# Niece was in auto accident- no insurance



## swift (May 1, 2010)

I recieved a phone call from my sister in law saying our niece was in an auto accident and it is her fault. She did not yeild the right of way to on coming traffic. I guess the senerio is she was making a left. A truck coming in her direction made a right on to the street she was traveling on and behind the truck was a motorcyclest that he did not see. When she pulled out into traffic to make her turn she was struck by the motorcyclest. I don't know the medical condition of the motorcyclest but there are injuries. It gets worse. The car she was driving is "her car" however it is not in her name. For some drama reason it is in the old boyfriends name. The car is not insured and she, the driver, is not insured. She has not lived at home for over 6 months (don't know if that matters since she is 18 but if she was I am curious if the injured could sue her parents. I am now thinking not since she does not live at home) and this is in California.

How do you think this will play out?


----------



## ScoopKona (May 1, 2010)

swift said:


> How do you think this will play out?



Unfortunately: lawsuit, judgement, bankruptcy.

If it were me, I'd take any plea bargain that keeps me out of jail (assuming criminal charges are filed), agree to any civil damages, then file bankruptcy. It will probably be the least-expensive way to get on with life.

EDIT -- I also wouldn't bother with legal representation until the bankruptcy part. All it will do is add to the out-of-pocket expenses. Get a free initial consultation, sure. But I don't need to pay someone $250/hr to tell me I'm at fault, and I'm going to have to eventually file Chap. 11.


----------



## chellej (May 1, 2010)

It is also possible that the injured party has uninsured motorist coverage that will cover injuries and expenses.  The insurance company then has the right to try and obtain the money from the person at fault.  If she has no assets, I would think there is a chance they will let it go vs putting up the cost to try and sue and recover.


----------



## Sea Six (May 1, 2010)

I hope the niece has a good lawyer, because she will face charges by the state as well as a probable civil suit.  This is very serious.


----------



## BevL (May 1, 2010)

Wouldn't the owner of the car bear some responsbility?  I may be dead wrong but here in Canada, if I "let" someone drive my car, it's my insurance that foots the bill if they're in an accident, to the best of my knowledge.

Or will they go after everybody and see where they can get some money?

Hopefully the injuries are not serious, not only from a fiscal point of view, but of course for the other driver's wellbeing and your niece's emotional wellbeing.  I imagine she's pretty upset right now.


----------



## Talent312 (May 1, 2010)

_Here's what's likely to happen..._

If the other car's owners had uninsured-motorist coverage, their insurance company will provide coverage to policy-limits and then try to recover from both her (the driver) and her BF (the owner) under a joint+several liability theory. If the other party's claims exceed coverage (injuries often do), they may face additional claims from the damaged/injured party.

If they have no assets, the company and other party's attorneys may well conclude that it would be a waste of time to pursue. HOWEVER, the DMV is likely to threaten to suspend both her and her BF's DL for failing to carry insurance.
_They would in Florida._

The only way to keep these things from happening is to obtain Releases (well neigh impossible) or to file Bankruptcy to discharge the liability for claims and stop the DL suspension (Bankruptcy stays State action).

One Twist: In a case where a guy was at fault, a few weeks later, his GF went to the police and told them that he had stolen the car. That way, she avoided liability for the accident and kept her DL. His parents paid her $4K for repairs to get his charges dropped. His DL was suspended. Needless to say, they broke up.

_I hope that your neice's BF doesn't get a similar idea._


----------



## Passepartout (May 1, 2010)

I will start by saying I have little (no) sympathy for those who choose to drive without at least liability insurance. They freely choose to take the risk and have every reason to expect the consequences. Insurance is for the driver, not the car. If cited for fault, she should pay restitution to the injured without bankrupting out of it. BK may not even be an option depending on jurisdiction and sentence. The injured person won't be able to mend his life and limbs without money. The injured and/or the taxpayers or his/her medical care suppliers shouldn't shoulder the cost for putting him back together into real life gainful employment. 

I am very, very sorry this young person made this choice, but the die is cast and it will wash out the way it does. Give her a hug, tell her she is loved, but she, at 18, is an adult and will be treated accordingly.

Jim RIcks


----------



## ricoba (May 1, 2010)

I am sorry to read this story about your niece.  I hope this works out well for her, it is a very hard lesson for a young person to learn.   

I don't have any advice or opinion, but it is just because of scenarios like this that we carry uninsured motorist coverage here in CA.  Sadly there are way too many people here in CA that are driving un or under insured.


----------



## ricoba (May 1, 2010)

BevL said:


> Wouldn't the owner of the car bear some responsbility?  I may be dead wrong but here in Canada....



In BC, (and most of Canada as I remember), you have no fault insurance with ICBC.  To the best of my knowledge that is not the case here in California.  As I understand it, the driver not the owner is fully responsible.


----------



## BevL (May 1, 2010)

ricoba said:


> In BC, (and most of Canada as I remember), you have no fault insurance with ICBC.  To the best of my knowledge that is not the case here in California.  As I understand it, the driver not the owner is fully responsible.



Thank you, that is the difference.  I recall reading about that and it's why our insurance agents suggests huge underinsured motorist amounts - as we drive in "the States" a lot and the rules are different down there.


----------



## flexible (May 1, 2010)

Your sister and niece are lucky to have you to help them understand their situation.

We are in California. You might search http://dmv.ca.gov for information. 

Was the registration on the automobile current? Or was it under "Planned Non-operation status." 

We plan to take a car off PNO status and DMV was clear if four wheels touch a highway even if for one day to take it outside of California that we must pay a full year's registration and buy insurance.

If the car was not PNO'd, the owner of the vehicle will also probably be sued just because it was registered and not insured. We regularly 'cancel insurance' when we cross the US to Mexico and it requires special DMV forms to notify them that the car would not be driven on California roads after a certain date.

You might call DMV during the week. They will probably answer your questions without requiring details of the license plate or name. They will explain if she automatically lost her driver's license and for how long. Also which programs she might be able to attend to be able to get a license again. When I've been at the DMV office it is easy to hear the comments regarding the costs for DUI driver's. It is usually more expensive than many people can afford to qualify for a license after a DUI. I hope that is not an issue in this accident.


----------



## stevedmatt (May 1, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> I will start by saying I have little (no) sympathy for those who choose to drive without at least liability insurance. They freely choose to take the risk and have every reason to expect the consequences.



I wholeheartedly agree. It is amazing to me how many people want to get out of their responsibilities. Reverse the story so that the uninsured motorist hit your niece and how you would feel if they claimed bankruptcy to avoid their responsibility? 

An adult should accept full responsibility for their actions. An accident is caused by someone's negligence and anyone found negligent should be held responsible. 

Hopefully for both parties, the motorcyclist survives or your niece may be facing things she can't escape with bankruptcy.


----------



## myip (May 1, 2010)

Let just hope she doesn't go to jail...


----------



## Stricky (May 1, 2010)

$200 fine, car should have been impounded, possible license suspension. There is no jail time in Cali for driving without insurance.

Biker's auto and health insurance will take care of his bills then they will come after her and the boyfriend for reimbursment.

Motorcyle accidents are never minor. I hope the driver is OK.


----------



## davidvel (May 1, 2010)

1. It is not "her car," it is her boyfriends. Title determines ownership in CA. 

2. Her parents are not liable as she is an adult.

3. The owner (her boyfriend) is liable up to $15K for bodily injury and $5K for property damage.

4. She is liable 100% if it was her fault.

5. Rider and/or his ins. co can sue her and boyfriend. Any resulting judgment would be dischargable in BK.

6. Not likely to face any criminial charges beyond infraction. 

Hopefully rider has uninsured motorist coverage.


----------



## Goofyhobbie (May 1, 2010)

*Uninsusred Motor Vehicle Bodily Injury Coverage - Are You Underinsured?*

swift,

I am certainly sorry to learn that your young niece got herself into this mess; and I sincerely hope that everyone involved works things out amicably.  

Let us all hope that the motorcyclist has substantial Uninsured Motor Vehicle Bodily Injury coverage to pick up the big dollar medical costs he is likely to face.

Driving without insurance is something that no adult should do and no adult should allow another adult or teenager anywhere near the driver's seat of their vehicle without adequate as opposed to minimum or less insurance. 

It is a harsh lesson for your niece but as the laws of her state dictate she had to have insurance and she broke the law by not having coverage.

I agree in every respect to what Jim Ricks has already said and especially this statement:



> I am very, very sorry this young person made this choice, but the die is cast and it will wash out the way it does. Give her a hug, tell her she is loved, but she, at 18, is an adult and will be treated accordingly.



Because we live in a country where illegal aliens and irresponsible individuals drive our roads every day without adequate insurance coverage I personally have dramatically increased my Uninsured Motor Vehicle Bodily Injury coverage.

In my state Uninsured Motor Vehicle coverage is a requirement and must be purchased in order to drive legally.

Unfortunately the minimum coverage requirement is well below what I am comfortable with.

My current coverage is currently $250,000 per individual and $500,000 per incident and that may not be enough.

What a lot of folks out there fail to realize is the coverage does not just cover against the possibility that an at fault driver might not be insured.

It covers the owner and operator of the vehicle if the at fault driver is *UNDER INSURED* as well!

The folks that get the minimum insurance required by law are in my opinion taking a risk that I am just not going to accept and my only protection is reasonable coverage for myself and mine.

For six months of Uninsured Motor Vehicle Bodily Injury coverage at the limits stated above my total cost is $31.99 for one of my vehicles and $23.56 on the other. 

Those of us here who can afford to contemplate a vacation should also think about whether or not our insurance coverage is adequate. For myself the few extra dollars I have to pay is well worth what I am getting for the money.


----------



## gannypat (May 2, 2010)

Sorry about your niece, but in my experience as an insurance agent, the insurance company of the injured party can prevent her from ever getting her license back until she can pay for the damages.  I have seen this happen many times depending on the company.

I agree with everyone, if you drive then you insure, no other option.


----------



## dougp26364 (May 2, 2010)

chellej said:


> It is also possible that the injured party has uninsured motorist coverage that will cover injuries and expenses.  The insurance company then has the right to try and obtain the money from the person at fault.  If she has no assets, I would think there is a chance they will let it go vs putting up the cost to try and sue and recover.



I wouldn't count on that. Once they have a judgement they can work on different ways to collect including liens, wage garnishment and taking any tax refunds that might be coming. While it's possible they might do nothing, there are companies that make it a practice to get judgements in order to collect at some point in the future.


----------



## swift (May 2, 2010)

I completely agree that she should have never been behind the wheel without insurance. I am also a little miffed about the fact that the car that she paid for she for some drama type reason registered the car in the boyfriends name. Of course the relationship is now over but title was never transfered. I can't say a lot of nice things about how things were handled so from here I can only offer them my advice and hope they learn. This is something that will probably follow her for a very long time, if not forever. I feel very badly for the motorcycle driver. I cringe at the thought and hope that since he was probably slowed since he was behind a turning truck that he did not received more than minor injuries. The other sad thing is that she had, upon turning 18, received a little money from her grandmothers trust that was suppose to go toward her education. Although, I was seeing that go as well. Luckily with my own daughter when she received hers she was wise enough to allow me to help her manage her money and she is using it wisely toward her college expenses. I am also really hoping that our niece does not go out and blow or try to hide what ever money she has left because I assume a judge would pick up on that and more repercussions can take place. She is a sweet girl, she was *not* DUI just unfortunately has not had great guidance and makes poor decisions. We have tried to be involved in their lives as much as possible. It was a lot more when they lived closer but now that they have moved 10 hours away we can not be there for them like we used to. Life really changed for them after their father died. He was the one that use to keep my sister in law (my husband's sister) and the kids a little focused. He had his problems but he tried hard.


----------



## John Cummings (May 2, 2010)

BevL said:


> Wouldn't the owner of the car bear some responsbility?  I may be dead wrong but here in Canada, if I "let" someone drive my car, it's my insurance that foots the bill if they're in an accident, to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> Or will they go after everybody and see where they can get some money?
> 
> Hopefully the injuries are not serious, not only from a fiscal point of view, but of course for the other driver's wellbeing and your niece's emotional wellbeing.  I imagine she's pretty upset right now.



It is the same in California. The problem is that the car is not insured which means is should not be driven by anybody. California has a mandatory insurance law which requires proof of insurance before the vehicle can be registered. If the insurance is canceled then the insurance company has to notify the state DMV. My guess is that the car was not currently registered.

The parents are safe because it wasn't their vehicle and the driver is not a minor. The guilty party is the driver and probably the owner of the vehicle assuming the owner gave her permission to drive it.


----------



## Tia (May 2, 2010)

I hope the motorcycle rider is okay. Hard life lesson. Sad that the 18yo had no  insurance.  SIL and 18yo will both prob. learn it would have cost alot less to have had it. I have a 19 yo that we pay for his insurance and will for awhile, they do think they know it all at that age.


----------



## wauhob3 (May 2, 2010)

How is the motorcyclist? If a judge makes it part of criminal restitution she can not file bankruptcy for it. I think at 18 she already knew she had to be insured. It's a tough lesson but trying to avoid personal responsibility for her poor decison making could just make her less likely to take personal responsibility in the future compunding the damage.


----------



## flexible (May 2, 2010)

John Cummings said:


> It is the same in California. California has a mandatory insurance law which requires proof of insurance before the vehicle can be registered. If the insurance is canceled then the insurance company has to notify the state DMV. My guess is that the car was not currently registered.



You wrote:  "My guess is the car was NOT currently registered." 

RE: OP: "The car she was driving is "her car" however it is not in her name. For some drama reason it is in the old boyfriends name. The car is not insured"

Sounds like the car was registered in the old boyfriend's name a while back, then maybe she paid him for it OR he 'gave it' to her. IF it was really registered to HIS PARENTS it could be worse.

Does she have "proof of payment?" California is a crazy state in terms of litigation. The owner of the vehicle will be notified by DMV regarding the accident EVEN if the registration is expired.


I met my husband at a resort in 2006. When we returned to California in 2007 I asked DMV to print a list of ALL vehicles associated with his AND his late wife's drivers licenses. I was shocked to find nearly 40 cars, motorized vespas, boats, RV 5th wheels, mobile homes etc. His bookkeepers had been told to "PAY all the bills". He and his late wife wintered in Mexico for at least 4-6 months. I doubt my husband ever opened insurance bills. I called DMV to discuss every VIN number I found on paperwork. They told me one of the cadillacs was 'junked' in 1995 after being abandoned. It was still being insured in 2006 because the insurance agent sent bills for everything every year.

It turned out his contractor was driving a truck insured by him and registered to him with Disabled license plates. DMV told us we had to RETURN the disabled plates. But the contractor refused to give them to us. DMV was nice about dropping the issue. 

DMV told us to 'release liability' on ANYTHING we didn't know where it was. So we did that for at least two boats. (We live on a lake). Boats only need to be registered IF they will go on a road or in a lake. But I have to continue paying DMV for a 5th wheel that I only use for storage because you MUST pay DMV every year for certain types of vehicles.

I put a 2000 Saturn on PNO (Planned non operation) saving it to drive & leave in Mexico in 2010 because Mexico requires a car to be 10 years old to avoid taking it to a border every six months. DMV said we have to pay a full year registration AND insure it even if it will only be on a California road for one day enroute to Mexico.

We also PNO'd a 1970 truck we use as a dump truck about once every five years. If we tow it to be repaired, only two wheels are on a California highway so we don't have to register it until it goes on a road. DMV car registration costs went up 50% in 2009. We have to pay over $300 for our Ford Escape registration even though we only use it part of the year.

I had DMV pull the vehicle list every few months as I was trying to reduce the list. My husband thought one of the boats was at his step daughters. We were told she was sent notification by the DMV. The DMV told us she still hadn't responded. Then my husband realized her boyfriend was the one who wanted that boat and while it is probably on her acreage that is why she won't register it. DMV told me we don't need to worry once we 'release liability for a vehicle.'

Unless DMV changed their rules again, the car driven by the 18 year old had to either be PNO or have an EXPIRED registration. Most counties in California require smog inspections at certain intervals too.

It is POSSIBLE the car had an EXPIRED registration and the TITLE/Pink slip is still in the boyfriend's name OR the boyfriend might have RELEASED LIABILITY to the 18 year old former girlfriend.

Did the license plate have a current year sticker? Was the sticker for that car OR did they take the sticker from another vehicle?


----------



## Talent312 (May 2, 2010)

wauhob3 said:


> If a judge makes it part of criminal restitution she can not file bankruptcy for it.



True enuff. HOWEVER, there is no criminal act for which she was cited or could be charged in this scenario.
She was not DUI, driving on a suspended DL, and she did not leave the scene.

Careless driving and failing to to carry insurance are at worst, civil infractions in _every_ state I know of.
But if she had lied and claimed that she had insurance that she did not, in many states that _is_ a crime.


----------



## John Cummings (May 2, 2010)

flexible said:


> You wrote:  "My guess is the car was NOT currently registered."
> 
> RE: OP: "The car she was driving is "her car" however it is not in her name. For some drama reason it is in the old boyfriends name. The car is not insured"



As I said "not CURRENTLY registered" meaning it expired or the DMV canceled it due to the insurance being canceled. The title is separate from the registration so the title can be in one name and the registration in another.

Note: If you sell your car to a private party, it is very important that you get a release from liability and ensure that the car is registered in the buyer's name. Don't count on the buyer to do it.


----------



## stevedmatt (May 2, 2010)

Talent312 said:


> True enuff. HOWEVER, there is no criminal act for which she was cited or could be charged in this scenario.
> She was not DUI, driving on a suspended DL, and she did not leave the scene.
> 
> Careless driving and failing to to carry insurance are at worst, civil infractions in _every_ state I know of.
> But if she had lied and claimed that she had insurance that she did not, in many states that _is_ a crime.



I know this happened in CA, but in NJ, the first offense is only a fine up to $1000. The second offense carries a mandatory prison sentence of 14 days and fines.


----------



## Sea Six (May 2, 2010)

myip said:


> Let just hope she doesn't go to jail...



Anyone who drives a car without insurance and causes an accident that results in personal injury deserves to go to jail.  How would you like to spend some time in the hospital knowing the person who put you there was home watching TV? Plus, you're facing unknown medical bills, loss of employment, etc. This is a very serious situation.


----------



## e.bram (May 2, 2010)

Think this is bad. I recently read about a situation where a young women mowed down a retired doctor while high on drugs, said she didn't feel to bad about it because the dead women was 69 years old, and that is a long time to live.


----------



## Talent312 (May 2, 2010)

John Cummings said:


> If you sell your car to a private party, it is very important that you get a release from liability and ensure that the car is registered in the buyer's name. Don't count on the buyer to do it.



Just like, if PCC that promised to take your TS off your hands doesn't do a transfer, you are the owner of record and still on the hook. It why when I sell a car, I arrange to meet the buyer at the DMV agency to close the deal.


----------



## Talent312 (May 2, 2010)

stevedmatt said:


> I know this happened in CA, but in NJ, the first offense is only a fine up to $1000. The second offense carries a mandatory prison sentence of 14 days and fines.



Interesting, but in Florida, failure to carry insurance is always a civil infraction. But more importantly, your DL will be suspended until and unless you obtain Releases from the damaged/injured parties (absent Bankruptcy).

As for those denigrating the use of Bankruptcy to avoid consequences:
The most an injured party can obtain is a judgment which puts them in the shoes of a judgment creditor. "Debtor's prisons" were abolished long ago, so a judgment creditor cannot have someone arrested, but can seize assets. All Bankruptcy does is put such assets in the hands of a Trustee instead to provide an orderly way to satisfy the claims of all creditors and wind up affairs. It is a fairly civilized way of handing over whatever the debtor has (above exemptions) to creditors.


----------



## ScoopKona (May 2, 2010)

Talent312 said:


> As for those denigrating the use of Bankruptcy to avoid consequences:



I don't see why an 18-year old should have to spend the rest of her life in debt over a mistake. That's why we have bankruptcy laws to begin with -- they were enacted as an end to debtor's prisons and indentured servitude. How is a teenager going to come up with a quarter million dollars in medical bills? She isn't. So move on...


----------



## laurac260 (May 2, 2010)

Sea Six said:


> Anyone who drives a car without insurance and causes an accident that results in personal injury deserves to go to jail.  How would you like to spend some time in the hospital knowing the person who put you there was home watching TV? Plus, you're facing unknown medical bills, loss of employment, etc. This is a very serious situation.



Several years ago I received a call from a family member.  My dear uncle had been on his way to pick up his daughter for their weekly Sunday afternoon movie "date" when he was struck head on by a young kid going too fast on a two lane state highway.  There was no barrier, only grass, and the young man was going so fast he crossed over the grass median and struck my uncle head on.  He was 55.  He died at the scene.  The kid served no jail time whatsoever.


----------



## Tia (May 3, 2010)

That is so sad, I have seen 40 yr olds who are _old_ much older then their years d/t lives they have lead.  Your story reminds me of the news story where a mother driving the wrong way  killed herself/nieces/herkids but her family does not believe she was drinking ... even though there was an empty booze bottle in the car and blood tests showed otherwise... DENIAL is not a river in Egypt  



e.bram said:


> Think this is bad. I recently read about a situation where a young women mowed down a retired doctor while high on drugs, said she didn't feel to bad about it because the dead women was 69 years old, and that is a long time to live.


----------



## K2Quick (May 3, 2010)

Goofyhobbie said:


> swift,
> Unfortunately the minimum coverage requirement is well below what I am comfortable with.
> 
> My current coverage is currently $250,000 per individual and $500,000 per incident and that may not be enough.



As far as I can tell, those are the maximum amounts insurance companies allow you to sign up for under a standard auto policy.  But to add an additional $1 million umbrella policy on top of our two cars and home was only $140 per year - a no-brainer to me.  I'm with you.  I think most people drive around with too little liability insurance.


----------



## Mel (May 3, 2010)

ScoopLV said:


> I don't see why an 18-year old should have to spend the rest of her life in debt over a mistake. That's why we have bankruptcy laws to begin with -- they were enacted as an end to debtor's prisons and indentured servitude. How is a teenager going to come up with a quarter million dollars in medical bills? She isn't. So move on...


And if the motorcyclist ends up with such huge medical costs, why should _he_ end up in debt?  So force him into bankruptcy too.

If she was at fault, she should be responsible for the bills.  Teens (and adults too) make poor choices every day, and unless they are held responsible for those poor choices, they will continue to make poor choices.  I don't advocate sending such a person to jail, but there should be restitution - jail time only gets in the way of restitution.  True, a teen has little means to pay the medical bills, but that teen will have future earnings, and should pay down the "debt" to the best of her ability.  Why should someone who earns more be held more responsibly for the same poor decision with the same consequences for others?


----------



## geekette (May 3, 2010)

ScoopLV said:


> I don't see why an 18-year old should have to spend the rest of her life in debt over a mistake. That's why we have bankruptcy laws to begin with -- they were enacted as an end to debtor's prisons and indentured servitude. How is a teenager going to come up with a quarter million dollars in medical bills? She isn't. So move on...



So an 18 year old is relieved of personal responsibility?  Just gets a free ride? 

I don't think so.  I paid my debts, solved my own problems, abided by the law, etc., since before I was 18.  Garnish her pay for 30 years if that's what it takes.  

SOMEONE GOT HURT.  I do not have a lot of sympathy for someone that caused an accident, nor the callous manner in which she had previously determined that the rules didn't apply to her (not having insurance, etc.)   this financial risk could have been avoided and she chose not to.  Welcome to real life.   nobody would let me off the hook (no, wait, I'm female and past 40 there must be a loophole Just For Me?)

It's not about the money, it's about good faith effort at making the injured person "whole" in whatever manner the courts deem reasonable.

Call it a life lesson.


I offer an alternative:  no chance of ever holding a valid driver's license


----------



## davidvel (May 3, 2010)

geekette said:


> So an 18 year old is relieved of personal responsibility?  Just gets a free ride?
> 
> I don't think so.  I paid my debts, solved my own problems, abided by the law, etc., since before I was 18.  Garnish her pay for 30 years if that's what it takes.
> 
> ...



I am not addressing the moral or ethical issues that are obviously present here, but in terms of bankruptcy, and the law, yes, she can (with rare exception) wipe the slate clean. (It would also apply to a 40+ female.)

In California, however, an unpaid judgment can result in the debtor driver's license suspension for a maximum of 6 years.


----------



## Talent312 (May 3, 2010)

davidvel said:


> ... in terms of Bankruptcy and the law, yes, she can (with rare exception) wipe the slate clean. (It would also apply to a 40+ female.) In California, however, an unpaid judgment can result in the debtor driver's license suspension for a maximum of 6 years.



Moral or not, good or ill... Bankruptcy will also stop states from imposing or continuing such sanctions, if the liability is listed in the debtor's schedules. Federal law trumps state action in this respect. ...I've seen it happen...


----------



## stevedmatt (May 3, 2010)

ScoopLV said:


> I don't see why an 18-year old should have to spend the rest of her life in debt over a mistake.



How about a 19 year old?   20?    21? What is the age where you are supposed to accept responsibility? 

I understand that it is her right to file for bankruptcy, but I feel it is a cop-out. It is a however a much better reason than why most people file bankruptcy....lack of self control. But I still fail to see why other people have to pay for her mistake.


----------



## ScoopKona (May 3, 2010)

stevedmatt said:


> How about a 19 year old?   20?    21? What is the age where you are supposed to accept responsibility?
> 
> I understand that it is her right to file for bankruptcy, but I feel it is a cop-out. It is a however a much better reason than why most people file bankruptcy....lack of self control. But I still fail to see why other people have to pay for her mistake.



Taking your point to the logical conclusion -- at what point should people put themselves into financial ruin? Slaving away for an entire lifetime to pay a debt they can never repay?

Sure, the young woman in question just took a serious karma hit. But situations like this are the reason bankruptcy laws exist. And filing Chap. 11 is "playing within the scope of the rules." 

A doctor in Las Vegas recently infected scores of people with Hep-C because of major malfeasance and complete and utter negligence. He ordered his staff to re-use needles. He filed bankruptcy. Is he still a bad person? Yes. But he's acting within the law. I would say that he is more to blame for his actions than a girl who drove without insurance. She made a mistake. He willfully and purposefully put lives at risk -- even though as a physician he should have known better. 

But bankruptcy laws will protect all sorts of people. And so long as it's the law of the land, we can't hate people for invoking them.


----------



## Passepartout (May 3, 2010)

The law states that a person of 18 is an adult. This is the 'magic number'. 

I think we are waaay premature in discussing this particular situation. It remains to be seen who is cited, what the judge rules, how badly the motorcyclist is injured and how long he will be recuperating. We don't know what assets any of the parties have or what insurance may be involved. Give it some time to wash out. Nothing will happen for a while. Could be months.

As to bankruptcy, judgments can usually be discharged. But so can medical bills incurred by the injured. BK is a 'fresh start' for those deemed able to pay what they can, but not able to pay ruinous, never ending obligations. It's a federal program, and a federal trustee takes payments from the debtor and distributes the assets to the creditor(s). It works for everyone.

I hope Swift posts occasionally as this progresses. It will be interesting to be observers- at a distance- of how this all works.

Jim RIcks


----------



## Patri (May 4, 2010)

Man, everyone is getting their knickers in a bind over this. The girl needs a lawyer to walk her through this. What happens will be allowed by law. Nothing will be affected by the opinions on here.


----------



## Tia (May 4, 2010)

That guy is going to jail I hope? That's got to be a crime!! 




ScoopLV said:


> ....A doctor in Las Vegas recently infected scores of people with Hep-C because of major malfeasance and complete and utter negligence. He ordered his staff to re-use needles. He filed bankruptcy. Is he still a bad person? Yes. But he's acting within the law. I would say that he is more to blame for his actions than a girl who drove without insurance. She made a mistake. He willfully and purposefully put lives at risk -- even though as a physician he should have known better.
> 
> ....


----------



## geekette (May 4, 2010)

Patri said:


> What happens will be allowed by law. Nothing will be affected by the opinions on here.



True of any situation posted.

These boards exist for intelligent discourse, and that's what we're doing.  

You are always free to start a thread whose conclusion WILL be affected by opinions here.


----------



## stevedmatt (May 4, 2010)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## swift (May 4, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> I hope Swift posts occasionally as this progresses. It will be interesting to be observers- at a distance- of how this all works.
> 
> Jim RIcks



I will post as I hear new news. This is probably going to drag out for quite awhile. She and her mom hopefully learned a valuable lesson out of all of this. Teens and even some adults think it will never happen to them.


----------



## Passepartout (May 4, 2010)

swift said:


> Teens and even some adults think it will never happen to them.



Thanks Theresa. It's an important lesson. I know you'll understand this: I have over 4 million accident-free miles in heavy commercial vehicles, and I carry over a million $ liability coverage. What are inexperienced drivers thinking to drive without insurance?... Jim


----------



## Talent312 (May 4, 2010)

swift said:


> Teens and even some adults think it will never happen to them.



All sorts of foolish folk think "it" will never happen to them.
-- The cops will never catch us smoking a little pot.
-- I might be drunk, but its only 1/2 a mile to my house.
-- I wonder if this electric wire is hot?
-- If I gun it, I bet I can beat the train across the tracks.
-- I bet this check won't get to my bank B4 my deposit.
-- I don't care what my doc says, I'll have the cheesecake. 
-- It's the top step of the ladder, but I have good balance.
-- No need to cover the furniture. The paint won't drip.
-- I can stand up in this canoe.
-- I've never needed insurance before. Why should I now?
-- _"Mistakes were made._ -- Richard Nixon


----------



## Jaybee (May 4, 2010)

flexIble...you were so smart to check the DMV like that.  More women (and men)  should be so careful.  I'm thinking that the ex-boyfriend isn't too swift, either, letting someone drive a car registered in his name. It is a sad situation, and I hope the biker is going to be OK.  




flexible said:


> You wrote:  "My guess is the car was NOT currently registered."
> 
> RE: OP: "The car she was driving is "her car" however it is not in her name. For some drama reason it is in the old boyfriends name. The car is not insured"
> 
> ...


----------



## "Roger" (May 4, 2010)

swift said:


> .... Teens and even some adults think it will never happen to them.


The need for health insurance.  (There are many twenty somethings out there who have some pretty awful health problems that came as a surprise.)  The need to have an advanced directive (living will).  (Karen Ann Quinlan - Nancy Crusan - two historic cases involving the right to die - both involved people in their twenties.  Still, most young people think that advanced directives are something that only  their great grandparents need to consider.)

For better or worse, we are in an advanced, technological society and auto insurance (or the lack thereof) is not the only thing that young people ought to be concerned with.  I understand that at that age one does not think that awful things will happen to oneself and other monetary concerns seem much more paramount, but ....


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (May 4, 2010)

Maybe I missed it, but how is the person on the motorcyle?
Liz


----------



## Patri (May 5, 2010)

geekette said:


> You are always free to start a thread whose conclusion WILL be affected by opinions here.



Happens all the time. People ask advice on products or services to buy and go from there.


----------



## optimist (May 5, 2010)

Talent312 said:


> All sorts of foolish folk think "it" will never happen to them.
> -- The cops will never catch us smoking a little pot.
> -- I might be drunk, but its only 1/2 a mile to my house.
> -- I wonder if this electric wire is hot?
> ...




I really enjoy reading your posts. You always add something intelligent to the conversation.


----------



## Jennie (May 6, 2010)

Here's some information about a "side issue" mentioned above re:million dollar umbrella insurance policies. I know some attorneys who handle liability lawsuits. I listened recently as they had an animated discussion about the pros and cons of having umbrella insurance. The consensus was that it may be better not to have it unless the person's assets are worth millions of dollars. The reason: people who have mediocre (or trumped up or fraudulent) reasons for wanting to  sue someone will have a difficult time finding a lawyer willing to take the case unless they see that there is a large amount of insurance available if they win a judgment.  

On the other hand, if one is involved in a serious accident and is at fault, having a million dollar umbrella policy will result in the insurance company providing top attorneys to defend against the action. This will not happen if they are only "on the hook" for $50,000. or even $250,000. Like so many other important life decisions, it pays to have a good crystal ball.


----------



## Talent312 (May 6, 2010)

optimist said:


> [Talent,] I really enjoy reading your posts. You always add something intelligent to the conversation.



Thanks. I dunno about intelligent though...


----------



## jlr10 (May 7, 2010)

I live in CA and was hit by an unlicensed, uninsured driver, who had a unregsitered vehicle.  At the scene the police impounded the vehicle.  The driver was advised the vehicle would not be returned until it was registered, and it would not be registered until it was insured.  She was also advised the if and when she applied for a license her license would be suspended for one year for driving without insurance.  This was all done even though liability was not determined (both claimed to have the green light.  I did  )  I did not claim bodily injury at the time of the accident because it was raining so I thought my face was wet, not realizing it was bloody.  However, I was advised if I later wanted to change it to include bodily injury they would file charges against the other driver for being involved in an accident thatr resulted in bodily injury.  The police advised this would make the accident much more serious for the other driver.

My insurance company paid for my totaled vehicle, as well as the injuries I sustained from the airbag exploding in my face and chest underneath uninsured motorist coverage.  Had fault been determined they advised they would have gone after the other driver, but since no on was found 51% at fault they told the other party to have her insurance company pay for her damages and they would pay for mine.-adjuster was just being snide, she knew the other party was unisured.

In your scenario:  The registered owner is responsible for the vehicle, and any permissive user.  He will be contacted by the DMV and requested to provide proof of insurance and may face suspension of his license and possible impounding of the vehicle if he cannot prove he had insurance. Even though he gave/sold her the vehicle if he did not transfer the ownership and registration he is the one who is responsible for any accidents for permissive users.

The driver, your niece, of the vehicle may also be in  trouble as there was bodily injury involved.  I am not sure how the law would apply, but she is certainly open to being sued by the other party, as well as being held liabile by the insurance carrier of the motorcyclist.

If the motorcyclist was seriously injured she might consider getting legal advice.

Bottom line:  Always carry uinsured motorist coverage (underinsured motorist coverage is also recommended.) and always go the DMV and transfer title of any vehcile you sell.  Even if you have signed over the title go the DMV and file the paperwork changing ownership to the new owner youself.  Do not count on someone else to do this for you.  Failure to do so could cause problems in the future.


----------



## flexible (May 7, 2010)

Jennie said:


> Here's some information about a "side issue" mentioned above re:million dollar umbrella insurance policies. I know some attorneys who handle liability lawsuits. I listened recently as they had an animated discussion about the pros and cons of having umbrella insurance. The consensus was that it may be better not to have it unless the person's assets are worth millions of dollars. The reason: people who have mediocre (or trumped up or fraudulent) reasons for wanting to  sue someone will have a difficult time finding a lawyer willing to take the case unless they see that there is a large amount of insurance available if they win a judgment.
> 
> On the other hand, if one is involved in a serious accident and is at fault, having a million dollar umbrella policy will result in the insurance company providing top attorneys to defend against the action. This will not happen if they are only "on the hook" for $50,000. or even $250,000. Like so many other important life decisions, it pays to have a good crystal ball.



A teenager was speeding in a SUV, ran a stop sign and hit my car throwing my car (we me in it) like a tin can just short of going through a restaurant window in 2003 in Washington state. Her insurance company (Safeco) mistakenly told me her parent's coverage was 300K. It turned out it was 100K and they increased the policy limits the day after the accident. The first attorney I went to told me I would receive more compensation if I settled with Safeco directly because lawyers would require 1/3 of my medical expenses AND 1/3 of the settlement. The estimate of four dental implants for broken teeth was $25,000 US and the non-dental medical for my other injuries was about 25K. Safeco's 1st offer was 35K. 

I had to pay a lawyer to file a suit just prior to the 3 year statute of limitations. Then he decided to remove himself telling me "Safeco will increase their offer solely because it is now in litigation" but insinuated his 1/3 wouldn't be enough money for him to keep the case. I called a few more lawyers but they said even though the parents had assets much greater than the 100K policy limits they ONLY sue for policy limits and would not take my case since I had an offer of 35K and they ONLY would have taken the case if the other driver had higher policy limits.

I was still undergoing medical care for neck injuries. Eventually they offered 50K. That is when I decided to go to Mexico and get the four dental implants done in Mexico because I would have settled at a loss for 50K if I had it done in the USA. 

The silver lining was meeting my (now) husband at the timeshare where I stayed for the dental work. I didn't like the dentist I had scheduled, and when he saw me on the patio using WiFi to look for a dentist, he smiled showing me his 26 crowns and took me to his dentist.

When we returned to California in April and I realized there were about 40 vehicles on his or his late wife's DMV list, we purchased an umbrella policy. After I got the list down to only 3 cars I dropped the umbrella. I am beginning to rethink the pros/cons. We both have drivers licenses but I do 100% of the driving. I am not sure if I should change all vehicle titles to my name only to protect him from being sued if I have an accident. If there was a suit his 'future earnings' are substantial but mine are not. Since California is a "community property" state I am not sure if his income can be garnished if I am ever sued.

I think we are carrying 300K limits per accident right now. We generally drop US insurance when we leave the US. So we average about 3-5 months of vehicle insurance per year. We buy Mexican auto insurance before we cross the border. We need to buy another policy for Belize this December. I use American Express when I rent cars and generally pay for their premium car rental coverage. The credit card car rental programs exclude six countries (Ireland, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Israel & Jamaica). I generally allow them to hold 3000 Euro deposit in Ireland for the car. I am not sure if a US Umbrella policy would help with liability in foreign countries. We'll probably purchase a used car for a 3-4 stay in Australia so we can buy Australian insurance.

I've heard umbrella policies aren't necessarily that expensive but I think they need to be associated with the homeowner's and vehicle policies. I am not sure if they cover liability on our tenant's property too.


----------



## pianodinosaur (May 7, 2010)

"Roger" said:


> The need for health insurance.  (There are many twenty somethings out there who have some pretty awful health problems that came as a surprise.)  The need to have an advanced directive (living will).  (Karen Ann Quinlan - Nancy Crusan - two historic cases involving the right to die - both involved people in their twenties.  Still, most young people think that advanced directives are something that only  their great grandparents need to consider.)
> 
> For better or worse, we are in an advanced, technological society and auto insurance (or the lack thereof) is not the only thing that young people ought to be concerned with.  I understand that at that age one does not think that awful things will happen to oneself and other monetary concerns seem much more paramount, but ....



Three years ago we had two cars totaled by illegal aliens with no insurance.  Since both cars were about 10 years old, we did not get much money.  We had to purchase new cars instead.  Texas requires that we drive with a valid drivers license and carry automobile insurance.  However, that has not stopped people from driving without a drivers license and without automobile insurance. Other Tuggers have informed us that similar laws exist in Florida and California.  However, there remain people driving without a license and without insurance in Florida and California as well.

If the government cannot enforce these simple laws regarding a drivers license and automobile insurance, how is the government going to enforce mandatory health insurance? 

One of my employees buried her father last year as the result of a motor vehicle accident.  He was driving his motorcycle home and was struck by an automobile.  The automobile driver was an elderly lady who had fallen asleep at the wheel. She had insurance.  No criminal charges were filed.  This was an accident.  However, my employee still misses her daddy.


----------



## Passepartout (May 7, 2010)

I wonder why no regulatory outfit (gummint) has suggested that auto insurance cost be included at the gas pump. More driving/ larger vehicle=more fuel bought=higher insurance payment. Less driving, smaller vehicle=less fuel purchased= lower cost insurance. Makes sense to me, but then that takes away the 'freedom' to drive without insurance.

Actually the above is just a rhetorical question. I already know that the insurance companies and anarchists wouldn't stand for it.... Jim


----------



## isisdave (May 7, 2010)

Jennie said:


> Here's some information about a "side issue" mentioned above re:million dollar umbrella insurance policies. I know some attorneys who handle liability lawsuits. I listened recently as they had an animated discussion about the pros and cons of having umbrella insurance. The consensus was that it may be better not to have it unless the person's assets are worth millions of dollars. The reason: people who have mediocre (or trumped up or fraudulent) reasons for wanting to  sue someone will have a difficult time finding a lawyer willing to take the case unless they see that there is a large amount of insurance available if they win a judgment.
> 
> On the other hand, if one is involved in a serious accident and is at fault, having a million dollar umbrella policy will result in the insurance company providing top attorneys to defend against the action. This will not happen if they are only "on the hook" for $50,000. or even $250,000. Like so many other important life decisions, it pays to have a good crystal ball.



You don't have to tell anyone how much insurance you have or whether you have an umbrella policy.  In fact, along with "don't admit responsibility" , one of the cautions from your insurer is not to discuss insurance details ... just show them the proof form.


----------



## Sea Six (May 7, 2010)

Good idea .......


----------



## Tia (May 7, 2010)

It's a great idea though! 



Passepartout said:


> I wonder why no regulatory outfit (gummint) has suggested that auto insurance cost be included at the gas pump. More driving/ larger vehicle=more fuel bought=higher insurance payment. Less driving, smaller vehicle=less fuel purchased= lower cost insurance. Makes sense to me, but then that takes away the 'freedom' to drive without insurance.
> 
> Actually the above is just a rhetorical question. I already know that the insurance companies and anarchists wouldn't stand for it.... Jim


----------



## ScoopKona (May 7, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> I wonder why no regulatory outfit (gummint) has suggested that auto insurance cost be included at the gas pump. More driving/ larger vehicle=more fuel bought=higher insurance payment. Less driving, smaller vehicle=less fuel purchased= lower cost insurance. Makes sense to me, but then that takes away the 'freedom' to drive without insurance.




But that makes no differentiation between a driver with a spotless record, and a speed-demon, red-light running, tailgating, texting, drunk driver. Under that model, everyone would be in a high risk pool. No thanks.

Now, if everyone had to swipe an insurance card to get gasoline (much like Costco members swipe their card to get gas at Costco), I would completely support that.


----------



## sjuhawk_jd (May 7, 2010)

ScoopLV said:


> Unfortunately: lawsuit, judgement, bankruptcy.
> 
> If it were me, I'd take any plea bargain that keeps me out of jail (assuming criminal charges are filed), agree to any civil damages, then file bankruptcy. It will probably be the least-expensive way to get on with life.
> 
> EDIT -- I also wouldn't bother with legal representation until the bankruptcy part. All it will do is add to the out-of-pocket expenses. Get a free initial consultation, sure. But I don't need to pay someone $250/hr to tell me I'm at fault, and I'm going to have to eventually file Chap. 11.



Be careful with "expert" sounding advise like this one!


----------



## John Cummings (May 7, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> I wonder why no regulatory outfit (gummint) has suggested that auto insurance cost be included at the gas pump. More driving/ larger vehicle=more fuel bought=higher insurance payment. Less driving, smaller vehicle=less fuel purchased= lower cost insurance. Makes sense to me, but then that takes away the 'freedom' to drive without insurance.
> 
> Actually the above is just a rhetorical question. I already know that the insurance companies and anarchists wouldn't stand for it.... Jim



That would mean that everybody would pay the same regardless of their driving record. Why should somebody with a larger vehicle have to pay more for insurance? I pay a very low rate because my wife and I have not had any tickets nor accidents and we do not commute. I certainly don't think that I should pay the same as a reckless driver.


----------



## Passepartout (May 8, 2010)

John Cummings said:


> That would mean that everybody would pay the same regardless of their driving record.



It would also mean that every vehicle on the road would have at least some base line of liability insurance. The cost should be low, due to universal coverage- everyone pays, and there would be no need for uninsured -or underinsured coverage. If you or any other driver wants to add comprehensive, collision, theft, towing, mechanical breakdown or whatever option flies your kite nobody would stop you.

For the beauty of folding basic liability into the price at the pump, re-read post #1 of this thread. JR

PS- I know this isn't going to happen. My comments are simply an exercise in 'what-if'.


----------



## jlr10 (May 8, 2010)

John Cummings said:


> Why should somebody with a larger vehicle have to pay more for insurance?



Because a larger vehicle will cause more damage when it hits something than a smaller vehicle.  In commercial insurance the weight of the vehicle is a rating factors.  The heavier the vehicle the higher the premium.


----------



## swift (May 21, 2010)

A little bit of an update. My nephew is up visiting (haven't talked to their mom yet) he was telling me that the motorcyclist was ridding double so two of them were injured. One has broken an arm and both legs. The other has one broken arm, one leg, hip and cheekbones. He doesn't know much more than that. When his mom comes back to pick him up I will try to get more info then.


----------



## Keitht (May 22, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> I wonder why no regulatory outfit (gummint) has suggested that auto insurance cost be included at the gas pump.



Why not??  Good question as you could guarantee that any government introduced system would be seen by said government as a way to print money and screw the motorist.  It might start off as a straight forward calculation of insurance costs x per year and a total of y miles are driven, therefore cost is z.  Before long z would start to travel north and never come back.

In the UK we have to pay 'road fund' i.e. road tax each year and that is a fixed amount based on the emissions of the vehicle.  It has been suggested that this should be transferred to the price of fuel as those using the road more pay more.  What everybody immediately spotted was the the government assumption was an average miles per year of about 8000 despite all the motoring organisations saying it's between 10 & 12000.  Therefore the government was looking at an immediate revenue increase from the motorist of between 25% & 50%.  Nice work if you can get it!


----------



## retailman (May 22, 2010)

How can someone now days not have insurance? When I droped insurance on
one of my cars cars to do some major repair, DMV made me surrender my
plates are be fined. The insurance company notifies DMV when insurance is
dropped.


----------



## thheath (May 22, 2010)

Some states don't have the capability and/or do not surrender tags.  Hawaii where I live for example.  I would guess that 20% of the vehicles don't have insurance here even though it's mandatory; go figure...


----------



## Passepartout (May 22, 2010)

In our local newspaper, there's an "Ask The Cop" column. Not long ago, the State Policeman who writes it stated that 1/3 of the vehicles they stop have no insurance. (And are cited) Now, I don't think that equates into 1/3 of vehicles HAVE no insurance, but it's still a lot higher than I would have thought. Certainly enough to make sure to have uninsured motorist coverage myself.

Jim Ricks


----------



## Talent312 (May 22, 2010)

Uninsured motorist coverage is an essential back-up for these sorts of situations. In crashes caused by uninsured drivers or vehicles, the chances are too darn good that they do not have the funds or assets to cover the damages; otherwise, they would have insurance.


----------



## Keitht (May 22, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> the State Policeman who writes it stated that 1/3 of the vehicles they stop have no insurance.



There has been a change in the law in the UK in the past couple of years.  Prior to that change any driver stopped and not showing has having insurance was given 7 days to produce documents at the local police station.  Needless to say many didn't but the driver and car were both long gone as there was, and is, no legal requirement in the UK for anybody to carry ID.
The change in the law still gives the driver time, up to 14 days in fact, to produce a valid insurance document.  The sting in the tail is that their vehicle is seized on the spot and unless valid insurance and vehicle storage costs are paid in that period the car is crushed.
Watching a TV series following traffic police it was surprising to discover that it's not just wrecks that are being driven without insurance.  The seized high end vehicles such a Porsche and Ferraris as well.  No surprise that they were reclaimed within the 14 days.


----------



## JeffW (May 22, 2010)

Passepartout said:


> In our local newspaper, there's an "Ask The Cop" column. Not long ago, the State Policeman who writes it stated that 1/3 of the vehicles they stop have no insurance. (And are cited) Now, I don't think that equates into 1/3 of vehicles HAVE no insurance, but it's still a lot higher than I would have thought. Certainly enough to make sure to have uninsured motorist coverage myself.
> 
> Jim Ricks



In Philadelphia, they have a Live Stop program where if you're stopped and don't have proper documents, they'll actually take the car.  I was hit in a parking lot by a foreign woman about 40 with a learners permit.  Took a while for the cop to explain to her that it didn't allow her to drive alone.

I remember (also in Phila) about a decade earlier, there was talk of clamping down on people w/o insurance (maybe something like the now-existing Live Stop program), and there were actually some politicians that said "working people would be impacted if they couldn't drive to their jobs", basically ignoring the fact that they were driving illegally.

My opinion - law officials don't consider this to be a major issue.  In Pennsylvania, we have annual inspections stickers (vehicle & emissions) on the front windshield, and an annual registration sticker on the license plate.   You can't get (legal) inspection stickers w/o showing current registration and proof of insurance cards, and you can't complete your annual registration w/o current insurance.  Wouldn't seem that with just a little bit of effort, you couldn't identify which vehicles are being operated illegally.  I'm sure if there was a finders bounty, someone would come up with a good system.

Jeff


----------



## MuranoJo (May 23, 2010)

It's been about 25 years since I was in the insurance industry, so this may be outdated, but back then, Uninsured Motorists did not pay for physical damage to your vehicle--it provided medical coverage for injuries sustained from an uninsured motorist.


----------



## John Cummings (May 23, 2010)

retailman said:


> ...DMV made me surrender my
> plates are be fined. The insurance company notifies DMV when insurance is
> dropped.



It is the same in California.


----------



## geekette (May 23, 2010)

JeffW said:


> In Pennsylvania, we have annual inspections stickers (vehicle & emissions) on the front windshield, and an annual registration sticker on the license plate.   You can't get (legal) inspection stickers w/o showing current registration and proof of insurance cards, and you can't complete your annual registration w/o current insurance.  Wouldn't seem that with just a little bit of effort, you couldn't identify which vehicles are being operated illegally.  I'm sure if there was a finders bounty, someone would come up with a good system.
> 
> Jeff



I do wish we still had annual inspections.  some of the vehicles on the road here seem about to fall apart.  While I understand "drive em till they die" I don't understand "drop an axle and roll down the embankment".  

Finder's Bounty would do it, people would narc on their neighbors for pocket money.

Glad the cyclists aren't critically injured, but breaking so many bones ...  owie.  No mention of head injury (aside from cheek) so hopefully all else will heal up.


----------



## ace2000 (May 23, 2010)

geekette said:


> I do wish we still had annual inspections. some of the vehicles on the road here seem about to fall apart. While I understand "drive em till they die" I don't understand "drop an axle and roll down the embankment".
> 
> Finder's Bounty would do it, people would narc on their neighbors for pocket money.
> 
> Glad the cyclists aren't critically injured, but breaking so many bones ... owie. No mention of head injury (aside from cheek) so hopefully all else will heal up.


 
...........................


----------

