Photo Enforcement Uninsured Motorists is a Red Herring

Kaye Beach

Feb. 21, 2010

I received this from Chad Dornsife of Best Highway Safety Practices. He is hearing from people victimized by State Mandatory Insurance Laws and the proposed remedies for enforcing those laws. What Mr. Dornsife is hearing combined with what he knows about the insurance industry’s involvement in the creation of a disturbing system of laws and penalties, has got him steamed!

I asked Mr. Dornsife this question;

Because of new insurance verification laws, do the insurance companies now have access to personal information that they normally would not and do they charge rates differently due to this knowledge? An unequivocal “Yes!” is his reply.

In other words, the laws supposedly designed to lessen the number of those driving while uninsured actually makes it possible for discriminatory charging of the poorest among us. It is beyond question that a significant portion of uninsured motorists are uninsured due to financial reasons.

There are privacy concerns with the ALPR cameras and data sharing as well as the expansion of police power but we will now be criminalizing the poor and taking their property to the benefit of the insurance industry, the tech companies and the government.

Chad Dornsife writes;

The proposed photo enforcement for no insurance is at best a red herring; it’s the prelude to a predatory system that no free person would want to live under.

On the surface to the uniformed it looks like a good idea, but that will soon change if enacted, because the nature of any technology is its abuse the day after the initial approval.

What part of private industry and foreign entities that are willing to front millions of dollars to be franchised to access the wallets of citizens sounds like a good idea?

I have 2 briefs I have to write first but I think I am going submit an editorial opinion piece to the LVRG.


Are mandatory insurance laws constitutional – NO!

1. Government requires citizens to purchase service form private company whose practices are protected from anti-trust – monopoly;

(*American antitrust laws are state and federal laws created to prevent monopolies. Antitrust laws apply to both businesses and individuals. The philosophy behind the laws is that trusts and monopolies can stagnate markets and prevent others from engaging in healthy market competition. –

2    Premium methodologies (underwriting practices) trade secret – not open to cross examination;

3    Since Nevada mandated insurance – monopoly increased premiums and surcharge justifications, which now include increased premiums if you are poor per your credit rating, double in some instances if you are late making payments etc. and the poor is where these new taxes (photo enforcement fines) are targeted; those who cannot defend themselves but need transportation to live even at a basic level, combined with new reinstatement premium levels that they clearly do not the funds of entry into, even if they were able to find work;

4    Under the color of federal law Nevada penalizes citizens and impounds vehicles for not buying or maintaining protection from monopoly (Godfather sequel?);

5    RICO, Nevada in new proposed photo enforcement program is going to contract with private vendors (out of state and country) to set up enforcement programs within Nevada for a percentage of the take, with a naked statement that the program is for revenue;

6    Under a ‘We the People’ system of government we empower the government to regulate us with conditions, and when the only beneficiary is the government itself, that is NOT a constitutional reason;

7    In this case they primary beneficiary are private corporations and foreign sovereigns outside of Nevada, not the citizens of Nevada and how much of the money collected pays for the property damage caused by uninsured motorists of those in Nevada with insurance; and

8    It violates the 4th amendment and worse, for several decades now the NHP has been predatory in nature because 80 plus percent of their funding and focus has been targeted at those motorists otherwise driving safely – speed traps by any definition. Maybe we should return them to a public safety entity rather than a predatory state agent for the State’s self interest. (remember, WAY WAY back in 1991 and 1993 I tried to pass law in Nevada that would have returned their charter and primary duty to public safety and emergency/incidence response triage, not revenue)

9    There are mechanisms wherein an equitable system could be created, but its focus would have to be centered on a pay-go basic coverage system trust where the citizens could purchase additional coverage from private insurance companies, a version of no fault. Piling an additional burden on the poor in an economic disaster for an insignificant financial gain is ill advised at best… and unconscionable.

Chad Dornsife, Executive Director

Best Highway Safety Practices Institute

2879 Champlain Drive

Portland, OR 97205-5833

503.223.5447 Portland Office

858.673.1926 San Diego Office

775.332.0600 Reno Office

775.721.2423 Cell

Skype cdornsife

California Office

PO Box 270708

San Diego, CA 92198



2 responses to “Photo Enforcement Uninsured Motorists is a Red Herring

  1. You write that “There are privacy concerns with the ALPR cameras and data sharing”, what are these privacy concerns you allude to? As to the insurance companies having access to personal information, this is not a result of the new insurance verification laws, they have been basing premiums using credit scoring models for years, it doesn’t get much more personal than that. I am not a fan of insurance companies, but I am all for keeping uninsured vehicles off the road and using the fines for employing additional law enforcement officers!

  2. I agree that people do not buy auto insuranc because they are poor. But the poor do have a way to buy insurance that is rarely mentioned. Say, for example an indigent, minimum-wage worker takes home an 800$ paycheck. If the government forces him to use the 800$ for auto insurance, how does he pay his rent or buy his food? OH, that is right, he can go on food stamps. A food stamp survey done in Billings, MT, showed that 12 of 96 food stamp applicants said auto insurance was a reason for needing food stamps. That equals 30,000 over the last 20 years in Montana. Go to

    Another good study was done by Dr Maril and it showed 44% said they could not buy food or pay rent due to mandatory auto insurance. Go to http://www.autoreform.ogr/090998mar.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s