Racist thinking

5/28/08 of Low Expectations

City Council members are going to make a decision on towing cars of uninsured drivers when they are stopped for a traffic violation. In Something Right at City Hall!, I wrote about Councilman Rasansky needing our help on this. I got some interesting responses. One was so off the wall it made me realize what is truly behind the opposition to enforcing state law. Some people do not think low income citizens are capable of following state law.

President Bush said it more kindly when he talked about the "soft bigotry of low expectations". I don't think there is anything soft about not holding everyone to the same standards you would expect from a peer. When you don't think someone of lesser income is as good and moral as yourself or your buddies, you are a bigot. When you think someone of different pigmentation or ethnicity is incapable of being law abiding, you are a bigot.

There is no double standard as to who gets a pass on following state law. Being too rich or too poor does not get you a pass.

Hey, I'm a Baby Boomer, a Child of the 60's. I know the prevailing attitude of many of my age mates -- if you don't like a law you ignore it. Some people with that attitude are the same control freaks who want to make other rules for everyone else to follow. Like Conservation Nazi's who would tell you what color to paint your shutters, but they can toke up on some good stuff they bought from a pusher who they would not want in their neighborhood. Hypocrites!

Try to follow the logic of this exchange:

B.Lynn:

Your spill on councilman Rasansky's proposed ordinance to automatically tow any uninsured motorist indicates you have not done your homework on the proposed ordinance because you sounded exactly like the emotionally riddled statements of councilman Rasansky, almost word for word.
   Yes we have a problem with uninsured motorists, but it is not just a Dallas problem or even a Texas problem, it is a nationwide problem that if writing tickets and towing cars were the answer, we would not still have the problem at the level it exists. It tells me that something else must be done to address this very serious problem. The state of Texas has embarked upon a method that should drastically reduce the number of uninsured motorists on our streets by implementing the statewide database in conjunction with insurance companies that will tell any law enforcement officer if a car is covered or not. Why isn't the city of Dallas working along with the state to give input that will enhance this program rather than promoting a costly city ordinance that will cost taxpayers twice, (at the city level and at the state level)?
   You say an uninsured motorist is an accident waiting to happen (same as Mr. Rasansky). How do you predict that? How do you predict when and if a motorist will have an accident? or who they will have it with? Again it is a statement of ranting rather than one of logic.
   Going on about what's a privilege and what's a right has nothing to do with solving the problem. After all, isn't that what the suggested ordinance is expected to do??? So how will it do that?
   We were supposed to receive an evaluation after the ordinance (2004) to tow at accident scenes if a motorist could not produce proof of insurance after 2 years of implementation, yet no evaluation has been produced. Why? Because there is no way to tell how many uninsured motorists we actually had before the ordinance and how many we have to date. Without a central database of registered cars and insured motorists, there is no way to determine whether these ordinances are working.
   Councilman Rasansky and you and others who are thinking inside the box, believe that such an ordinance will scare motorist's into getting insurance.
   If that were the case, we would not still have this problem today! You have to learn to think outside the box. Its like punishing a child over and over again for the same bad behavior using the same kind of punishment, thinking they will eventually get the message if you just keep applying pressure in the same way.
   There is a better way to work toward extinction of this problem, but you have to be willing to take the time to find it. You have to be willing to work with those at every level of government. We have not done that, instead, it appears councilman Rasansky is trying to make some sort of name for himself and it appears you are trying to help him do that by proposing we blindly follow such an ordinance without even the basic data that is required to make a logical decision to do so.
   I suggest that before we issue one more ordinance in this area that will cost the city dearly in money and police time, we pair up with the state to see where we can fit in the total resolution of this problem. Not only should we do that, but the Dallas County Constables Office should also. (They have their own rules on this, too).
   The great responsibility of our police officers to bring the crime rate down is too great to tie up their time waiting for a tow truck. We want them in our neighborhoods, visibly and often, letting the criminal world know they will not be able to run rampant while our officers are standing around waiting on a tow truck, completing paperwork, and getting women and children and the elderly (who just forgot to put their insurance card back in the glove compartment) to a safe place. Don't try to fool yourselves into believing there is no cost, this is not rocket science.
   I guarantee you if this ordinance is passed, we will have no better picture of the number of uninsured motorists we have than when we started, but we will have our police coverage degraded.   Again, YOU CANNOT PREDICT WHEN AN ACCIDENT WILL OCCUR OR WITH WHOM, WHETHER THEY BE INSURED OR UNINSURED! If you tow that car, what do you do about the next car they will just go buy?? Next you'll be wanting to lock people up. C'mon Sharon, surely you can think beyond the fence. There is a better way!

Boyd: I have had my cars hit 3 times by uninsured drivers. One wreck totaled my paid for Mustang. I had to buy a new car because my beautiful little Mustang was 9 years old ? mint condition ? but 9 years old.
   Most recently, I only had my TrailBlazer 1 month when an uninsured motorist hit me. People who violate laws have no regard for others or other people?s property. There?s no reason we can?t have a data base and tow uninsured cars, as well.
   How do I predict an uninsured motorist is an accident waiting to happen? From statistics and my own 3 experiences. I have not been hit by an insured driver.
   Your sense of logic sounds more like emotional ranting to me. I want people to follow the law if they are going to exercise the privilege of driving on public streets. If they can?t obey the rules, then confiscate as many cars as they drive on our public streets. Better still, confiscate the car and put the diver in jail for a week after the third confiscation. If he/she does it again, take their licenses.
   We can sell those cars to salvage yards if the uninsured driver doesn?t claim them after 90 days.

B.Lynn:

Those are pretty harrowing encounters but again when this was happening you would have had no way of knowing if they were insured or uninsured. Should they have not been driving without the required coverage? NO they should not! But you could have had the same encounters with an insured motorist. Do we have proof that an uninsured motorist is more likely to be involved in an accident any more so than an insured one? No, we do not. Your accidents were unfortunate but if they were going to happen, they were going to happen.

Yes, yes and yes we do have the RIGHT as citizens of these United States to drive on public roads. Owning a car is a privilege; If I own it I have the right to drive it. Are there rules associated with that right? Yes, there are but it doesn't take away the right itself.

I am all for getting them off the streets but to say that all uninsured motorists are deadbeats who care nothing about the law is a self-righteous, vigilante attitude. But keep in mind Sharon, this ordinance does not really address the uninsured motorist problem, it addresses motorists who cannot show PROOF OF INSURANCE, not if they have it or not. That's why we have to let the TexasSure Program work. It appears that its going to be a most efficient way of identifying and removing uninsured motorists from the road. Once they have been removed, you will still have to worry about insured bad drivers, won't you? Have a good day Sharon and drive carefully.

Don't know where B.Lynn got his/her law degree, but owning a car does not give you a right to drive it on a public street. There are several steps you have to pass before you have a right to drive your or someone else's car on a public street. You have to pass a drivers' test with the DPS before you can get a drivers license. You also have to furnish proof of a Social Security number (which ticks me off). You have to secure liability insurance. You have to get your car inspected and registered, both of which require proof of insurance. Even when you have secured your license and insurance and car inspection and registration, you must operate your vehicle in a safe manner. If you have excessive traffic violations, you can lose your license and your right to drive your car on public streets.

I do not know B.Lynn. So, I don't know if he/she is a fellow Boomer, but expecting everyone to follow rules legislated by elected officials does not make you self-righteous or a vigilante. It is actually showing respect for another adult to expect them to behave like an adult.

When you think only "your kind" are capable of adult or law-abiding behavior, you are an elitist bigot. When you think poor people are child-like and unable to follow the same regulations as their "betters", you are condescending bigot.

I don't know Councilman Rasansky's motives in wanting cars towed when an uninsured driver is stopped for a traffic violation. He's always been for common sense and basic law enforcement. Except for his position on the Trinity Project, I don't think he's ever been too far off the mark of basic common sense. If wanting strict enforcement of state law indicates that Councilman Rasansky is politically ambitious, we could use more such ambition from the rest of the council.

If a driver can't do something as simple as keeping a copy of proof of insurance in their glove compartment and in their wallet, they might not be able to do the multi-tasking required to safely operate a vehicle on a public street.

If a driver cannot afford to maintain car insurance, they probably cannot afford to keep their vehicle in safe operating order. The uninsured driver who destroyed my Mustang was not maintaining his car. His brakes failed as he exited LBJ onto Stemmons, where he broadsided my car. Maybe an insured motorist would not have maintained his car either, but his insurance company would have had to pay me some money. My deductible came out of my pocket. I was banged up and could barely move for a week. If you think a wreck kept that kid from driving afterward, there's a String Thing Bridge over the Stinky Trinity I can sell you the naming rights.

We don't get to decide which laws we follow or not. Police officers should not have to make politically correct decisions when they stop someone for a traffic violation and determine the driver's breaking another law, as well. Police officers doing traffic control are not necessarily the same ones patrolling neighborhoods trying to catch burglars. That's an apples and oranges rationalization.

As pointed out by Roxan Staff, who owns a bank that makes car loans to less than affluent drivers, her applicants are told up front they must have and maintain liability and collision insurance or her bank will not loan them the money to buy their car. If they fail to maintain coverage, the bank will call the note and repossess the car. If it's OK for a bank (and it is) to protect its investment with such a rule, it is certainly appropriate for state and local governments to protect the property of law-abiding citizens by enforcing state law requiring liability insurance coverage if you drive a vehicle on a public street.

If you can't afford to follow state regulations, then leave your car parked in your driveway and catch a bus.

The tragedy of not enforcing the car insurance requirement is that it is low-income car owners who are hurt the most when victimized by uninsured drivers. Coming up with the deductible required to have their car repaired under their own insurance is an unfair burden caused by an irresponsible driver who should not have been on the street in the first place.

If Councilman Rasansky is riding this issue of towing uninsured drivers' cars for political gain, so what? He has been a great elected official 95% of the time. On this matter, he is 100% right. Councilman Rasansky has proven he holds all adults to the same standards of adult behavior, regardless of their economic status.

Only a bigot expects less than adult behavior from everyone.

sb