Insurance companies team up with police departments in a SCAM to TAKE YOUR MONEY!!!

reply to post by schuyler


Look I am not going to try to convince you or anyone else to do anything other than follow their own mind and heart. The States don't have the power to Trump the Constitution Legally.. The fact remains , no one has the right Leagally to force you to buy anything !! You yourself also neglected my question.. That is " Do you think its right to make someone buy something they don't want? "

Furthermore it's not legal to deny someone the right of passage due to debt ( Child support ) but they do it..

Like the thread's point, The cops, The Insurance Companies, and I might add The Attorney's.. And the cirle goes on and on..

reply to post by iSHRED


I guess the insurance companies can say they wanted to help reduce accidents and ultimate payouts to their insured motorists. Although, I think the insurance companies also thought of exactly what you mentioned, the dual benefit of funding police agencies. On one hand they pay less in insurance pay outs for speeding vehicles, and they also raise rates on those insured that are speeding. A double benefit for the insurance companies.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by schuyler

 

Look I am not going to try to convince you or anyone else to do anything other than follow their own mind and heart. The States don't have the power to Trump the Constitution Legally.. The fact remains , no one has the right Leagally to force you to buy anything !! You yourself also neglected my question.. That is " Do you think its right to make someone buy something they don't want? "

Doesn't matter what I think is right. Are you willfully misunderstanding here? The state is NOT making someone buy something they don't want. The state IS requiring all drivers to prove financial responsibility. That's why they call it a "financial responsibility" law instead of a "mandatory insurance" law. You can prove financial responsibility in a number of ways. You can, for example, post a bond. It's just that for most people, buying insurance is a whole lot cheaper than posting a bond.

Secondly, the states are NOT "trumping the constitution legally." The Constitution makes no mention of the issue at all. NOWHERE in the Constitution is there even a hint that is says, "You don't have to buy something you don't want." There is no clause like that, not even a hint of one. But there is a tenth amendment, and THAT says that anything else not enumerated in the Constitution belongs to the states or the people.

You don't really have an argument here; you're making it up.

When the insurence companys and the law work together the one they pick on is the uninsured motorist
Insurence companys make money because the law says you must have insurence the law benifits if you dont have it
Win Win for both .
The only looser is the sucker in the middle
They donate money to PD and then probably write it off on taxes
Then they benifit in raised rates from tickets

The basic claim here is ludicrous. The idea is that insurance companies furnish radar guns to police departments so that the local PD can write more tickets, thus making your rates go up. People who get speeding tickets are in a higher risk pool than others. They don't make insurance companies more money, they cost insurance companies more money. The claim otherwise is unsupported. It's speculation with no evidence (the usual way we do things on ATS.)

One very easy way to avoid the issue is to NOT speed, then you don't get tickets and your insurance rates remain low. I know for some people this is a terribly hard concept to understand, but it seems to work for those who have tried it and, unlike the basic claim here, it's supported by evidence.

Bout 5 years back i was in the car with my mum, dad and younger sister.

We were on the freeway (highway) and my parents had cruise controll on, as it was a weekend, my mum was driving me to work and there was no traffic.


Next thing we know we've got the flashy red/blue lights in our face, and we've been pulled over.

Cop said she was speeding. My mum tried explaining to the officers she had cruise controll on therefor it was impossible, the car was recently serviced too, and aligned, what the speedo says shuld have been exactly what speed we were going.

She got a speeding ticket anyway.


They challenged it in court. The radar gun used on her car had not been aligned recently, the last time it was aligned was 3mths before the incident happend.


The judge said to my mother - As much as i believe you in this case - I cannot go against the police department. The fine still stands.

The police officers tried requesting from the judge that she pay their legal fines too. The judge turned that round, and made the police pay my mum's legal costs.


My mum is not the type to speed. She's up my dad's arse constantly about speeding. She never does over the speedlimit. Ever.


It's alot more than just the insurance companies thats in kahoots with the police, mate.

Originally posted by schuyler
People who get speeding tickets are in a higher risk pool than others. They don't make insurance companies more money, they cost insurance companies more money.

Explain to me how speeding causes more accidents and maybe I'll believe you... Unless you drive without observing anything around you, you'd notice that keeping up with the flow of traffic is safer than driving the speed limit when everyone else is driving 15 over.

Here's an example: Close to my house is a bridge that goes up about 150 feet, then back down. The speed limit on that road is 35mph, and the bridge is really pretty short. On both sides of the bridge, cops sit and wait to pull people over for going 40-45mph downhill. If you're going 35 at the top, and take your foot off the gas, you will go 40 at the very least. Tell me what's safer, rolling downhill at 40mph or hitting your brakes for no apparent reason while there are cars behind you?

reply to post by TheSnowman


It's safer when all parties are within the speed limit. Just because everyone else is over the limit doesn't mean it safeer for you to join them. They set the limits at various speeds because of the conditions in the area.

Too all those pissing and moaning about insurance.
What is the second question you ask when someone hits you?

Also driving is not a right it’s a privilege. And as such you must abide by the rules. One of which is financial responsibility. Either buy insurance or a bond.

Which insurance company is contributing financially for the COBALT radiation that blasts you and your family unknowingly as you travel on the highways? As I understand it, these vans are x-raying vehicles for contents and are operating without any visible notice.

Originally posted by samkent
Too all those pissing and moaning about insurance.
What is the second question you ask when someone hits you?

Also driving is not a right it’s a privilege. And as such you must abide by the rules. One of which is financial responsibility. Either buy insurance or a bond.

how is driving a privilege???

in a supposedly free country i should be able to drive any contraption with any motor in any way that i want as long as im not endangering anyone.

reply to post by schuyler


Among the unalienable or natural rights of the American people is the unlimited right of contract. This means you can choose to enter or not enter into a contract. In order for a contract to be valid, it must be a voluntary act on the part of the parties. In the normal course of life, you cannot be compelled under threat or coercion to enter into a contract with anyone—including government.

When you take out an insurance policy of any kind, you are entering into a contract with the insurance company

Finally to require someone to post a bond for something that Might Happen, is the same as telling a woman who can get pregnant but isn't that she needs to post a bond in case she gets pregnant someday otherwise she can't have sex..

reply to post by samkent


If everyone is driving faster than you, they will have to pass you. It gets more dangerous if everyone has to pass one car. Obviously having 50 people changing lanes(usually not checking their blind spot or even signaling because they're angry) is more dangerous than just driving in the same lane a tiny bit faster...

Of course it would be nice if everyone just drove the speed limit, but the world isn't perfect and that doesn't happen. Not to mention how many cities/towns have lowered speed limits just to generate revenue.

Ummmm No.

Seems to me that insurance companies are donating radar guns to police depts, so that the police can
hopefully cut down the number of speeders on the road, thus reducing accidents involving speed and therefore keeping your insurance rates lower.

reply to post by schuyler


Well, you can not have your car inspected here in Pa. without proof of insurance or get a state registration without it. Seems to me you are forced to buy insurance.

Originally posted by drfresh
That's why I run a radar scanner and a laser jammer. Just make sure when you see the cop or get a beep you slow down and shut them off. Yes the laser jammer really does work. I got pulled over and searched for blowing by a cop and not registering a speed (4 jammers front and back). Just install it in your door and run the wires with the lock, window wires and they will never find it. If they do find it say you bought the car used and had no clue it was there.

True, but in most states, an LEO can write a ticket for speeding anyways. The radar/laser is just to confirm the estimated speed of your vehicle.

Originally posted by elevatedone
Ummmm No.

Seems to me that insurance companies are donating radar guns to police depts, so that the police can
hopefully cut down the number of speeders on the road, thus reducing accidents involving speed and therefore keeping your insurance rates lower.

That's a nice theory. Maybe even the stated goal/intent.

But how many speeders are stopped once caught and ticketed? The first time? Second time? Third time? Are they ever really stopped?

A bad driver will always be a bad driver until some massive life or personality change takes place. A change that is never catalyzed by a ticket.

Maybe if speeding were to be punished by vehicle confiscations, license revocations or offender executions we would see recidivism plummet to where your theory would produce numbers that actually matter but as it stands now speeders, like drunks, just continue to offend over and over and over until they wrap themselves around telephone poles.

reply to post by elevatedone


www.thenewspaper.com...

deny ignorance

reply to post by iSHRED


That's my point exactly. Speed doesn't cause accidents. Obviously if somebody's driving 120 down the highway, it's likely to cause an accident. However, that's not who cops are pulling over all day every day...