Immediately impound vehicles driven by the uninsured? That's Rasansky's plan for Dallas.

Here's a good idea that's sure to be dragged behind the figurative car for a bit before it's resolved: According to the Morning News and WFAA-TV, councilman Mitch Rasansky has suggested in writing to Mayor Tom Leppert that Dallas police be empowered to immediately impound cars found to be driven by people who can't produce proof of insurance. Fellow councilmen signing the memo were Jerry Allen, Sheffie Kadane, Linda Koop and Ron Natinsky — enough signatories that the News says automatically requires council discussion of the idea.

"We need to send a message that this is not acceptable," Rasansky told the News.

Councilman Tennell Atkins promptly opposed the plan, saying that people might simply have forgotten their proof of insurance at home (despite that fact that we're all legally required to carry that insurance proof with us at all times while operating the vehicle); Atkins also told the News he was concerned about leaving someone without a car in the event of an emergency.

Bottom line: This type of punishment is perceived to discriminate against people who can't afford to buy insurance, disenfranchising them from something (their car) they need to survive. Never mind, of course, that the law requires insurance and that we all pay for it through higher insurance rates every time an uninsured motorist becomes involved in an accident.

The other potential problems: Enforcement will undoubtedly require an enormous amount of police time to impound the vehicles and ensure that offenders aren't automatically just dumped in the street. Envision, if you will, a family with a couple of small kids/toddlers driving an uninsured vehicle; the vehicle is impounded, the family dumped on the side of the road, and then something happens to the kids — that's not going to play very well in the media, and it's not the humane or appropriate way to handle the situation, so there has to be a plan to deal with that eventuality.

But Rasansky is on the right track here. We're already spending a huge amount of public subsidy money on DART these days; people who can't afford to insure their vehicles do have an option, and it's not a bad one. Sure, it may take someone whose vehicle is impounded a little longer to get to work on DART, but he or she will simply have a little extra time each day to think about how his or her life would be a little easier had he or she decided to follow the law instead. Maybe that temporary punishment will be incentive-enough not to make the same mistake again.

Comments

[Lee]

It would also help, of course, if Texas didn't have some of the highest auto insurance rates in the nation, thanks to years of corruption in both the industry and the legislature.

[Robert]

This approach is long overdue. I hope Angela Hunt, my council representative gets on board with this.

Let's not forget that Dallas County citizens pay alot of money to fund a light rail transit system that is under utilized. If somebody can't afford to operate a car, I say, catch DART.

PS. What's with Atkin's comment regarding emergencies? Call 911 dude !!

[Matt Wood]

Several years ago I was involved in a fender bender in which the other driver just took off. Last week, I witnessed a rather significant collision where one of the vehicle involved raced away from the scene. While the other party to the accident was examining the damage to their vehicle, it was stuck a second time by a passing vehicle. This passing vehicle also raced away from the scene.

I've shared this most recent event with friends, many of whom also have recent "hit and run" stories. While there are many reasons a driver might leave a scene, lack of insurance seems the most likely. I don't find Rasansky's proposal too draconian assuming details safeguard against leaving families stranded on the side of the road (just take them to the nearest precinct to catch DART or wait for a friend). Once word is out that enforcement includes more than a ticket that many never plan to pay, AND even stiffer penalties if you are caught running from the scene - I'd expect we'd see a reduction in bumpercar-like driving.

[Brandi]

I almost completely agree with this approach. The only issue I don't think is fair is the impound fees that will almost certainly be too much too fast and the person/family will permanently loose their car. I'd like the impounding process be a punishment, but also something they can hopefully recover from.

[Michael in LH]

While it sounds good on paper, doesn't this violate due process? I'm all for making people obey the law but this seems a bit draconian. How about we impound their car after a judge rules they have violated the law?

[Stuart]

DART's light rail is not under-utilized. I'd say it is bursting at the seams.

[DK]

Last time I checked, there wasn't a constitutional amendment defining the "Right to Drive Cars". When I was 16 in Driver's Education classes, the first thing they emphasized was that driving is privilege. And it's one that comes with conditions like licensing, insurance and driving a road-worthy car.

Insurance is not an optional any more than gas in the total cost of ownership for a vehicle. I'm all for fairness in applying the law, but Texas needs to do something to get this back in equilibrium even if it's "draconian" at first.

Incidentally, I've also been the victim of a "hit-and-run", although that was more likely kids being idiots since it seemed like more of an intentional move. But as a consumer, I get to pay for all these incidents with the highest insurance costs in the country thanks to supporting the uninsured.