Should the Cars of people driving without a license be towed and impounded

[ablueblood100]

In Los Angeles, the Mayor and the Police Chief are considering allowing people who are driving without a license to call someone with a license to get his or her car instead of impounding the vehicle.   I think the car should be impounded.  Your actions have consequences which are sometimes negative.   I have been rear-ended by an unlicense driving, no damage, no big deal.    I was T-boned by an individual who did not have a license (it had been suspended and he had just been let out of jail (all this information was availble through the Sheriff's department website)).  The cops just left him and his car there.  I don't even know if he was sited.

[animikokala]

Is there a cost factor?  Is the city losing money impounding the vehicles?  If so, then I can understand why they would consider this.  Personally, I'm all for the city taking ownership of and auctioning the cars of those who get, say, 3 violations of DUI and/or suspension/revocation during a 6 month period.  Perhaps that should even be extended to those who get Insurance violations as well.  Now that would finally give those people some real consequences. 

[devo327]

I've had my car towed through experience and I was given a chance to call someone to pickup my car. This was upstate, NY where there's no streets and very few people living there. Unfortunately my cell phone wasn't in range and the cop wouldn't let me use his phone. I don't even think they make any money off of towing cars since you have to pay the garage directly to get your car out.

[Flackle]

I think they should sell them in bulk to me. I've got this idea about a TV show for discovery where people make catapults and try to throw a car as far as possible over a huge cliff.

[pirewolf]

I think it should be based on the situation. In your case they should have towed that vehicle! He just got out of jail, which means that he had to have known they suspended his license when they released him. On the other hand my sisters husband got pulled over and did not know until that moment that his license was suspended. They did not tell him or send anything in the mail. It was his fault for getting to many speeding tickets, and he has not sped since. However, if they are not required to tell you before they throw you in jail, then it wasn't really his fault. And they would not have been able to pay to get him and the car out of jail. Since he had to work to make money, then they had to get him. So she was left pregnant with a kid and no car, with his parents driving him to work. Just because they couldn't be bothered to send him a letter in the mail, so she could drive him to work every morning instead of them having to wait months to get their car back. With the invalid insurance, this one actually happened to me at 17. This guy was following me, someone from my high school that I didn't like but was obsessed. I  did not use my turn signal so that I could loose him, a cop saw and pulled me over. I got two tickets, one for no insurance and no turn signal. I had no idea that I didn't have insurance, because I was on my parents insurance. How could I know that? Like my parents would say we didn't have enough money so we took you off. My mom would not even let me get a job, so not paying how would I know. I had a insurance card, just didn't know it was no good. What is the crazy part! The person I was trying to loose parked right behind the cop with an open bottle of liquor in his car. When I told the cop what was going on he did nothing to help me and didn't even talk to the guy, because he used his turn signal. He was following me so of course he did. Not to mention that the guy followed me all the way home after. I had to get my dad to go outside. I was trying to loose him so he wouldn't know where I lived. So I got two tickets and a stalker for the rest of my high school years. They never unlearn where you live until you can move!

[visvern]

  well if they had no license probably had no insurance. if damages done to another vehicle should be impounded for set period of time to allow for restitution to driver of damaged vehicle. no retitution no return. driver of damaged vehicle settles with tow co. sells vehicle to recoup damages to their auto. if caught twice automatic forfiture of auto to pay for damages or other expenses.

[wallis1662s]

I am an Rv'er and believe that after seeing all that I see on the road, RV'ers should have to get special licenses to drive the 40 and 45 foot RV's. I once saw an Rv pull up and a older person came out with a walker.

The new RV's are huge and should be specially licensed to operate.

[vickysue]

If you knowingly drive with a license and or insurance you should be charged and car impounded. The law is the law and we must all obey . This wold would really go to crap if no one followed the rules and regs. And i have seen some awful accidents caused by those that broke the law time and time again.

[abryant21]

Is there a cost factor?  Is the city losing money impounding the vehicles?  If so, then I can understand why they would consider this.  Personally, I'm all for the city taking ownership of and auctioning the cars of those who get, say, 3 violations of DUI and/or suspension/revocation during a 6 month period.  Perhaps that should even be extended to those who get Insurance violations as well.  Now that would finally give those people some real consequences. 

I don't see how the city can lose money from impounding a vehicle when they are paid by the owner or the bidder at auctions. But I do agree that anyone who violates the non license driving law should have their vehicle towed, impounded, fined and jailed if cause harm to other human(s).

[demaina]

I'm not sure what should happen to them, but something should.  Driving is a privilege for a reason.  Otherwise we might as well let little kids, blind people, and whoever else isn't allowed drive.

I would say yes, but some households rely on one car and just because one person's license is revoked shouldn't mean the others couldn't use the car.  But then again, they drove without their license before, what's to stop them from doing it again.

To make it even somewhat balanced, I'd think you'd almost have to do something like those breathalyzer in cars where the car doesn't start up until you provide your license cause there really is no physical thing preventing anyone from driving without a license.

[lgemini]

Maybe the person who owns the car would think twice about lending the car to a person without license.

[Earle12]

I believe that anytime anyone decide to get behind the wheel of a car knowing that they do not has a license, they assume the Responsibilty of whatever consequences that comes with it.