Ed Haas

Why are twenty-five percent of SC drivers driving without insurance?

January 16, 2005 -- That is the question that needs to be answered. Why is it that twenty-five percent of South Carolina drivers knowingly drive without the required insurances? Primarily because they cannot afford it, that's why. And why can't they afford insurance? There are a number of factors. Some can't afford insurance because their driving record has ratcheted them into a high-risk rate. Others can't afford it because their age or sex automatically places them into a high-risk bracket even though they may have never received even a parking ticket. Others can't afford it because of the type of vehicle they choose to drive or in some instances need to drive. Others can't afford it because the South Carolina Department of Insurance regulates the free market and all competition so that they can control insurance rates. Consequently the free market doesn't really exist because the regulatory body sets standards that ultimately prohibit smaller companies from competing for the consumer's business. Whether this consequence is the result of the best of intentions back-firing or of corruption remains to be determined. But lack of competition can drive insurance rates so high that many people simply cannot afford to be insured, even if they really want to be.

But instead of considering the aforementioned, we now have a full-time insurance agent and part-time legislator, Representative Bob Walker of Spartanburg Co., talking up his new plan to get the uninsured driver insured. His solution: buy insurance or lose your license. Obviously Representative Walker can easily afford insurance. After all, he sells it. But his suggestion that we should revoke the driver's license of the uninsured motorist is a clear indication that his perception of the uninsured driver is distorted and bigoted. A punitive response to the uninsured suggests that the government believes that the drivers are deliberately and maliciously disobeying the law, but most are not. The simply cannot afford insurance. Why Walker and his supporters cannot wrap their minds around this is difficult to understand. And we're not talking about a small number of drivers either. We're talking about twenty-five percent of all drivers in South Carolina driving without insurance. That is a staggering number. What is unfathomable is the suggestion that these hundreds of thousands of uninsured drivers are driving without insurance because they have no regard for the law.

Furthermore, it is seldom that politicians assume responsibility for anything, so getting Walker to admit that his participation in the uninsured driver issue is a blatant conflict of interest because he stands to personally profit from the strict enforcement of the law is improbable. In my opinion, the law is contaminated because of Walker's involvement with it. As an independent insurance agent, he should have excused himself from the political debate regarding how to deal with this situation. Instead, he is leading the charge and is now calling for yet another way to revoke somebody's right to drive. Don't we have enough people driving on suspended licenses already? Do we really need to create more revoked drivers? Suspended licenses create revoked drivers, and revoked drivers are frequently uninsured drivers. By excessively revoking the right to drive, the government is arguably guilty of behavior that is more destructive to the common good than the behaviors it is attempting to arrest. The state insists it is within their power to interfere with the unalienable right to the solo locomotion on the public roadways that is a necessary vehicle in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for the overwhelming percentage of people.

If the government insists on enacting laws and punishments that twenty-five percent of the motorists cannot afford to comply with, then the problem is with the law and not the people. And if the government cannot reconcile its conflict with so many people, then it's time for the people to organize and seize back their right to drive from the government. It is the people who have granted the government the privilege to regulate our right to drive. We can and should withdraw what we have granted to the government because they have abused the privilege to regulate our right. As Barry Goldwater once said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." I couldn't agree more. If the state cannot come up with better solutions than the ones being touted by Walker, then it's time to get extreme in South Carolina. I for one am sick and tired of insurance companies dictating policies that become laws that save them money, but never result in savings for the consumer. They charge more, reduce coverage, and pay less while hiding behind the protective custody of the government. These looters have looted from us long enough. If the state wants to keep the driver's license requirements in their control, than they had better change their policies quickly or else the irate minority will revoke the state's privilege to require licensing to operate a motor vehicle in the Palmetto State.

Your donations sustain the Muckraker Report Archive. Please donate.