• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

Bought insurance Texas wants more info

http://www.texassure.com/Insuranceverification.html

http://www.texassure.com/consumernotices.html

I'd never heard of this so Googled "Texas Sure" and found the above website. Personally I'm in favor of the stated goal of reducing the number of uninsured motorists on TX roads, so many law-abiding folks get screwed by those that aren't in this regard.

Yeah, the database may not be perfect but from the posts above it sounds like there's minimal hassles involved in clearing up the described legitimate situations/legal exceptions.

IMHO this is one case where info collection/sharing/use may actually benefit the small guy; until I hear instances of really problematic implementation/execution I'm gonna be supporting this one.

I think the problem with the uninsured is not people with insurance, it is people without insurance. And it seems the more and more we do to fix this problem, we are not getting the guys without insurance off the road as I keep hearing about accidents with these guys.

So no, I would be against harassment and making them take the time and even buy a stamp if they have insurance. It did make me a little uncomfortable when it gave me 10 days to respond, had no check marks for my situation, and added a sentence at the end that if I signed it and made a false statement I was subject to penal codes.

Edit: would the stamp be considered a tax?
 
Last edited:
I think the problem with the uninsured is not people with insurance, it is people without insurance. And it seems the more and more we do to fix this problem, we are not getting the guys without insurance off the road as I keep hearing about accidents with these guys.

So no, I would be against harassment and making them take the time and even buy a stamp if they have insurance. It did make me a little uncomfortable when it gave me 10 days to respond, had no check marks for my situation, and added a sentence at the end that if I signed it and made a false statement I was subject to penal codes.

Edit: would the stamp be considered a tax?

http://www.texassure.com/consumernotices.html

Sample of notice for unmatched insurance:
http://www.texassure.com/documents/SAMPLEunmatched.pdf

Didn't the notice you received match the sample posted on the Texas Sure website? Polite explanation of reason and purpose, plenty of "please", "we need your help", option 5 clearly stated on page 1: "None of the above .... a representative can help ...Please call toll-free number...", "Thank you" in closing, and you got one notice?

Sorry but if you construe that notice as "harassment" and an opportunity to address the matter by toll-free phone call as a tax or undue burden .... well, given complete disclosure of the form of the notice I'm still looking for a definition of harassment that reasonably fits your interpretation.:ponder:

FYI sample of notice for vehicle registered without record of insurance:
http://www.texassure.com/documents/SAMPLEuninsured.pdf

We agree on the real problem (uninsured motorists); we seem to disagree on our willingness as citizens to spend a few moments of time to help with database cleanup in an effort to address that problem.

So it goes.:zen:
 
Last edited:
Isn't compelling someone to fill out government forms under threat of prosecution just about the very definition of harassment?

I won't do the phone call because if it comes back on me, phone conversations are Hearsay and are inadmissible in court.
 
I agree, you have it insured, whether registered or not is none of the states concern. It is only a concern if you drive on public roads, than it's a police matter.

I don't understand the letter, seems like a waste of time for everyone, harassment and nothing I see is accomplished.

Seems like it ought to be the other way around, if it is registered with NO insurance than you get a letter to explain. Yes/No?
 
Maybe if I get my letter, I'll call my insurance and tell them the state wants me to cancel. I bet the letters would stop then lol
 
There doesn't appear to be any requirement to reply. In fact, the only references to any legal problems are that you shouldn't lie on the form, and that if you're out driving your insured, but unregistered, vehicle on the roads, you could get a citation when the cop can't find your registration.

Throw it away, if you think it's harassment. It doesn't appear binding.
 
Isn't compelling someone to fill out government forms under threat of prosecution just about the very definition of harassment?
Not one word on that form demands that you fill it out or return it - "please" prefaces every request for response; it's hard to construe anything prefaced by that word as a demand or "compelling".

The only "threat" is the warning that IF you choose to respond you must do so truthfully.

I won't do the phone call because if it comes back on me, phone conversations are Hearsay and are inadmissible in court
Not if recorded with notice which is fairly standard procedure for corporate and government call-centers. In any case, life lived in anticipation of litigation must be 'interesting'.

If you look for problems you'll likely find 'em; if you look for solutions they might happen. Clearly we've different approaches to life, I sincerely hope you're as happy in yours as I am in mine.

Carry on. :chug:
 
The state began the program about a year and a half ago or so...at its heart it is intended to match up the OPPOSITE...registered vehicles with no evidence of insurance...it is contracted to a third party company...there are in fact a wide range of reasons you would have insurance and no registration...as someone mentioned previously...it's data being matched and triggering a no match action. I'm an insurance agent..and had a handful of clients that got these notices early on in the campaign..

If you choose to call the number and walk through the process...it's your call...there is no penalty for not making the call...the state is simply trying to reduce the number of uninsured vehicles on the road...if that's not you...no worries.
 
In Texas, no registration is carried EXCEPT for commercial vehicles.
Carrying liability insurance on an off-road vehicle is smart. You could hit some farmers cow while on his land and be covered!
 
In Texas, no registration is carried EXCEPT for commercial vehicles.

Sound of soapbox being deployed. :doh: (oh no, not again ...)

(Caution: those who most often prefer to hold a belief rather than test against fact may do well to skip this. :giveup: Rational, open-minded folks who aren't so easily offended, read on. ;-) )

The above is true and correct, as I recall, the chapter for registration is defined as "applying to vehicles owned by the state and political subdivisions of the state." So, which are you? The state, or, a political subdivision thereof?

These "subdivisions" include the like of; corporations registered with the state, commercial operators licensed by the state, and, anyone who volunteers into the program to receive the benefits from registration (theft prevention, etc.). Thus declaring themselves as a political subdivision. Which is allowed, even if in actuality they aren't "required" to do so.

Learning this left me scratching my head trying to understand how we came to believe that non commercial vehicles are required to be registered when nothing in this defining portion of the chapter indicates this would be the case.

As I understand it, the state is limited to regulating commercial activity in order to protect the citizenry. These regulations are written to allow citizens to partake in the "benefit" of registration, but cannot "require" that they do. For instance, a statute can require that a commercial dealership must "offer" to register the vehicle for a private citizen, but the letter of the law comes short of requiring that they "must" actually do so. Those who are required to be registered and are purchasing from the dealer may be required to let the dealer file paperwork at time of purchase.

This, of course, opens another can of worms, raising the usual arguments about how everyone NEEDS to be regulated or "I" don't feel safe. blah blah blah

Bottom line is that everyone is personally responsible for their stuff and liable for damage caused by them or their stuff. The insurance and regulations associated with registration apply to; those actually required to be registered, and, those "self-declared political subdivisions" of the state that aren't actually required to do so.

Not that this is a bad thing. Merely pointing out that this is how the statutes are written.

They are written this way because to write it otherwise would fail the constitutional test, and violate the rights reserved by the constitution for the people. This would nullify any such law on its face for not meeting the constitutional test. The legislators must write the laws to conform to the constitution's limits placed upon state and federal government regarding the reserved rights of the people. This leads to a lot of misleading phrases that can be easily taken any of several ways, depending upon who it is being applied to.

The fact that people, generally, prefer to be ruled to a greater or lesser degree, over taking responsibility thru self-rule as the founders envisioned, is what leads to creating what appears to be a contradictory, voluntary system like this to account for this discrepancy in human nature. This "herd" mentality is lizard-brain stuff, and difficult to overcome through rational thought, though the founders did their best to create a system that allows it, they couldn't, through legislation, make people continue to learn and think this way for themselves.

Just because the law must be written making things like non-commercial driver license, non-commercial registration, etc. available on a voluntary basis is in no way indicating that it would be a good idea to abandon the system as it now operates.

Clearly, the people prefer it this way. It makes them feel all warm and fuzzy and safe. Even when, by undermining the tenet of accepting personal responsibility and holding respect for others person and property, such a system actually makes things less safe while giving the illusion otherwise.

Still, it is good that the right to self-govern is preserved in the statutes, even though for one to choose to actually do so would be a ridiculous swim against the current of popular belief held by those who don't fully grasp the foundation upon which the statutes are crafted.

I'm trying my best to write this in a way that doesn't inflame others due to their beliefs, all while illustrating how what the law actually says is different than what most people believe.

This is an issue of logic, rather than of emotion. It is neither a call to anarchy, nor is it "bashing the system." It is merely explaining an otherwise confusing aspect of the system in use in regard to the words defining the law in statutes.

Between you, me and the gatepost, it does get old when folks read what I write about these things and immediately presume this is some kind of call to arms.

It isn't.

It is just the facts, ma'am.

The world would be a better place if more folks understood how believing something voluntary is mandatory undermines building respect, encouraging personal responsibility and is counter to promoting what used to be known as "The American Way."

(sound of soapbox being put away)

This form as it is used is fine. It provides a benefit to compensate for people who have been trained over generations to abandon taking personal responsibility, preferring the comfort of their lives being managed by a benevolent third-party.

Responsible people are right to take issue with a benevolent third party stepping in to manage their affairs. (often not realizing how they granted tacit permission to do so by volunteering to become a political subdivision)

Some are more accepting about being managed, perhaps because they won't do it for themselves, or just feel it is better, easier, makes the world safer, etc.

It is a conundrum. :zen:
 
As is the case with MOST legal documents, you have to read it ALL in the sequence in which is was WRITTEN. (I get this a LOT with questions on the ACA-health care law)
You do not have to CARRY your registration unless you are in a vehicle that is not expressly shown to be OWNED by YOU. Thus corporations and government (city, county,state,etc) vehicles are 'owned' by 'non-persons', so the registration (a COPY) must be with the vehicle. Then, you have to be able to show why you are permitted to drive that vehicle (state, county, business ID)
Registration is required of each vehicle, but SHOWING the registration isn't needed. They can check your ID and know every vehicle you own.
 
Every year I go get a "registration" sticker for my license plate, defacto I carry my registration with me. I would take the ticket to the judge and state this very thing.
 
Back
Top