you have an active insurance policy. At some point there will be no such thing as unreasonable search & seizure because any government request will be deemed reasonable.

Mirage wrote:

I hear they want to expand them to include checking for insurance coverage and much more. You see this is yet another reason something like this should have been put up for a vote rather than to merely lessen constitutional rights for a supposed good purpose. While it appears this will pass the legislature I challenge whether it's Constitutional, especially without a vote by the people.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it would pass anyway "for the greater good." The problem is that personal rights seem to be constantly pecked away "for the good of all." But I'm not so sure it's good at all from the standpoint of liberty and democracy. There is a reason the Constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable search & seizure but apparently you can justify away those rights to the point that you really no longer enjoy them anymore. One day it's over terrorism, another day it's over not paying child support, another day it's a home inspection, another day it's because someone anonymously claimed you mistreated your kids, another day it's finding out whether you have an active insurance policy. At some point there will be no such thing as unreasonable search & seizure because any government request will be deemed reasonable.

They are even programmable to detect speeding.

Mirage wrote:

I hear they want to expand them to include checking for insurance coverage and much more. You see this is yet another reason something like this should have been put up for a vote rather than to merely lessen constitutional rights for a supposed good purpose. While it appears this will pass the legislature I challenge whether it's Constitutional, especially without a vote by the people.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it would pass anyway "for the greater good." The problem is that personal rights seem to be constantly pecked away "for the good of all." But I'm not so sure it's good at all from the standpoint of liberty and democracy.

Mirage,What about my rights as a citizen that purchases auto insurance and expects others to carry it as well?

If I understand your response don't you carry uninsured/ under insured coverage? You may not believe this but there was a time when you were not required to have insurance at all. Imagine that!

The funny thing is that in a number of instances illegals do not carry insurance, in fact we know drive here on expired Mexican driver's licenses. So I guess the next step is to get software that will alert police to bogus plates and expired insurance policies so such vehicles can be apprehended en route.

To get a valid plate you have to provide an insurance policy number. But the only way to be sure the policy is still in force is to have insurance companies report expired/ canceled policies to the state. So again, we're on that slippery slope "for our own good." You can justify away most anything the government wants to do. And some folks do.

Mirage wrote:

If I understand your response don't you carry uninsured/ under insured coverage?

Of course,but that's not the point. People who don't carry insurance drive up the cost for everyone else when they are the cause of an accident.

OK. So you should surrender your right to privacy to save money. Now we know.

Mirage wrote:

OK. So you should surrender your right to privacy to save money. Now we know.

A license to drive a car is a privilege,not a right. Do you also have a problem when a cop pulls you over and asks to see your proof of insurance?

A license is separate from a plate. There is no insurance requirement to get a license. And yes I do have a problem with a cop asking to see proof of insurance for a traffic stop. Insurance has nothing to do with the reason for being pulled over. Besides, the proof is already on the registration anyway, so what's the point really?

Mirage wrote:

A license is separate from a plate. There is no insurance requirement to get a license.

But there is a requirement to get insurance in order to get plates,right? So in effect the good standing of your license is at risk without insurance.

Quote :

And yes I do have a problem with a cop asking to see proof of insurance for a traffic stop. Insurance has nothing to do with the reason for being pulled over. Besides, the proof is already on the registration anyway, so what's the point really?

The point is that some people cancel their insurance or let it lapse after getting their registration. I just read that 1 out of 5 drivers in Indiana have no insurance.

Quote :

(b) A person may not:
(1) register a vehicle; or
(2) operate a vehicle on a public highway;
in Indiana if financial responsibility is not in effect with respect to the motor vehicle under section 4 of this chapter.
(c) A person who violates this section is subject to the suspension of the person's current driving license or vehicle registration, or both, under this article.

http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title9/ar25/ch4.html

I'm not positive but I don't think no insurance has anything to do with jeopardizing your operator's license, though some more in tune with traffic courts may wish to correct me. Regardless, the point isn't the few who allow their policy to lapse before renewal, who I suspect may be at the pitiful state minimum coverage level anyway. It's the needless intrusion of privacy and unreasonable search. So again, you wish to sacrifice privacy for money. That's what it comes down to.

Oddly, you buy insurance to protect against liability expenses incurred that you can't afford to pay or so that it doesn't come out of your own pocket. It doesn't make you any more or less safe of a driver either way.

While Florida is a no fault state, Indiana is an at fault state. So
as long as you aren't at fault for an accident that money's just going down the drain anyway.

Come to think of it I bet you supported the AIG insurance bailout. Now it's becoming more clear!

The camera's do nothing but enrich the coffers of the municipalities.

The uninsured motorist coverage is basically a joke. The illegal alien with a Mexican drivers lisence and Illinois plates that rear-ended my car last June, had a 3rd rate storefront auto insurance out of Chicago. Since he HAD insurance, my uninsured motorist coverage would not kick in. My car is still not repaired, and thousands in medical have not been paid. My agent told me that if the guy had NO insurance, I would have been better off, as MY insurance would have kicked in.

Well, as of Friday I got a lawyer to handle this. A camera would not have done a blasted thing for me in this situation, but invade my privacy.

Papers, please. Yeah, that is about what this country is boiling down too.

Artie60438 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

OK. So you should surrender your right to privacy to save money. Now we know.

A license to drive a car is a privilege,not a right. Do you also have a problem when a cop pulls you over and asks to see your proof of insurance?

I have a problem where a cop issued three tickets; all invalid. I won't go into details, but was told that "clerical mistakes are rampant" in the kankagroo court of Hammond City Hall.

After being busted into my home, having the thieves, relocating, having Hammond police pull ME OVER for NO REASON...I'll let you in on a little secret..I'm not only scared of theives I caught myself, willing to confess, exposing them to three cops, haunting the police department, writing the police chief, only to get pulled over myself over some "non-sensical" reason...I haven't gone back to Hammond since January.

And yes, I reported the Kangaroo Court, the "referries", the dismissed tickets, and the clerk who presided over the referee that no judge held a presence in law of court. In other words, kiss MY ASS, I'm know my rights; You flucked with the wrong person. Too many times, for so many reasons. I will now rent out to the asinines you deserve.

Looks like Artie stepped in the poo with that statement. We are all very aware of flaws in the system. Ask Maxx. He wasted hours of his life trying to clear up outstanding warrants that had long ago been dealt with. So such a database would only ever be as good as each and every reporting agency.

In Tiger's example like she said she would have been better off had the driver had no insurance rather than the meager out of state policy coverage. And we have no control over other states' regulations and laws.

Tiger1 wrote:

The camera's do nothing but enrich the coffers of the municipalities.

The uninsured motorist coverage is basically a joke. The illegal alien with a Mexican drivers lisence and Illinois plates that rear-ended my car last June, had a 3rd rate storefront auto insurance out of Chicago. Since he HAD insurance, my uninsured motorist coverage would not kick in. My car is still not repaired, and thousands in medical have not been paid. My agent told me that if the guy had NO insurance, I would have been better off, as MY insurance would have kicked in.

Well, as of Friday I got a lawyer to handle this. A camera would not have done a blasted thing for me in this situation, but invade my privacy.

Well apparently you were driving without collision insurance which isn't all that bright if you have a car that's worth anything. If you were carrying collision,your insurance co would have paid for your car and then engaged in subrogation with the party at fault's insurance.

You're clearly missing the point here.

Artie60438 wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

The camera's do nothing but enrich the coffers of the municipalities.

The uninsured motorist coverage is basically a joke. The illegal alien with a Mexican drivers lisence and Illinois plates that rear-ended my car last June, had a 3rd rate storefront auto insurance out of Chicago. Since he HAD insurance, my uninsured motorist coverage would not kick in. My car is still not repaired, and thousands in medical have not been paid. My agent told me that if the guy had NO insurance, I would have been better off, as MY insurance would have kicked in.

Well, as of Friday I got a lawyer to handle this. A camera would not have done a blasted thing for me in this situation, but invade my privacy.

Well apparently you were driving without collision insurance which isn't all that bright if you have a car that's worth anything. If you were carrying collision,your insurance co would have paid for your car and then engaged in subrogation with the party at fault's insurance.

Artie, number 1, this guy had no business being here anyway. He is an illegal alien with a friggin MEXICAN drivers lisence. Number 2, how in the heck he got ANY kind of auto insurance without having a valid U.S. A. lisence, is a real question. Number 3, why the heck should I be forced to pay for those who are IRRESPONSIBLE, or shouldn't be driving in the first place? Number 4, I got a one-owner classic car, a rare one which is impossible to find parts for. The best John's Car Star in Schererville could do for me, was to pull the bumper out and down, so I can still drive it. IF I could get the parts, I would have had it fixed already, out of my own pocket. Two differant body shops have scoured the country looking for parts. No luck at all.

Basically, my car is going to be history. The impact knocked the chrome strips off/loosed them up, and now the car is rusting. It was SPOTLESS before it got hit. I was planning on taking it to auto exhibitions, to show it off, as it was a real beauty. I got several large cash offers for the car, right after I got it. It WAS that nice. Now it is just a smacked up beatermobile.

Tiger1 wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

The camera's do nothing but enrich the coffers of the municipalities.

The uninsured motorist coverage is basically a joke. The illegal alien with a Mexican drivers lisence and Illinois plates that rear-ended my car last June, had a 3rd rate storefront auto insurance out of Chicago. Since he HAD insurance, my uninsured motorist coverage would not kick in. My car is still not repaired, and thousands in medical have not been paid. My agent told me that if the guy had NO insurance, I would have been better off, as MY insurance would have kicked in.

Well, as of Friday I got a lawyer to handle this. A camera would not have done a blasted thing for me in this situation, but invade my privacy.

Well apparently you were driving without collision insurance which isn't all that bright if you have a car that's worth anything. If you were carrying collision,your insurance co would have paid for your car and then engaged in subrogation with the party at fault's insurance.

Artie, number 1, this guy had no business being here anyway. He is an illegal alien with a friggin MEXICAN drivers lisence. Number 2, how in the heck he got ANY kind of auto insurance without having a valid U.S. A. lisence, is a real question. Number 3, why the heck should I be forced to pay for those who are IRRESPONSIBLE, or shouldn't be driving in the first place? Number 4, I got a one-owner classic car, a rare one which is impossible to find parts for. The best John's Car Star in Schererville could do for me, was to pull the bumper out and down, so I can still drive it. IF I could get the parts, I would have had it fixed already, out of my own pocket. Two differant body shops have scoured the country looking for parts. No luck at all.

Basically, my car is going to be history. The impact knocked the chrome strips off/loosed them up, and now the car is rusting. It was SPOTLESS before it got hit. I was planning on taking it to auto exhibitions, to show it off, as it was a real beauty. I got several large cash offers for the car, right after I got it. It WAS that nice. Now it is just a smacked up beatermobile.

When I read this story, there are several things that don't sound right. First, parts are available for GM cars that were produced in the 80's. With a few clicks of a mouse, parts can be had for all late model GM production cars. Most body shops won't spend time or money looking for parts until they have a signed work order. Second, finding out the true immigration status of a person is difficult for the average person. Simply possessing a Mexican driver's license is not proof that a person is an illegal immigrant. I also find it odd that a person who is allegedly an illegal would purchase auto insurance at all.Regardless of the alleged status of the other driver,since you made the choice not to purchase collision insurance on a valuable car,you are out of luck. You can blame this on illegals if you like but I think the fault lies with you.

I also find it odd that a person who is allegedly an illegal would purchase auto insurance at all.

Because you need plates to drive a car or you could be pulled over maybe?

Mirage wrote:

I also find it odd that a person who is allegedly an illegal would purchase auto insurance at all.

Because you need plates to drive a car or you could be pulled over maybe?

In order to obtain Illinois license plates, you have to be an Illinois resident. That means having an Illinois driver's license. The state won't issue a driver's license to an illegal alien. Insurance companies don't write policies for illegal aliens. The only thing that is certain about Tiger1's story is if she had purchased collision insurance to cover a classic vehicle, it would have been repaired.

sparks wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I also find it odd that a person who is allegedly an illegal would purchase auto insurance at all.

Because you need plates to drive a car or you could be pulled over maybe?

In order to obtain Illinois license plates, you have to be an Illinois resident. That means having an Illinois driver's license. The state won't issue a driver's license to an illegal alien. Insurance companies don't write policies for illegal aliens. The only thing that is certain about Tiger1's story is if she had purchased collision insurance to cover a classic vehicle, it would have been repaired.

Now you're an authority on Illinois Motor Vehicle laws? You are wrong on two points. Remember, the BOOGIE MAN has Illinois license plates.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

sparks wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I also find it odd that a person who is allegedly an illegal would purchase auto insurance at all.

Because you need plates to drive a car or you could be pulled over maybe?

In order to obtain Illinois license plates, you have to be an Illinois resident. That means having an Illinois driver's license. The state won't issue a driver's license to an illegal alien. Insurance companies don't write policies for illegal aliens. The only thing that is certain about Tiger1's story is if she had purchased collision insurance to cover a classic vehicle, it would have been repaired.

Now you're an authority on Illinois Motor Vehicle laws? You are wrong on two points. Remember, the BOOGIE MAN has Illinois license plates.

It is very easy for anyone to check facts on the internet. I can find the requirements for obtaining a driver's license for any of the 50 states.I don't believe you have your facts straight. The state of Illinois does not issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Here is a link from the Secretary of State of Illinois to back it up.
http://www.sos.state.il.us/departments/drivers/drivers_license/dlfaq.html

IL Sec. of State wrote:

Drivers moving to Illinois may use their valid driver's license from their home state or country for 90 days. You may obtain an Illinois driver's license or identification card only if you are becoming a legal resident of Illinois. If you have a valid driver's license from another state or country, you may use it to drive in Illinois throughout your stay (if you do not plan to become a permanent resident of this state). Illinois does not recognize the international driver's license.

Illinois insurance companies will not insure a car if the owner doesn't hold a valid driver's license. I don't see where any part of my post is wrong, but feel free to post any links you might have to prove your point.

BigWhiteGuy wrote:

sparks wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I also find it odd that a person who is allegedly an illegal would purchase auto insurance at all.

Because you need plates to drive a car or you could be pulled over maybe?

In order to obtain Illinois license plates, you have to be an Illinois resident. That means having an Illinois driver's license. The state won't issue a driver's license to an illegal alien. Insurance companies don't write policies for illegal aliens. The only thing that is certain about Tiger1's story is if she had purchased collision insurance to cover a classic vehicle, it would have been repaired.

Now you're an authority on Illinois Motor Vehicle laws? You are wrong on two points. Remember, the BOOGIE MAN has Illinois license plates.

What's he wrong on?

First Time Illinois Drivers License/Identification Card Applicant:
An applicant applying for a Drivers License or Identification Card for the first time in the state of Illinois, must present one document from each of Group A, B, C, and D.
Temporary Visitor's Driver's License applicants are not required to present documents from group C.
Instead, they shall submit a letter on Social Security Administration letterhead, issued 90 days prior to the date of application, verifying ineligibility for a social security number.

---

An applicant is NOT required to provide proof of citizenship.
As for the Social Security card, any alderman's father in Chicago can get that for you.

LoisLane wrote:

First Time Illinois Drivers License/Identification Card Applicant:
An applicant applying for a Drivers License or Identification Card for the first time in the state of Illinois, must present one document from each of Group A, B, C, and D.
Temporary Visitor's Driver's License applicants are not required to present documents from group C.
Instead, they shall submit a letter on Social Security Administration letterhead, issued 90 days prior to the date of application, verifying ineligibility for a social security number.

---

An applicant is NOT required to provide proof of citizenship.
As for the Social Security card, any alderman's father in Chicago can get that for you.

I never claimed a person had to be a citizen to get a driver's license. I said they have to be a legal resident. The Federal government has much stricter identification requirements to obtain social security numbers. I doubt alderman's fathers are stooping to forging documents for illegal aliens. There are easier,safer ways for them to make money.

sparks wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

First Time Illinois Drivers License/Identification Card Applicant:
An applicant applying for a Drivers License or Identification Card for the first time in the state of Illinois, must present one document from each of Group A, B, C, and D.
Temporary Visitor's Driver's License applicants are not required to present documents from group C.
Instead, they shall submit a letter on Social Security Administration letterhead, issued 90 days prior to the date of application, verifying ineligibility for a social security number.

---

An applicant is NOT required to provide proof of citizenship.
As for the Social Security card, any alderman's father in Chicago can get that for you.

I never claimed a person had to be a citizen to get a driver's license. I said they have to be a legal resident. The Federal government has much stricter identification requirements to obtain social security numbers. I doubt alderman's fathers are stooping to forging documents for illegal aliens. There are easier,safer ways for them to make money.

I guess you don't watch the news. And anyone can get a Social Security card. And I proved you don't have to be a LEGAL resident to get a license, because you don't need proof of residency. End of argument.

Quote :

Alderman's Father May Be In Middle Of Fake ID Ring
by Pam Zekman
CHICAGO (CBS) ―
The 2 Investigators showed us last February how easy it is to buy a fake ID in a thriving marketplace in Chicago, and an some even more shocking information has been learned tonight.

As 2 Investigator Pam Zekman reports, it seems the father of a City Hall alderman is smack in the middle of the ID sales.

Last week, the peddlers were still at a shopping center off 26th Street in the Little Village neighborhood, flashing the sign they had fake ID's for sale.

One peddler took CBS 2 producer Simone Thiessen to Foto Munoz to get a picture for her fake ID.

"Within seconds one of them offered to sell me fake ID's for 300 bucks," Thiessen said.

The studio is owned and operated by Elias Munoz, the father of Ald. Ricardo Munoz (22nd)