Uninsured motorists in C&C of Honolulu

[Menehune Man]

UNINSURED MOTORISTS RESOLUTIONS GETTING HEARING:

"The agenda for the Safety, Economic Development and Government Affairs Committee for January 10, 9:00 a.m., at Honolulu Hale, has been posted. We have two resolutions that I have authored getting heard in this committee of which I am the Vice Chair, and Councilwoman Gabbard is the Chair - and in a nutshell - reso 11-307 and reso 11-308 if adopted, would request the State Legislature to allow our county to implement new technology that would make filling up a gas tank for a stolen car more difficult and lessen traffic on our public roads by over 10% without undergoing construction headaches or tax increases." Both resolutions written and introduced by Councilman Tom Berg.

Since it is the law to have insurance on most motor vehicles and possibly 10% do not, I think more should be done to correct that problem.
It costs all other motorists in 'uninsured motorist' fees or actually having to sue an uninsured motorist for damages.
You can read the resolutions in the links above. And give your comments here.

[joshuatree]

Hi MM,

While I applaud the effort to reduce uninsured vehicles on the road, I think it's unfeasible to implement an electronic insurance card that will be used in the purchase of fuel. Wouldn't this mean every gas station will now need to modify their fuel pumps to be able to read this card? If the electronic insurance card is not a magnetic strip, but rather a smart chip, that would make the additions to the pump even more expensive. Then it needs to connect back to a database to verify the card. Who bares the cost? If the insurance carriers have to bare the cost, most likely they will pass this cost over in the form of higher premiums which washes out any savings from removing uninsured vehicles. Or what if friend simply swipes his insurance card to help bypass fuel pump check? Or maybe start a black market for fuel? I fill a gas can to sell to people who are willing to pay a little extra?

Wouldn't it be more effective to simply require proof of insurance during car registration renewals and during safety checks?

On a side note, how about expanding the safety checks to include smog checks?

[Frankie's Market]

I've long been a proponent of "pay at the pump" to fund liability insurance that will cover all motorists. That way, everybody who desires to drive a car on this island will be forced to pay for insurance.

I know there has been criticism of the "pay at the pump" proposal. Goodness knows it's not perfect. But the system we have in place right now (which allows more than an estimated 25-30% of drivers to be on the road uninsured) sure isn't working.

[joshuatree]

I've long been a proponent of "pay at the pump" to fund liability insurance that will cover all motorists. That way, everybody who desires to drive a car on this island will be forced to pay for insurance.

I know there has been criticism of the "pay at the pump" proposal. Goodness knows it's not perfect. But the system we have in place right now (which allows more than an estimated 25-30% of drivers to be on the road uninsured) sure isn't working.

Curious, when you say "pay at the pump to fund liability insurance", are you suggesting car insurance in its present form be abolished and everyone gets insurance each time they fill up? Meaning that price per gallon would now consist of cost of gas, taxes, and insurance?

[GeckoGeek]

Meaning that price per gallon would now consist of cost of gas, taxes, and insurance?

That idea has been floated before in public (not just by FM), so I think that's what he means.

I think it will create a different set of problems, but it would cover everyone.

[GeckoGeek]

While I applaud the effort to reduce uninsured vehicles on the road, I think it's unfeasible to implement an electronic insurance card that will be used in the purchase of fuel.

It looks like the idea is to make it compatible with existing hardware. The question is how expensive is it to reprogram the system to accept/require these cards? That's something only the guys who sell/service the pump systems would know.

While it looks like great idea, I think the net effect would be a land office business if fake cards. The higher end criminals seem to have no problems making fake credit cards, so I'm sure they'd jump at selling fake insurance cards with the mag stripe.

I wonder about the feasibility of connecting insurance to a credit/debit card? As long as you use that card to fill-up, no problem. Otherwise you have to show insurance to the casher or perhaps be subject to the gas+insurance price.

[Kaonohi]

I've long been a proponent of "pay at the pump" to fund liability insurance that will cover all motorists. That way, everybody who desires to drive a car on this island will be forced to pay for insurance.

I know there has been criticism of the "pay at the pump" proposal. Goodness knows it's not perfect. But the system we have in place right now (which allows more than an estimated 25-30% of drivers to be on the road uninsured) sure isn't working.

YOW! That would mean that everyone would need to pay the same insurance (rate?), regardless of their driving habits??? UNFAIR!!!!!

Tell me, frankin, how this could work. I approve of mandatory insurance for all drivers, however, how could the rates be managed?

I would call this a semi-great idea....

[joshuatree]

Otherwise you have to show insurance to the casher or perhaps be subject to the gas+insurance price.

And that's why I think the proposal for verification at the pump is impractical. Imagine that single Costco attendant now needing to verify every customer waiting in line.

YOW! That would mean that everyone would need to pay the same insurance (rate?), regardless of their driving habits??? UNFAIR!!!!!

Not to mention type of car. Imagine the guy in his new Mercedes paying the same as the guy in his '87 Sentra.

Also, what about people who drive electric vehicles and never use a pump?

I say let's start picking off the low hanging fruit first, how about simply just asking for proof of insurance during car registration renewals? I don't see any requirement presently with the online system.

http://www4.honolulu.gov/mvrreg/

[GeckoGeek]

I say let's start picking off the low hanging fruit first, how about simply just asking for proof of insurance during car registration renewals? I don't see any requirement presently with the online system.

How about cars that are found to not be insured be immediately impounded until insured?

The one drawback to either system, I see to recall that people would insure their cars, get the card, and then cancel (refund) the insurance. So someone might have insurance just for registration.

But I wonder if we can get a law that auto insurance can not be canceled expect by surrendering the plates. Transferred, yes, but not canceled and refunded.

[craigwatanabe]

If you purchase a new car and need to get insurance onto that vehicle, chances are you are transferring or upgrading your present policy to cover the new vehicle and taking off that policy on the vehicle you just traded in.

In the State of Hawaii, the plates stay with the vehicle unlike some states in CONUS. A system would need to be put in place to have all DMV's in each county to accept, and store those plates, then release those plates once the car dealership transfers title.

That could happen, it would also add yet another fee to those "extra fees" already accessed on the purchase of a new or pre-owned vehicle.

As for just verification of insurance itself, perhaps a barcoded insurance card could be the best way for the time being. A laser scanner would scan the insurance card at the pump. For cash payment, a scanner at the register would take it's place with no number visible for manual input by a scrupulous friend at the register.

When an insurance card is issued and printed for each policy holder, a barcode would be printed on the card itself. These cards could not be photocopied or scanned for reproduction or else a "Void" watermark would disallow laser scanning at the pump or register.

This measure would provide two things: 1) scanning and verification of insurance before gas can be administered, and 2) prevent fake insurance cards from being printed.

It won't prevent someone from filling a gas can with gas after swiping a verified barcode, however it would make it very difficult for someone to fill up their uninsured vehicle.

If the card is stolen, scanned cards would automatically notify police that someone is using it (provided that card is reported stolen), and where.

Yes it would add another level of cost at the pump, however with credit card slots already at the pump, it's not that much more.

[GeckoGeek]

Creating a barcoded card is even easier then a mag stripe card. Hell, even I can do that.

The attraction of a magstripe card is that the pump already has one. Barcode would require installing more hardware.

[Frankie's Market]

It won't prevent someone from filling a gas can with gas after swiping a verified barcode,

Or prevent someone from passing the pump nozzle to an uninsured friend with another car parked nearby.

I still think the old "pay at the pump" proposal (with the cost of liability insurance automatically added to the price of gas) is the best bet.

Under this system, how do you make the unsafe and accident-prone drivers pay for a greater share of the total insurance burden?

Answer: DMV already has a database that records all traffic accidents and moving violations. When drivers rack up these kinds of incidents, assess an insurance surcharge on top of whatever fees are needed to pay for license renewal. The more (or serious) the incidents you have, the higher the surcharge.

Also, keep in mind that the "pay at the pump" only covers liability. Drivers who have new or valuable vehicles could still purchase supplemental coverage from private insurers.

What are the benefits?

1) Everybody who operates a vehicle would be covered, which would eliminate the need for law-abiding drivers to purchase uninsured motorist coverage.

2) There would be no need to purchase and maintain a new swiping/scanning system for every damn gas pump in this state. In fact, everything to implement the above proposal is already in place.

[joshuatree]

Also, keep in mind that the "pay at the pump" only covers liability. Drivers who have new or valuable vehicles could still purchase supplemental coverage from private insurers.

What are the benefits?

1) Everybody who operates a vehicle would be covered, which would eliminate the need for law-abiding drivers to purchase uninsured motorist coverage.

2) There would be no need to purchase and maintain a new swiping/scanning system for every damn gas pump in this state. In fact, everything to implement the above proposal is already in place.

This sounds more practical that a verification scheme at the pump. Though it does bring its own set of concerns. With basic liability removed from an individual's premium, will the theoretical reduction in premium due to less risk of uninsured vehicles offset any increases in supplemental premiums because now the insurance companies can't sell basic liability and can't sell uninsured motor vehicle coverage which translates to loss in revenue for them? Will the city and county be effective in negotiating a good price for basic liability since there is now one single customer entity and that may limit competition.

Lastly, how do EVs and CNGs get addressed?

[Frankie's Market]

This sounds more practical that a verification scheme at the pump. Though it does bring its own set of concerns. With basic liability removed from an individual's premium, will the theoretical reduction in premium due to less risk of uninsured vehicles offset any increases in supplemental premiums because now the insurance companies can't sell basic liability and can't sell uninsured motor vehicle coverage which translates to loss in revenue for them?

Before I address your questions, let me state my POV about a few things.

First of all, I don't think that auto liability insurance should be a matter of private enterprise.

Everyone here concurs with the concept of every driver being covered. But here's an ugly truth: The insurance companies don't care about the goal of reducing the number of uninsured drivers on our roads. Their answer to the problem of uninsured motorists is to sell uninsured and underinsured coverage. Hey, as long as they are able to soak law-abiding drivers to cover against the mishaps of uninsured folks, the insurance companies are happy and content to keep the status-quo.

I believe that basic liability insurance needs to be provided by the state and administered by a non-profit entity, similar to the Honolulu city bus system being operated and managed by OTS. The "pay at the pump" fees, as well as any insurance surcharge incurred by high-risk drivers, will be determined by statistical tools and actuarials to sustain a solvent public insurance fund.

Because this auto liability insurance will be paid for by all drivers who purchase gasoline, there will be savings for drivers who are already following the law by paying for a no-fault policy. Additional savings will be realized by the simple fact that this system is non-profit, so premium money is not being wasted on bonuses and swank parties for insurance executives.

In fact, the only people who will pay more under this proposed system are those scofflaws who have been driving around with no insurance. Are you gonna feel sorry for those freeloaders?

As far as private insurers raising their premiums on supplemental coverage as a response to their being taken out of the liability insurance business... that problem will be taken care of by having a competitive marketplace.

Hawaii drivers.... wake up! For nearly 40 years, the private insurance companies have exploited the flaws of this state's mandatory no-fault law in order to fatten up their coffers on our dime. How much longer are we going to allow ourselves to be victimized by this scam?

Lastly, how do EVs and CNGs get addressed?

Easy. Pay at the Plug.

But seriously..... just assess an appropriate insurance charge on top of the license fees for alternative energy vehicles.

[GeckoGeek]

I believe that basic liability insurance needs to be provided by the state and administered by a non-profit entity, similar to the Honolulu city bus system being operated and managed by OTS. The "pay at the pump" fees, as well as any insurance surcharge incurred by high-risk drivers, will be determined by statistical tools and actuarials to sustain a solvent public insurance fund.

Because this auto liability insurance will be paid for by all drivers who purchase gasoline, there will be savings for drivers who are already following the law by paying for a no-fault policy. Additional savings will be realized by the simple fact that this system is non-profit, so premium money is not being wasted on bonuses and swank parties for insurance executives.

OK, but - how do you keep the legislature from raiding the the insurance? They seem to excel at that type of thing. Plus, how good will the service be when it's essentially provided by government employees?

With the extra cost in gas, how do you deal with gasoline thefts? So few people have private enclosed garages, Hawaii would be ripe for that.

just assess an appropriate insurance charge on top of the license fees for alternative energy vehicles.

So why don't we just do that with everyone?

[joshuatree]

I believe that basic liability insurance needs to be provided by the state and administered by a non-profit entity, similar to the Honolulu city bus system being operated and managed by OTS. The "pay at the pump" fees, as well as any insurance surcharge incurred by high-risk drivers, will be determined by statistical tools and actuarials to sustain a solvent public insurance fund.

Because this auto liability insurance will be paid for by all drivers who purchase gasoline, there will be savings for drivers who are already following the law by paying for a no-fault policy. Additional savings will be realized by the simple fact that this system is non-profit, so premium money is not being wasted on bonuses and swank parties for insurance executives.

In fact, the only people who will pay more under this proposed system are those scofflaws who have been driving around with no insurance. Are you gonna feel sorry for those freeloaders?

This would require a more indepth assessment. How many accidents happen on Oahu each year and what would be the max payout on basic liability? Then, what is the annual amount of gas sales on Oahu. This would help give a rough idea of how much surcharge is needed on each gal of gas to keep this fund solvent. It may be cheaper....but it may not as well if those numbers don't play nice.

With the extra cost in gas, how do you deal with gasoline thefts? So few people have private enclosed garages, Hawaii would be ripe for that.

Another potential side effect would be influencing people to switch to more fuel efficient cars because they would pump less gas. However, this may then increase the insurance surcharge per gallon to keep the fund solvent. Good times.

[Frankie's Market]

OK, but - how do you keep the legislature from raiding the the insurance?

I already said (and typed in bold-faced letters, no less) to have a non-profit entity manage and administer the public insurance fund.

This entity will be autonomous from the direct control of lawmakers. So there can be no raiding of the insurance fund to balance the state budget. And the people in charge of setting the premiums and surcharges are not politicians whose decision-making are swayed by trying to get votes.

Plus, how good will the service be when it's essentially provided by government employees?

Ha! That kind of talk is nothing but pure political posturing. If you wanna engage in that kind of debate, you're gonna have to find a like-minded person to duel with ya. Failing to find that in HT, then maybe go down to city hall and take out nomination papers to run for city council or the state legislature where you'll get plenty of mindless "municipalization vs. privatization" debates, fueled by political allegiances and partisan agendas rather than arguments of true substance and merit.

I'm here in this thread to talk about and exchange ideas. I'm not imagining myself campaigning for some political office and making myself a golden boy for a labor union or the Tea Party.

With the extra cost in gas, how do you deal with gasoline thefts? So few people have private enclosed garages, Hawaii would be ripe for that.

With the price of gasoline being what it already is, why would that not be a concern right now?

More and more cars come equip with fuel doors that are locked. And if by any chance your vehicle does not have a locking fuel door, then go to any auto parts store and buy yourself a lockable gas cap. Costs maybe $10?

This would require a more indepth assessment. How many accidents happen on Oahu each year and what would be the max payout on basic liability? Then, what is the annual amount of gas sales on Oahu. This would help give a rough idea of how much surcharge is needed on each gal of gas to keep this fund solvent. It may be cheaper....but it may not as well if those numbers don't play nice.

I suggest you do some serious research into what actuarial science is all about and why this discipline is the basis for companies to make a business out of auto insurance on a long-term basis.

"Numbers don't play nice?" You're making this sound like some sort of high-risk derivative on Wall Street. It isn't.

Another potential side effect would be influencing people to switch to more fuel efficient cars because they would pump less gas. However, this may then increase the insurance surcharge per gallon to keep the fund solvent. Good times.

I still say that when premium money derived from "pay at the pump" is not being spent on things like CEO/executive bonuses, lavish company parties, and legislative lobbying, Hawaii drivers will end up saving money.

[joshuatree]

With the price of gasoline being what it already is, why would that not be a concern right now?

More and more cars come equip with fuel doors that are locked. And if by any chance your vehicle does not have a locking fuel door, then go to any auto parts store and buy yourself a lockable gas cap. Costs maybe $10?



"Numbers don't play nice?" You're making this sound like some sort of high-risk derivative on Wall Street. It isn't.



I still say that when premium money derived from "pay at the pump" is not being spent on things like CEO/executive bonuses, lavish company parties, and legislative lobbying, Hawaii drivers will end up saving money.

I'm actually not aware of any new car these days without a fuel door that isn't released by a button/level inside the car. But theft of gas can occur low tech style which is having someone puncture the gas tank for a quick drain. This actually happened with alarming frequency when gas hit its high mark not too long ago, especially with delivery and service trucks that had the large and easy to reach tanks.

I am actually making it sound like a numbers issue, which at the end of the day, it is. What level of gas surcharge per gallon will generate enough funding to payout a typical year's worth of accidents? There's no smoke and mirrors behind that, it's how you would keep the fund solvent as you've mentioned. However, at what level of surcharge won't make the public balk? What if gas was $5 a gal, not including any additional price fluctuations (ie Iran)?

A non-profit is a good starting point, but those that are tasked to run it still need to be paid a salary yes? If you want competent talent, competitive pay is required, yes? Just look at some of the salaries existing non-profits pay. I'm not against your idea, just pointing out some of the concerns associated with this approach to uninsured vehicles.

This idea is even remotely possible since we're on an island in one county. If people could drive easily between counties here and not all counties use the same pay at the pump scheme, car insurance would be one heck of a mess worse that it is now.

[Frankie's Market]

I'm actually not aware of any new car these days without a fuel door that isn't released by a button/level inside the car. But theft of gas can occur low tech style which is having someone puncture the gas tank for a quick drain.

You know, I believe everything you're saying here about gasoline theft. But why is this being discussed in a thread that is primarily talking about uninsured motorists? Gas being stolen from vehicles aren't just happening in locales where there's a pay at the pump system in place, right? It is happening everywhere. Bluntly speaking, this issue is nothing more than a red herring in this thread.

I am actually making it sound like a numbers issue, which at the end of the day, it is. What level of gas surcharge per gallon will generate enough funding to payout a typical year's worth of accidents? There's no smoke and mirrors behind that, it's how you would keep the fund solvent as you've mentioned. However, at what level of surcharge won't make the public balk?

I could ask the very same question to you about auto insurance premiums.

At what level of premium charge for no-fault insurance won't make the public balk? And guess what? Over the years, some people have begun to chafe at the rising costs of premiums and have resorted to dropping insurance coverage altogether, which has resulted in,..... TA-DA!!!!!!! The growing number of uninsured drivers in this state.

The segment of drivers who will moan and groan about the higher prices they will have to pay at the gas pump will very likely be the same people who aren't paying for insurance right now. The way I see it is: Who gives a damn about their complaints? They're the very folks who are causing law-abiding drivers to have to pay for uninsured motorist coverage in the first place. The people who complain the loudest about "pay at the pump" will do so because they will no longer be able to escape the responsibility of paying for their own liability insurance coverage.

A non-profit is a good starting point, but those that are tasked to run it still need to be paid a salary yes? If you want competent talent, competitive pay is required, yes? Just look at some of the salaries existing non-profits pay. I'm not against your idea, just pointing out some of the concerns associated with this approach to uninsured vehicles.

Of course, there should be specific guidelines in place with regards to paying appropriate salaries for administrators of a non-profit public insurance fund. Given a proper level of oversight and checks-and-balances, problems like exorbitant salaries for administrators shouldn't happen. Abuses that occur at non-profit agencies happen whenever oversight is lax and/or the board of directors/trustees fail to carry out their duty to make sure that the organization's funds and resources are being properly utilized.

While this is a legitimate concern, I can't help but find it ironic that people would be so wrapped up in worry about excessive salaries possibly being paid to employees of a public insurance fund,..... as if abuse and excess doesn't happen within the realm of private insurance. Anyone remember how many millions in bonuses AIG handed out to their execs after receiving a govt. bailout?

This idea is even remotely possible since we're on an island in one county. If people could drive easily between counties here and not all counties use the same pay at the pump scheme, car insurance would be one heck of a mess worse that it is now.

Which is why I proposed this sytem for the entire state, not just Oahu.

[GeckoGeek]

I already said (and typed in bold-faced letters, no less) to have a non-profit entity manage and administer the public insurance fund.

Sorry, I've been around long enough to know that "non-profit" isn't a magic spell that makes everything all right. You're creating a monopoly. How do you motivate them to be efficient yet keep the politics at bay? You may see it as "details, minor", but I see it as "details, devil in".

As Mitt says "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.” You're creating an "unfireable" company.

Help me out. Do you have some good examples of this working?

With the price of gasoline being what it already is, why would that not be a concern right now?

More and more cars come equip with fuel doors that are locked. And if by any chance your vehicle does not have a locking fuel door, then go to any auto parts store and buy yourself a lockable gas cap. Costs maybe $10?

If you followed the link, you would have seen that it talked about gas tanks being punctured to get the gas. The higher the price of gas becomes in terms of wages, the more common it will become.

How much insurance charge are we talking about here? I know it came up before, and I think some numbers were thrown about. IIRC, it was closer to an additional $5/gal then 50¢/gal. That cost is everything in winning people over to your point of view.


And you never did answer my question. If insurance verification is "good enough" for EVs, then why don't we go that route for everyone? If EVs become popular, the whole idea of "pay at the pump" will be seen as one of the most shortsighted moves ever done. "Pay at the plug" may work for commercial charging stations, but I don't see practical way to enforce it for the home charging station.

Let's start with more checks and enforcement on insurance and see if that fixes the problem before we start a big new organization.

[Frankie's Market]

Sorry, I've been around long enough to know that "non-profit" isn't a magic spell that makes everything all right. You're creating a monopoly. How do you motivate them to be efficient yet keep the politics at bay? You may see it as "details, minor", but I see it as "details, devil in".

As Mitt says "I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.” You're creating an "unfireable" company.

Help me out. Do you have some good examples of this working?

Oahu Transit Services (TheBus)

The Board of Water Supply

People here seem pretty satisfied with these services. I haven't heard anyone clamoring for the water works to be privatized. And TheBus has won numerous national awards for best transit system in the country.

Nobody's saying that all non-profits setups are great. There needs to be a system of accountability, as well as proper oversight. When done right, auto liability insurance can be provided by a public, non-profit entity.

But if people were to follow your logic and to automatically reject the idea of reforming the no-fault insurance system, then guess what? We'll always be saddled with a significant % of drivers who are uninsured, as private insurance companies have no incentive to do anything about the problem. They'll just pass on the burden to their customers by charging for uninsured motorist coverage.

How much insurance charge are we talking about here? I know it came up before, and I think some numbers were thrown about. IIRC, it was closer to an additional $5/gal then 50¢/gal. That cost is everything in winning people over to your point of view.

I don't know the exact cost. But c'mon! $5 a gallon for insurance??? Where did you get that ridiculous figure?

And you never did answer my question. If insurance verification is "good enough" for EVs, then why don't we go that route for everyone?

You could. No one ever said that such a proposal was impossible.

Of course, paying at the pump is a way to spread out the cost of paying insurance. Paying for the whole year in one shot would be steep for people who are struggling with paying their bills.

And you were asking me about "winning people over?"

As well, don't forget: Collecting insurance fees through the licensing process will not catch those scofflaws who drive w/o valid or expired licenses. A pay-at-the-pump system would force them to "contribute" to the insurance fund if they want to purchase gas, thus accomplishing the goal of spreading out the burden of insurance costs to everyone on the road.

If EVs become popular, the whole idea of "pay at the pump" will be seen as one of the most shortsighted moves ever done.

Shortsighted? I never said that a "pay at the pump" program is something that should be written in stone for all eternity. But considering the conditions that exist presently, it does make sense. When the % of drivers who use EVs progresses to a certain point whereby pay-at-the-pump no longer makes sense, then make whatever change needs to be made at that time.

[joshuatree]

You know, I believe everything you're saying here about gasoline theft. But why is this being discussed in a thread that is primarily talking about uninsured motorists? Gas being stolen from vehicles aren't just happening in locales where there's a pay at the pump system in place, right? It is happening everywhere. Bluntly speaking, this issue is nothing more than a red herring in this thread.



I could ask the very same question to you about auto insurance premiums.

At what level of premium charge for no-fault insurance won't make the public balk? And guess what? Over the years, some people have begun to chafe at the rising costs of premiums and have resorted to dropping insurance coverage altogether, which has resulted in,..... TA-DA!!!!!!! The growing number of uninsured drivers in this state.

The segment of drivers who will moan and groan about the higher prices they will have to pay at the gas pump will very likely be the same people who aren't paying for insurance right now. The way I see it is: Who gives a damn about their complaints? They're the very folks who are causing law-abiding drivers to have to pay for uninsured motorist coverage in the first place. The people who complain the loudest about "pay at the pump" will do so because they will no longer be able to escape the responsibility of paying for their own liability insurance coverage.



Of course, there should be specific guidelines in place with regards to paying appropriate salaries for administrators of a non-profit public insurance fund. Given a proper level of oversight and checks-and-balances, problems like exorbitant salaries for administrators shouldn't happen. Abuses that occur at non-profit agencies happen whenever oversight is lax and/or the board of directors/trustees fail to carry out their duty to make sure that the organization's funds and resources are being properly utilized.

While this is a legitimate concern, I can't help but find it ironic that people would be so wrapped up in worry about excessive salaries possibly being paid to employees of a public insurance fund,..... as if abuse and excess doesn't happen within the realm of private insurance. Anyone remember how many millions in bonuses AIG handed out to their execs after receiving a govt. bailout?



Which is why I proposed this sytem for the entire state, not just Oahu.

An increase in gas thefts corresponding to an increase in gas prices is well documented so I wouldn't call this a red herring, rather a legitimate concern. I'm all for finding solutions to the current uninsured problem but trying to prevent/reduce the mistake of trading one set of problems for another is a worthy discussion. So in your proposal of pay at the pump, increasing gas theft is a potential side effect.

Gas prices have always been an ultrasensitive issue with the public. Remember the attempts at a gas price cap? Putting a basic liability insurance coverage under a fuel surcharge at the pump isn't exactly equalizing either. Some people for one reason or another are just horrible drivers, they tend to be in accidents more frequently. How would an across the board fuel surcharge differentiate people like this? If it can't, they benefit more as they may actually pay for less gas (ie hybrid) but get accident payouts more often. Current insurance premiums isn't just purely tied to a car but a driver's record also is factored in.

Proposing your solution for the entire state is absolutely fine but I think it doesn't help the OP (Menehune Man) as his proposed resolutions are all with the City Council of Honolulu and is currently limited to such.

My feedback would still be the same, let's start with low hanging fruit and at least start mandating insurance verification during registration renewals and safety checks on Oahu. See if and what level the uninsured percentage drops to before deciding the next course of action.

[lensperson]

The low hanging fruits are all those fuel pumps.
Hackers can easily get into those pumps if state mandated ports are
placed in the dispensers.