Suspended License / No Insurance

[338Shooter]

I know a guy that was in a motorcycle accident. I have some of the details third hand, but I also have no reason not to believe them.

I guess what happened was the other guy fell asleep and crossed over center hitting the guy on the bike head on. The guy in the vehicle also had no insurance and a suspended license. They told me that he was not arrested, but received several citations.

My question is, why would a person in this situation not be arrested? Seems pretty obvious to me that he has little regard for the law or anyone else's safety.

 

[ronny]

My guess is that if we arrested every person who was as stupid and uncaring as the guy you describe, we'd have a significant portion of the population under lock and key. You wouldn't believe how many people aren't insured.

 

[338Shooter]

Driving under suspension and no insurance is disgusting. Doing it while disabling someone for the rest of their life should land you in the poke.

 

[bulbboy]

Getting pulled over for speeding with no license and insurance deserves impound vehicle until you can show insurance

Car wreck with someone hurt = arrest

My opinion

 

[jstaylor62]

It depends on the policies of the Police jurisdiction involved, but Driving without Insurance or a Suspended License is typically not an arrestable offense. If he simply fell asleep and no drugs or alcohol were detected, then he should not be arrested. You should not go to jail just because you were involved in an accident that somebody became injured. What would be offense they have committed? Where do you draw the line on the extent of their injuries in deciding on arresting them?

 

[Big House]

It depends on the policies of the Police jurisdiction involved, but Driving without Insurance or a Suspended License is typically not an arrestable offense. If he simply fell asleep and no drugs or alcohol were detected, then he should not be arrested. You should not go to jail just because you were involved in an accident that somebody became injured. What would be offense they have committed? Where do you draw the line on the extent of their injuries in deciding on arresting them?

Really? The person was breaking the law and hurt someone else. The cost alone, of being cuffed and stuffed, would make the person think twice...Maybe.

 

[gl89aw]

Remember, we elected the people that took the suggestion from the Ins. industry that there should be a law requiring ins. Those same people were either stupid or bought off when they did not put a requirement in the law that required the ins. company to notify the state when a policy was canceled either by them or the customer. Upon notification the state would have a time limit placed on them to visit the person with canceled ins. and confiscate his license plate. It wouldn't take long to stop some of the nonsense once people realized there were consequences to their stupidity.

I wonder if the state making us buy car ins. is un-constitutional

 

[angsniper]

Beats the hell out of me! My niece was rear ended, her car totaled and she was hospitalized for 2 days. The guy who hit her was a probable illegal according to the cop, he had no license, not even an ID, no insurance, and supposedly didn't speak any english. Not only was he not arrested but he wasn't even cited. The cop said it would be a waste of time as he wouldn't pay it or show up in court anyway! Can you believe that crap?

 

[inactive]

The simple unintentional injuring of someone else is a tort, or civil offense. There really is no criminal penalty for this, only the relief that the claimant can seek from the tortfeasor. It's no different really from my dog biting you, or my hitting your house window or your head while driving golf balls from my front yard, or you slipping on my front porch, etc.

The driving without a license and without insurance, on their own, are crimes. But do these crimes constitute an arrest? Think about this question without considering if someone was or was not hit and injured in an accident. I tend to think no; these offenses on their own do not constitute an arrest (i.e. hook 'em up and take them to the station) but rather citations.

If there are other acts that constitute to gross negligence, i.e. driving while intoxicated or grossly reckless driving (racing, texting, etc.), there are other criminal charges that may be applied (vehicular manslaughter, etc.).

If you think the combination of the two acts listed above (a simple tort plus driving uninsured) with not other contributing factors (gross negligence, manslaughter) constitutes a criminal act, then a law would need created address this as a criminal issue.

 

[inactive]

Remember, we elected the people that took the suggestion from the Ins. industry that there should be a law requiring ins. Those same people were either stupid or bought off when they did not put a requirement in the law that required the ins. company to notify the state when a policy was canceled either by them or the customer. Upon notification the state would have a time limit placed on them to visit the person with canceled ins. and confiscate his license plate. It wouldn't take long to stop some of the nonsense once people realized there were consequences to their stupidity.

I wonder if the state making us buy car ins. is un-constitutional

2 things:

1) The insurance company does not like the idea of notifying the State of insurance, lapses/cancellation of insurance, etc. It costs a hell of a lot of money to administer such systems. They vehemently opposed the "check" system and database that was affected several years back.

2) You do not have to buy car insurance in Oklahoma. There are several options to prove financial responsibility in order to exercise the privilege of driving. Insurance is simply the most practical. If purchasing insurance were unconstitutional (it isn't, by they way), the requiring a license and certainly the fee for a license would also be.