Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Public vs Private

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Public vs Private

    Ok here’s the deal. You get a traffic ticket from a public servant (cop). Paid by you and works for you in theory. He or the dept notifies your insurance company of your misdeed and you get points that increase your payments for several years and you pay a penalty, if you are a good boy or girl then the points go away. Insurance companies are private enterprises so what this amounts to is a public govt ant idée giving information to a private enterprise for the benefit of that enterprise.

    A trooper stopped by to chat today and I asked him this scenario. He told me that it’s not them but the courts that notifies the Insurance companies. I do not agree with him as many minor accidents and non fine able tickets don’t go through the court system. So what gives here? How does this really work and how is it not a kin to collusion or conflict of interest? Should public servants be allowed to provide information to a private corporation to the benefit of that corporation? Or should the private corporation get what information some other way not involving public servants?
    THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A 911 CALL IS FOUR MINUTES
    THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A .357 MAGNUM ROUND IS 1400 FEET PER SECOND?
    http://www.boondocksaints.com/

  • #2
    Here in Texas it is the State that provides the information to insurance companies and anyone else who wants it. They can't NOT provide it, because it is a public record. The insurance company is simply excercising it's right to access that information.

    Driving is a privilege, one that a citizen has to prove they are fit for. One way is by being financially responsible, which is why every state I know of requires people to have at least liability inusrance or other instrument of financial responsibilty. Here in Texas you don't have to have insurance, you can place a bond with the state for the minimum amount.

    Well, you can't tell people they have to be financially responsible and THEN cut out the people who are going to make that happen (the insurance companies, because most people don't have $25,000 to let the state hold on to). AND the insurance companies have rights too, you can't expect them to take blind risks on people they insure.

    I don't see a problem.
    ~Black Caesar~
    Corbier's Commandos

    " "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

    Comment


    • #3
      Maybe I can cast this in a little different light. I doubt you are suggesting that insurance companies have no legitimate interest in knowing the driving record of those that they insure, and that's where to start understanding this seeming contradiction between privacy, government action and disclosure of traffic citation information.

      The legal principle that comes into play here is sometimes called "a compelling social interest". Courts look to this principle when there is a good reason to depart from other principles (such as privacy) or to choose between conflicting legal principles.

      It works like this: It is very obviously in the social interest for insurance companies to be able to differentiate good risks from bad ones, or they would all either go out of business or be forced to charge all motorists very high premiums. Should that happen, you and I would both then be complaining that insurance companies ought not to be able to charge us for someone else's bad driving record. The courts would say that there is a compelling social interest to provide information to insurance companies that might otherwise be considered private or privileged information.

      In your post, you seem to imply that there is something wrong with laws or government procedures (such as notification) that work for "the benefit" of insurance companies. There are many examples of industries "benefiting" from government actions, and some are questionable, for sure. However, in this case, what benefits the insurance company also benefits you and me if we are good drivers, and it even benefits bad drivers because otherwise they would have no insurance at all - however high-priced.

      Incidentally, it's fairly unusual for an individual's rates to be hiked on the basis of just one citation over a period of several years, unless it is a pretty serious violation. So, if your insurance company did this on the basis of a single "normal" moving violation, I would consider looking for another company.
      "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

      "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

      "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

      "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

      Comment


      • #4
        No one "gives" my insurance company information. They have to request it. My mother is on the same insurance provider and has gotten 2-3 tickets now that still dont show on her insurance because the insurance company has not requested it from the state.

        Aside from that, tickets and collision reports, as far as I know are public record, so even your boss could get them if he wanted.
        "Alright guys listen up, ya'll have probably heard this before, Jackson vs. Securiplex corporation; I am a private security officer, I have no State or governmental authority. I stand as an ordinary citizen. I have no right to; detain, interrogate or otherwise interfere with your personal property-... basically all that means is I'm a cop."-Officer Ernie
        "The Curve" 1998

        Comment


        • #5
          I am so glad we work a different system here to the USA. A full drivers licence hold 12 points. You go over the speed limit by 10 miles you lose 2 points and you can lose your licence if you lose those 12 points in 3 years. No-one from your insurance will know about your MV's (did I get that right ?) unless you lose your licence or you have an accident or collision causing claimed damages. If this was the case most teenagers would be on $10,000k premiums each year for a $2k car.

          I have only lost 1 points in my whole driving career - 1 for non registered vechile - he delayed me till after midnight intentionally so I would not make it home in time (I was off the next day and it was pay day as well so had intended to arrange it all that day).
          "Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer" Sun Tzu

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree insurance bites, you have to get auto insurance. So then you get unisured drivers insurance as well. So what happens when you get tagged by some schmuck who doesn't have insurance? You have to take a claim on your uninsured driver's policy, so then you get biten by your insurance company for taking a claim, even if the accident wasn't your fault. (happened to dad)

            Personally, I totally agree with Chris Rock on this issue.
            ~Super Ninja Sniper~
            Corbier's Commandos

            Nemo me impune lacessit

            Grammical and Spelling errors may occur form time to time. Yoov bin worned

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by NRM_Oz View Post
              I am so glad we work a different system here to the USA. A full drivers licence hold 12 points. You go over the speed limit by 10 miles you lose 2 points and you can lose your licence if you lose those 12 points in 3 years. No-one from your insurance will know about your MV's (did I get that right ?) unless you lose your licence or you have an accident or collision causing claimed damages. If this was the case most teenagers would be on $10,000k premiums each year for a $2k car.

              I have only lost 1 points in my whole driving career - 1 for non registered vechile - he delayed me till after midnight intentionally so I would not make it home in time (I was off the next day and it was pay day as well so had intended to arrange it all that day).
              So, you're saying you could have 5 moving violations before your insurance company would know anything about it? I don't see how Aussie insurance companies stay in business without being able to identify the bad risks, unless they're charging everyone higher premiums than we have here.
              "Every betrayal begins with trust." - Brian Jacques

              "I can't predict the future, but I know that it'll be very weird." - Anonymous

              "There is nothing new under the sun." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

              "History, with all its volumes vast, hath but one page." - Lord Byron

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm glad that insurance companies request motor vehicle records. People are willing to pay a fine if they get caught speeding - it's worth it to them. However, what really gets their attention is when their premium skyrockets for a few years. That's a consequence they feel. I look forward to the time when speed cameras are more common because speeding is out of control in the USA.
                Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Chucky View Post

                  A trooper stopped by to chat today and I asked him this scenario. He told me that it’s not them but the courts that notifies the Insurance companies. I do not agree with him as many minor accidents and non fine able tickets don’t go through the court system. So what gives here? How does this really work and how is it not a kin to collusion or conflict of interest? Should public servants be allowed to provide information to a private corporation to the benefit of that corporation? Or should the private corporation get what information some other way not involving public servants?

                  The insurance companies check your driving record from time to time....
                  Apparently a HUGE cop wannabe...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Interesting. I fully understand why it is necessary just never gave it a thought before. One of the pros and cons of a static post. Lots of time to think and ask yourself why things are or are not. As Mr Security mentioned the roadside camera was introduced in this area and was thought of as a new finagled gizmo that was not worth the time of day. Little do they know that when I was in Germany in 69 the police came to our post and were looking for a SSGT that was in a photo they had from one of those cameras. It was crystal clear of his face and front tag with the speed in the corner also the time of day and location. His offence was having a tire cross the middle solid line on a curve.

                    Several years ago I read that someday we will be able to purchase things from vending machines set time in parking meters even turn on our lights and open the garage door buy using our cell phones of course billed for what you do on end of month statement. Yup you guessed it Erickson has provided to Scandinavian countries for several years. And as far as the land lines running on the ISP cable. Well long before Vontage was even heard of that option was being used in Scotland. So yes if the police unions don't mind the camera doing the work of many officers at a fraction of the cost then bring it on. Discretion is still up to the cops that issue the citations or not.
                    THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A 911 CALL IS FOUR MINUTES
                    THE AVERAGE RESPONSE TIME FOR A .357 MAGNUM ROUND IS 1400 FEET PER SECOND?
                    http://www.boondocksaints.com/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      How about this scenerio.
                      You are driving on a public street. You roll through a red stop light. A camera mounted near the intersection snaps a photo of your vehicle and license plate. You are not stopped by a public police officer and ticketed. You may not even be aware of your infraction until you go to your mailbox a week later. There you find a notice of violation, a ticket and a fine. The camera isn't city property. The person sending you the ticket isn't a city empolyee and the ticket is only a Civil Violation, not criminal. What's up with that?
                      The city has partnered with a private, for profit service to issue the tickets. The camera is owned by the private company and for every "ticket" it mails out the company gets a large percentage of the fine. The City gets a smaller cut of the money. No City employees are involved in the process unless you contest the "ticket" in court. Only then will a traffic officer review the footage of your incident and decide whether you are in the wrong.
                      Sometimes the private company doesn't mount the trafic cameras. One company uses vans which drive to various areas and snap photos of traffic violators. What few people know is that these private employees are acting in violation of State law here which requires anyone who is not a Law Enforcement Officer to be a licensed Private Investigator to operate such traffic cameras. One Louisiana town had to stop using their private traffic camera service when a knowledgeable citizen raised the issue.
                      I have nothing wrong with a traffic officer sitting on a street corner pulling over motorists for traffic violations. Heck, I'm always bitching because there should be more traffic cops out and about. I have a problem with government partnering with for profit companies to collect revenue.
                      Hospital Security Officer

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by EMTGuard View Post
                        .......... I have a problem with government partnering with for profit companies to collect revenue.
                        It might not be ideal, but was else can they do? To run a government staffed with as many people as such functions require is not feasible, economically and otherwise.
                        Security: Freedom from fear; danger; safe; a feeling of well-being. (Webster's)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mr. Security View Post
                          It might not be ideal, but was else can they do? To run a government staffed with as many people as such functions require is not feasible, economically and otherwise.

                          Sacramento County contracted with a security company many years ago to write parking tickets. Eventually it came up in court that the company got a percentage of all tickets writen. the county was forced to stop the contracting and hire county employees to do parking enforcement. Parking fines subsequently went up.

                          One of my officers recieved a red light ticket from a camera. The pics were clear of the license plate but the driver was a bit fuzzy. Fortunatly for my officer he is a very dark skined black man. The driver of the car was white. The car was in the shop for repairs on the day of the ticket. The ticket was issued from an intersection on Florin Road in South Sacramento. The repair shop is in North Highlands, Which is in the norther part of Sacramento County, in other words way to far away for a ligit test drive. The machanic in question was fired, and my officer's repairs were done for free.
                          "Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists. " Author Unknown

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The by-law enforcement officers of my borough wear uniforms with the boroughs name on their patches but they are employees of a private security company. The company does not get a cut for each parking ticket they write. Quwebec law allows this work to be done by private companies.
                            I enforce rules and regulations, not laws.
                            Security Officers. The 1st First Responders.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              So it's to their advantage to write more tickets. So what keeps them honest? A software change of a few seconds could add alot of tickets. You get the ticket days later. How many people can be sure they didn't run it. How would they contest it. I know, I know, consiracy theories. No contractor for the governement would ever take advntage.
                              sigpic
                              Rocket Science
                              Making everything else look simple, since 1958.


                              http://my.opera.com/integrator/blog/
                              One Man's Opinion

                              The Future. It isn't what it used to be.

                              Comment

                              Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X