Vehicle Insurance.. Again..

Over the years, there have been several alternative insurance plans offered
...From "Pay at the Pump" to outright "Repeal of the Mandated insurance
legislation".. It goes without saying that each proposal to affect the
liability to the consumer, has been successfully defeated by the insurance
companies..

Legislature is going to be in session again, this coming January.. Time to
start thinking about trying again, to make a positive difference ..

TMRA II is concentrating on the upcoming election.. Somewhat of a
distraction, but not altogether.. This would be an excellent opportunity, to
address the insurance issue and use it as leverage for ALL the candidates,
incumbents and freshman hopefuls, alike.. If we can get committments from
the soon to be incumbents, there just might be a chance to get some
meaningful reform legislation supported in BOTH houses.. State
Representatives and Senate..

One proposal that could develop would be the concept of providing coverage
for drivers instead of vehicles.. After all, without that driver behind the
wheel, that vehicle isn't about to be involved in an accident.. Multiple
vehicles owned by one driver isn't the risk that insurance companies would
have us believe..

I don't anyone with a drivers license who can operate more than one vehicle
at a time.. If we require each operator to provide coverage, that would
assure fewer vehicles operating on the highway without coverage.. The
concept that Mandated Insurance coverage for each registered vehicle would
ensure compliance doesn't inflict responsibility on anyone but the owners
who struggle to comply.. It does ensure that the insurance company has a
mandated market for a product that is sadly lacking and overpriced..

Individual drivers coverage would mean that when that license is issued, he
is covered, no matter whose vehicle he borrows.. Yearly proof of compliance
could replace the system of premium renewals and would entail less of a
burden..

Most of the criticism of a system such as Drivers Compliance Coverage, has
been from insurance advocates.. It has mostly been indirectly linked to the
loss of profit by the insurance industry.. That tells me that the insurance
companies admit that they have successfully passed legislation that will
ensure profit at the consumer's expense..Since when does any corporation or
industry be mandated "profit" by legislation. ??

Optional insurance coverage can be available.. That would mean that ..
financed vehicles could be afforded the full coverage that is currently
offered.. For the consumers who can't afford those options, for whatever
reason, basic financial responsiblity coverage is offered to make sure they
are legal when they hit the road..

I don't pretend to author legislation or the Bills that become legislation..
with all due respect.. However, there are many on this newsgroup who are
thoughtful and profound enough to expand on alternative measures that would
benefit the consumers for a change, rather than the corporate profit margins
of insurance companies..

We have an election coming up and the time for our elected representatives
to committ to their constituents is NOW..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

The same thing that we do with the morons, now.. Put their asses in jail, or
whatever.. No matter if the vehicle or the driver is insured... an
unlicensed driver isn't covered by any policy that I know of.. Right ?

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Insurance prices that are determined largely by vehicle selection is a huge
part of what puts a lot of young, inexperienced riders on a GS instead of a
GSXR.

Complicated issue. I hate insurance companies.

T

Shameless plugs:
http://www.DallasMinistries.com
Looking for a home? Get an Agent who is loyal to YOU:
www.RealEstateBuyersAgents.com

 

There is nothing complicated about this issue.. The insurance companies have
sent their lobbyists to Austin with briefcases full of blank checks..
They've successfully convinced those legislators that this issue is
"complicated" and we've been sold a bill of goods.. As a result, we voted
for Mandated Insurance legislation, on the promise that when passed, our
rates would automatically be reduced.. because everyone would be required to
furnish coverage.. We'd be safer because all the drivers on the road would
be insured..

As a result.. we've seen those "reduced" rates rise with regularity and the
"uninsured" drivers have remained about the same.. We've also seen the
insurance companies profit margins rise along with our premium costs..The
gimmicks which were implanted in the law, have allowed those companies to
adjust and place rates which sometimes equal the cost of the unit, itself..

Any implementation of changes in this legislation, to benefit or level the
field, in favor of the consumer, have been opposed by the insurance
companies.. The insurance commission, appointed by the governor and consist
of members of the insurance industry is not a consumers advocate..
Consistent rulings by this commission have favored the industry and the
consumer is left with "no advocate"..

For all practical purposes, we have allowed the "fox to be in charge of the
henhouse".. A commission that is appointed by one man, will invariably
reflect that man's own persuasions.. When that man is indifferent to
consumers and is financed heavily by insurance companies, then you can be
assured that the commission will favorably decide for the company, rather
than the consumer..

State representatives and our state senators are the ones who can stand up
for all of us.. There is where the relief is. If we take the appropriate
action before they are elected/re-elected, get their committments on behalf
of their constituent base, we can expect relief ..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

The problem with uninsured motorist occures all over the USA, not just in
texas. Lousiana has some of the lowest uninsured rates. (I am getting info
here http://tinyurl.com/4s3yw it is not a blog) They also have a "no pay no
play rule" which includes confiscating an uninsured vehicle and the
equivalent of a cap on payouts: "In 1998 the state implemented a "No Pay, No
Play" statute that prohibits individuals who do not have liability insurance
from collecting for the first $10,000 in damages in the event of an
accident, no matter who is at fault." Clearly they recognized that the
vehicle has no insurance and the vehicle, not the person, is hauled off to
"jail". People who cannot afford insurance need to take the bus or walk to
work. They can earn money, or their "dad" can pay the insurance and pick up
his car that his kids were driving.. While in jail they earn nothing, they
are a burden to society and cannot contribute. Even california has a cap on
payouts. Seems to make sense, putting a cap on payouts, didnt we just vote
and pass something like that in texas? I think I actually got to vote on
that, neither the governer nor a "committee" apponted by the gov voted for
me. I think you got to vote too. Could it be there are ways to solve this
complicated problem and putting caps on payouts, lawyer fees, and
confiscating the vehicle is part of the solution?

 

So far.. the interest in this plan is to ensure that the "company" is not
held liable to PAY.. The burden is on the consumer, or his parent, while the
insurance company maintains a bottom line..

"Uninsured motorist" complications would be eleminated entirely, if the
coverage were connected to the driver's licence of the individual instead of
the vehicle..

While in jail they earn nothing, they

Again.. you are pre-occupied with "payouts", which translate to bottom lines
for insurance companies..

Seems to make sense, putting a cap on payouts, didnt we just vote

Certainly.. if each driver is insured .. and we discontinue the coverage
that concentrates on each vehicle, then we have eliminated the problems you
suggest.. As I vaguely recall.. you were a victim of the insurance company
gouging you, when you added your son to a policy.. Consider that, if it
happened to you in one circumstance, it is probably happening all over our
state..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Not sure what you mean by that Bill, Are you saying the insurance company
is responsible for paying? Surely the insurance company is not liable for
the accident. Everybody wants to maintain a bottom line. People pay their
rent, then feed their kids then what is left over, if anything, goes to
insurance. Supposidly about %30 of texans are uninsured motorists who still
drive today. I feel that burden should be on those culpuble ie: those at
fault. Clearly the insurance companies are not "at fault" in any accident.
However, because of the extreeeeem cost of litigation, some states have seen
fit to set up no fault policies. That is different than in texas but I dont
fault other states or even other countries for trying another approach to a
complicated problem. I dont see anything wrong with confiscating vehicles
of people who drive w/o insurance of some type. What is wrong with that?
For that matter, what is wrong with the helmet law? You can either post a
$10,000 health insurance bond or take a motorcycle class for $150 and learn
something. Texas ranks at the bottom of states where high school degrees
are being counted. Our education system is good and getting better, but
there are too many adults here that lack an education and more adults like
that are moving into our state. Riders and cagers need to be educated about
our traffic laws and how to drive safely. Let me ask you something bill:
How long would auto insurance companies stay in business if there were no
accidents nor stolen vehicles?

 

Maybe it's just me, but I would strongly disagree with your statement.
Most, if not all, of the young riders I see are riding your GSXR-XXXs,
RX's, and ZX-XX (replace X with your favorite engine size).

The companies have all kind of credit and promotion programs that
alleviates the riders of having to have full coverage on their bikes
as required by law if there is a lien on the title. Just about any
kid can afford less than $100 / yr. for liability.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

Hey Bill -

This is kind of on the same topic (insurance). Do you
remember a while back the debate about the bill that would cap medical
malpractice lawsuits? I thought that bill got voted down, but a
friend of mine just told me that it was voted in and that, as a
result, malpractice insurance dropped by some staggering number - like
37%.

I thought it was the other way around? I thought that the
bill did NOT get passed? What have you heard about this?

Confused once again....


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

I think that is why we pay for the insurance premiums.. Of course the
insurance company is financially responsible .. Some people pay insurance
premiums for years and years, without ever filing a claim.. Why would they
do that, if the insurance company isn't going to pay their bills when they
need them..??

Surely the insurance company is not liable for

LMAO.. Does this comment indicate that you believe we all should voluntarily
contribute to insurance companies out of the goodness of our hearts..??
Damn.. I'd sure like a piece of that action.. What is the product of the
insurance company, that justifies their existence.. ??

Everybody wants to maintain a bottom line. People pay their

What is the return for that money that goes to the insurance company ?? You
have made the better case of reform of the existing insurance programs, than
I ever could.. Thanks..

Supposidly about %30 of texans are uninsured motorists who still

I am not certain about those statistics but I agree that more motorists
drive without insurance than should be..Even one uninsured motorist is too
many.. Insurance reform should entail a plan to reduce those numbers, not
increase the numbers of people who can't afford the premium costs.. which is
what has happened to us..

I do not believe for one minute that all these people without insurance
wouldn't have the coverage if they could afford it..

I feel that burden should be on those culpuble ie: those at

accident.

Again.. what product does the insurance companies provide that justifies the
cost of their premiums.. ?

I have no admiration or love for lawyers and their fees are obscene..
However, without some form of consumer advocate, I would dread the
alternative suggested by the insurance companies..Sometimes.. litigation is
the last line of defense for a consumer that is being wrongfully penalized
... Are you suggesting that we leave the consumer without any recourse ?

That is different than in texas but I dont

The problem isn't as complex as you'd like to believe.. The corporate
integrity is brought into question, by that comment.. While the insurance
company have systematically and successfully bought and paid for the
legislation that is designed to give them an advantage over the consumer..
In many cases. the companies have failed to fulfill their contractural
obligations to that consumer and the litigation occurred.. Then .. they'd
like to blame the consumer for suing them.. thereby driving the costs of the
premiums up... See there.. the cost of litigation drives the cost of
insurance up.. it's the fault of the consumer or the trial lawyers who
successfully sued..

Those companies are first of all screwing the consumer by pricing their
product so high.. Then .. they try to avoid paying for that product that is
so costly.. Then they would like to justify furthur cost hikes by blaming
the very ones who finance them to begin with.. Nah.... nah..

Maybe the time will come when insurance companies execs are more concerned
with integrity than bottom lines .. Then we can eliminate the litigation
factor, altogether.. As long as we have people trying to screw other people
out of money, then we need lawyers and litigation.. For many .. that is
certainly our last line of defense against corruption .. When we lose it..
we will be solely at the mercy of an industry that will use it against us,
ruthlessly..

I dont see anything wrong with confiscating vehicles

What is wrong with that?

Louisiana has that legislation right now..

Huh ? sorry .. you changed gears, on me.. As long as I have the choice, I
can live with it..

You can either post a

That choice was taken away a few years ago.. They no longer enjoy the choice
in Louisiana.. Until a few of our own brothers and sisters in TMRA II fought
for our right to choose whether we wear a helmet or not, we lost our
choice.. You don't suspect that the state government in Texas gave us back
that choice from the goodness of their hearts, do you ?? Nossir.. they
didn't. You were amongst some of them last Saturday..

Texas ranks at the bottom of states where high school degrees

Good point.. Problem is.. statistics that you enjoy, are not conducive
...Meantime.. accidents will occur and we are faced with that reality.. The
objective and goal should be to eliminate the uninsured drivers from the
streets and highways.. without ensuring the profit margins of an industry
that will victimize the consumer..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

I haven't heard that .. Give me a few, just to make some inquiry and get
back to you.. Doesn't sound right, but it could be.. I just don't know at
this time.. Thanks..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Because the govt. should not have the authority to tell us what we can
and cannot do in our private lives.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

What?? I have never seen you wearing a helmet in bed! You think I am some
kind of kinky voyerist? There is nothing more public than going thru my
windshield without a helmet on. It will make a mess in my cage. I have
got a grandson who just badmouthed his first day of school and made it clear
he does not want to go. I suspect without a govt steppin in, there would be
a bunch like him that woudnt be going. Fortunately, the voters decided long
ago compulsary education was required. It is never to old to get a diploma
or a certificate that says you passed basic motorcycle school. I got one, I
got 4 kids that got one, my wife failed unfortunatly but we are working on
getting her on two wheels. I got no problem with what people do in private,
you got my permission to ride with no insurance and no helmet on any private
road you can find.

 

Go work at a bike shop, it's a nightmare. For every one young 'un daddy puts
on a sportbike, there are a about dozen that get approved for the loan, but
then can't afford the insurance. (Just imagine how much worse our rep would
be if they were ALL out there on sportbikes). I worked in the m/c industry
for almost 10 years, never heard of any way around full coverage if the bike
has a lien. None of the finance companies would subsidise that, way too much
risk. I would estimate that two out of three sportbikes we sold were back
for some sort of insurance claim within six months, usually to replace
fairings, turn signals and mirrors. A couple of months later, the same guy
is back at the parts counter asking if we have any used fairings because
he's laid it down again, and can't afford another insurance increase. Bad
news for all bikers, especially ones wanting a new sportbike. Good news for
parents and riders who don't want to see young, inexperienced riders on
bikes they can't handle.

On the other hand, if there's a way around full coverage now, it might be
time for a new bike

T
http://www.DallasMinistries.com
Looking for a home? Get an Agent who is loyal to YOU:
www.RealEstateBuyersAgents.com

 

I can't disagree with anything that you contribute in this post.. In the
original post.. the inclusion was that "optional" coverage is still
available for those who can afford to pay the premium price and the ones who
are financing the units..There aren't suggested restrictions on lending
institutions which require full coverages..

The proposal to examine the Drivers Insurance to those who are qualified
(title holders) is only a proposal that deserves merit of examination.. I
have five vehicles in my driveway.. all insured with individual coverage..
There are only two drivers of these vehicles.. None of these units have
caused an accident without one of us being behind the wheel.. Three of those
units sit in that driveway without being driven.. yet the coverage is paid
every six months..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

So, by your logic, if we step outside of our homes then the govt.
should have full authority to tell us what we can and cannot do? Or
is it that you just look at it from the perspective that it's a public
road and therefore we are subject to the govt.'s rules while on that
road?

To some extent, I agree with what you are saying. But that road is
paid for by my tax dollars, so it's my road just as much as it is
yours. And I still don't think the govt. should have the authority to
make me wear a helmet (or a seat belt if I am in a cage).


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

I gotta make this quick because I am short on time. But, let's say
that Suzuki offers a new credit card with 12% interest and a $15,000
limit. Guess what? You can buy that brand new GSXR-1000 with your
credit card and there is no lien on the bike. Just as an idea of how
it works.....

--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

Alternative financing.. That's a thought.. Hmmm.. That would meet the
minimum coverage requirement for that motocycle.. As a licensed driver, he
still has the option to purchase additional coverage, if that is what he
wants..

I'd categorize this one as an exceptional instance.. That leaves many, who
cannot qualify for the credit card, but could be financed by less than prime
lender.. We are still trying to address the issue of insurance company
advantage over the consumer..

The drivers license connection with insurance is only one idea.. I'm sure
there are many which could amplify that concept.. Perhaps.. a combination of
all the plans to reform the existing insurance problems in Texas, could be
considered to level the playing field between consumers and insurance
companies..

I believe that we all agree that many things are left to be desired in any
idea which could be utilized.. The most important issue, at hand.. is to
come together as a unit, to provide relief for the Texas Consumer.. This
election year is the perfect time to get the committments from the
incumbents and wannabe's to address the issue and offer solutions.. This
opportunity could be a long time in coming to us, again..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Bill -

I'm not saying I disagree with individual insurance, but how
do you handle a situation where the person that is covered owns a ford
truck, but happens to be driving a $70,000 Mercedes the day he gets in
an accident?

It doesn't quite seem fair to me that the insurance carrier
thought they were insuring the person for a truck when they were
driving a vehicle that was worth 7-times the amount.

--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

I dunno.. I've asked for ideas and input.. Go for it..

Don't get stuck somewhere .. If the individual is insured, he is covered ..
Split hairs and question the difference in value of the Mercedes and a
Greyhound bus.. I believe I pointed out a difference in commercial coverage
and individual coverage..

Make no mistake, if you are comfortable with the system as it is, then you
should be happy with what we got.. I have no interest in "selling" anyone on
"any" idea..

We've got a few weeks ahead of us, that we could explore aternative measures
to address to our legislators.. We can either spend that time trying to
discover a more equitable plan for consumers, or we can argue about details
.. Actually my own system seems to work well enough for me..

From your own posts a few weeks back, yours was quite a problem, at the
time.. Don't you think it's time to see if we can do something about it..
Renewal comes a couple of times each year..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker