Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: beast5680 on September 30, 2005, 10:17:08
-
Heard on the news this morning it will soon become illegal to own a car if its not insured :shock: .This is apparently to clamp down on uninsured drivers but what will this mean for the thousands of landys etc which are owned but not used or insured but you have as projects/spares vehicles etc?
-
You have to hope that it doesn't apply to SORN vehicles. Otherwise it will just have to be quietly dropped.
The government must have all the important issues under control I guess if they can find time for this.
Mike
-
as far as i could make out it applys to All vehicles
-
found more info maybe if sorned you will be ok
Uninsured drivers are to face automatic fines of at least £60 in an attempt to reduce rising levels of illegal driving in the UK.
New laws being announced by the government will give police access to insurance company records.
Currently police have to catch uninsured drivers using their cars in order to prosecute them.
But the new powers will make it illegal to own a car without insuring it or declaring that it is not being used.
As well as the fines, the new powers will mean uninsured drivers could have their vehicles seized or crushed.
BBC transport correspondent Tom Symonds says the estimated one million uninsured drivers in the UK cost law-abiding motorists £30 each in extra insurance premiums each year.
Uninsured drivers are also more likely to have accidents and police say they often commit more serious offences.
The planned change will mean police can automatically send out fines based on insurance company records.
Cameras that can read number plates - such as those used in London's congestion charging zone - will also be used to trap uninsured drivers.
In August, figures showed that the number of uninsured drivers on London's roads had risen by 40 per cent between 2001 and 2003, double the average for England and Wales.
-
But the new powers will make it illegal to own a car without insuring it or declaring that it is not being used.
The first thing they need to decide is what exactly constiutes a 'car'. Is is that complete (bar a number plate) Series 2 in the garage, or the 12 boxes of bits & chassis in the corner??
Isn't it true that at the moment, if an uninsured driver is stopped & ticketed, he (usually a he) is free to drive off, so long as the 'pull is for no other offence?
Look on the bright side, it might knock our insurance premiums down :D
Oh yeah!?! :lol:
In the words of Wayne Campbell;
"And Monkeys Might Fly Out Of My Butt!!"
-
As well as the fines, the new powers will mean uninsured drivers could have their vehicles seized or crushed.
You missed a line...
As well as the fines, the new powers will mean uninsured drivers involved in accidents could have their testicles seized or crushed.
:lol:
-
the key point is the use of the words "not being used" which I think would be fair to say means that this does not apply to anything with a SORN notice, and is, by definition "not being used"
-
The first thing they need to decide is what exactly constiutes a 'car'. Is is that complete (bar a number plate) Series 2 in the garage, or the 12 boxes of bits & chassis in the corner??
I would imagine it is anything with an identity... since that is the only way they can track vehicles. Long term, they want to try and get rid of all the 'phantom' vehicles about... the number plates and vin numbers in that box under the stairs, the pile of rust that was never registered as scrapped.
If you get rid of all that, it *should* make tax evasion and insurance avoidance that one little bit easier. It means that we will all have to be a bit more vigilant about re-taxing and SORNing our vehicles... but that doesn't bother me too much if it helps towards getting rid of some of the problems.
-
I don't see how using ANPR will help finding uninsured drivers. Think of the car dealer who has an "any car" policy. Just because there is no insurance registered against a vehicle, doesn't mean that the driver isn't insured.
-
Think of the car dealer who has an "any car" policy. Just because there is no insurance registered against a vehicle, doesn't mean that the driver isn't insured.
Would they not be displaying trade plates ? If so, they would be easily identifiable.
-
found more info maybe if sorned you will be ok
New laws being announced by the government will give police access to insurance company records.
Errrr they already have access to this!! How out of touch are the Government?
-
Would they not be displaying trade plates ? If so, they would be easily identifiable.
I thought trade plates were for untaxed/un MoT'd/unregistered vehicles. :?:
-
Cameras that can read number plates - such as those used in London's congestion charging zone - will also be used to trap uninsured drivers.
This would exclude all the boxes of bits, SORN declared vehicles, and rusting chassis in the corner - none of these would be caught driving around.
It is any other measures we would need to be worried about.
-
now i dont want to upset anybody (especialy those in goverment)
but whats wrong with displaying an MOT disc and an insurance disc in the window of the vehicle along with the tax disc :idea:
CHAV gets pulled produces drivers licence to officer all discs are displayed in window no probs :D
or is this just big bro trying to electronicaly trying to keep tabs
us :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
-
but whats wrong with displaying an MOT disc and an insurance disc in the window of the vehicle along with the tax disc :idea:
In theory that is what we have with a tax disc already, as you are supposed to produce your MOT and a valid insurance to get tax.
Or do you just download one from www.dodgytax.co.crime nowadays.
And before you tell me I know that link doesn't work! (can't give away all the Chav secrets!)
:lol:
-
but whats wrong with displaying an MOT disc and an insurance disc in the window of the vehicle along with the tax disc :idea:
They have to do that in Ireland, all displayed together. :wink:
They send you a fine now if a vehicle registered in your name is not taxed or declared SORN, they don't have to see you driving it. So what's to stop them doing the same for uninsured vehicles that are not on a SORN?
I'd also like to see automatic fixed fines introduced, say £1000 if you're found driving an uninsured and/or untaxed vehicle and £5000 or higher if you're involved in an accident driving one. :twisted:
-
I'd also like to see automatic fixed fines introduced, say £1000 if you're found driving an uninsured and/or untaxed vehicle and £5000 or higher if you're involved in an accident driving one. :twisted:
Not that I do it, but a decent fine would stop me even considering it.
The only problem with fines is that the little Chav's who don't isure their cars also can't afford to pay the court fines and usually get out of it due to there low income. :evil:
If the courts could make them work off an unpaid fine (including working weekends) then that would be OK because forcing them to work would be even worse for them, poor things - having to get up early every morning for work - they only get up early on giro day at the minute (they are too tired after a hard nights boozing and car stealing).
-
any sort of punishment is only effective as a deterent if people think they will get caught.
This sort of idea (just like the sorn) will only effect a small minority of people who knowingly break the law. The vast majority of people affected will be people who simply forgot to get it sorted.
The real wrong doers dont register the car to themselves in the first place. They arnt going to be caught by databases or cameras and there are woefully few actual traffic cops on the road.
-
Too right Bob,
whatever happen to the bobby on the beat, always one around the corner to catch you in your wrongdoings, and who knew who you were if you ran off.
I don't remember those days, but they sound a lot better than modern day life.
:cry:
-
I was under the impression that if you had either no tax or no MOT then you automatically had no insurance. Would they crush your car on principle for this?
-
ask BARRY SCOTThe's into insurance questions maybe he can shed some light as we all have at least one vihicle SORN
-
This one gets my full support, its about time the gov acted to reduce the number of uninsured drivers out there.
Mike
-
I have an "Any Vehicle Policy" because I drive a multitude of vehicles in a week, and it is safer and easier to me, to know that I'm insured as long as basically the value is less than £xxx and I'm licensed to drive it.
I already get stopped about once every couple of month because a traffic cop has spotted an uninsured vehicle. Most understand, and accept my exlpanation, occasionally I get a producer. This is fine with me, I can understand the checks, and they are acceptable.
Automatic fines could be very interesting indeed.
-
whilst I am a firm believer in the need to reduce the number of uninsured vehicles out there, I do also believe to some extent that there is a side issue which is commonly overlooked which is that whilst it is a legal requirement to have insurance, and in some cases a practical requirement to have a car, the expense of insuring it is likely to be one of the factors why some people don't.
Don't get met wrong, the ever increasing cost of third party claims and the blossoming ambulance chaser society is to blame for the insurance companies having to increase charges to compensate (hello barry) but I have yet to find a quote from any of the mainstream companies which is less than four digits long, for *any* vehicle.
Now, to me that was just another thing to do, couldn't change the price of the car, had to pass a test, needed to buy fuel and got ripped off for insurance.. but some people aren't as dogmatically law abiding as I am :? and when faced with a £2000 a year insurance bill, you can partially understand why.
Perhaps, we could sell the body parts of the boy racers (when they've been peeled off the road) to pay for subsidising those of us that drive legally :D
-
Yeah, but if the insurance companies actually started putting up a fight against these "claim anything" types, it wouldn't cost them much. Initially it would, in legal fees and the like, but you won't see an "accident claims 4 u direct helpline lawyers" advert every 2 bl00dy minutes when they realise they have to work for a claim! BUT, I doubt very much we'd see premiums come down. Just profits going up.
-
MY OWN IDEA BUT.... why not scrap the tax disc and replace it with an MOT disc and put all the road tax on petrol/fuel
unused / seldom used vehicles wouldn't pay any excess tax, and driivers of heavily used vehicles would pay more....
combine it with a tax on fuel imported into the country (including hgv's from the continent) and surely this would be a lot more 'just'
Karen696
-
MY OWN IDEA BUT.... why not scrap the tax disc and replace it with an MOT disc and put all the road tax on petrol/fuel
Y'see, I think that would be a brill idea *if* I thought for a nano second that I could trust the government to behave sensibly about it. But something tells me they would see that as another great oportunity to shaft us all rotten. :cry:
-
I agree with karen, accept I think the tax disk show a valid insurance certificate (yes I know ways round it too), so displaying a valid tax disc indicates that the vehicle is both road worthy and insured. I think that it should be a few quid though just to cover admin, not the ridicioulous amounts we pay now.
-
A £60 fine for having no insurance.............
That'd be cheaper than having insurance in the first place.
Yet another stupid bit of legislation.
If you've got a vehicle and get caught driving it on the road illegally impound the vehicle and releive the individual of its possession and then either sell it on giving the proceeds to a fund to pay out for victims of uninsured drivers or scrap the vehicle..
-
Looking at the uninsured fine looks like a good idear.
The fine would need to be implimented if the vechicle was taken on the road as has been mentioned as in cases such as BTM says "what about the chasis I have sat on my drive"(or words to that effect) or other cases wher a vechicle is being used as a spares/repaire project
The only point I can think that again as with all car fines etc is tracing the owners to fine them.
Theres far to many chavers with nova's etc who dont register there details when they buy a car,either that or a few will club together get a cheep fast car from the small add's not register the details etc and drive like nutters posing a danger to others and themselves.
Its all very well catching these vechicles but in cases like this how could the courts impliment a fine unless they catch the driver behind the wheel.
Also who will foot the bill to put in the camera system it sounds like the police will use to enforce this law if it comes to book?
Or what about trial vechicles? I've heard of a case where a 90 was being trailored to a display but had old style black number plates on (not legal for that vechicle in this case)but police still pulled the driver over and cautioned him about the plates. This was a display vechicle with no tax etc - at the time dont even think had an engine in as was being restored
The point here is if you are taing a trial vechicle to an event or any other non-road use vechicle (again say is a rolling chasis or spraes vechicle) will you still need to produce a valid insurance document if requested?
At the end of the day it is a good idear to tighten up on the uninsured but I still think it needs a lot of thought as to how this can be done.
-
Or what about trial vechicles? I've heard of a case where a 90 was being trailored to a display but had old style black number plates on (not legal for that vechicle in this case)but police still pulled the driver over and cautioned him about the plates. This was a display vechicle with no tax etc - at the time dont even think had an engine in as was being restored
Without knowing all the specifics of that, it is hard to comment... but if they did pull him and caution him for it, he would have grounds for complaint. What we don't know is whether the vehicle was on a SORN certificate, (because if it wasn't, that would warrant a quiet word), if he was driving carefully, if the trailer was in good order, etc. etc....
-
AIUI "No tax or MOT means no Insurance " relates to Insurance companies can invalidate your cover if you do not have MOT (not sure about tax) but they cannot take away the legal minimum cover of third party.
So any incident where a vehicle had no MOT but was covered by insurance it would be the vehicle owners cover that would be lost and any right to claim by third parties.
Maybe Barry could clarify this.
Can you imagine someone with no MOT, but insurance, hitting and outting someone in a wheelchair and the insurance company wriggling out of the payments because their client had been remiss and forgotten to MOT the vehicle in time?
-
Or what about trial vechicles? I've heard of a case where a 90 was being trailored to a display but had old style black number plates on (not legal for that vechicle in this case)but police still pulled the driver over and cautioned him about the plates. This was a display vechicle with no tax etc - at the time dont even think had an engine in as was being restored
The point here is if you are taing a trial vechicle to an event or any other non-road use vechicle (again say is a rolling chasis or spraes vechicle) will you still need to produce a valid insurance document if requested?
If that means there are two different number plates visible from the rear of the vehicle then my understanding is that the law is being broken and is why you often see vehicles on transporters with black tape through the middle of the number plate.
Having worked with traffic cops if they have a bad feeling about something they currently don't the right to stop at random but if there is a minor infringement, such as this, they can use it to pull the vehicle and have a closer look.
-
Or what about trial vechicles? I've heard of a case where a 90 was being trailored to a display but had old style black number plates on (not legal for that vechicle in this case)but police still pulled the driver over and cautioned him about the plates. This was a display vechicle with no tax etc - at the time dont even think had an engine in as was being restored
Without knowing all the specifics of that, it is hard to comment... but if they did pull him and caution him for it, he would have grounds for complaint. What we don't know is whether the vehicle was on a SORN certificate, (because if it wasn't, that would warrant a quiet word), if he was driving carefully, if the trailer was in good order, etc. etc....
By my understanding it wasnt a full "writen up" caution but just a "friendly word" and check of trailer etc but he was told that the plates where illegal on that because of vechicle's age.
-
Trying to catch out uninsured drivers is always going to be a problem with or without this database. The main problem is even if a vehicle is being driven on the road and the database shows it as uninsured, it may be that it is being driven by someone with the Driving other cars benefit.
Also the problem is that even if a car is taxed, it may be it is not being used on the road so a bit harsh to fine someone, unfortunately this may be the only way.
They need to change the way insurance is purchased and cancelled. To cancel a policy you should need to either show proof of insurance elsewhere, proof of sale of the vehicle or a copy of the SORN declaration, if none are provided then the insurer could notifiy the authorities.
A £60 fine is also competely useless, it would be cheaper for young drivers to go around uninsured anyway. I saw a police program where a 17 year old on a provisional was driving with no tax, no mot, no insurance, and the tyres were not road legal, he got fined £150...Bargain.
If someone is uninsured they should auction the car and put the money into the MIB fund for uninsured driver claims.
By the way, most insurance policies are void if a vehicle requires an MOT and does not have one, they may also argue that an untaxed vehicle should not be on the road.
If I missed anything, let me know. Not sure how clear and concise that is so sorry if it doesn't make sence.
-
AIUI "No tax or MOT means no Insurance " relates to Insurance companies can invalidate your cover if you do not have MOT (not sure about tax) but they cannot take away the legal minimum cover of third party.
So any incident where a vehicle had no MOT but was covered by insurance it would be the vehicle owners cover that would be lost and any right to claim by third parties.
Maybe Barry could clarify this.
Can you imagine someone with no MOT, but insurance, hitting and outting someone in a wheelchair and the insurance company wriggling out of the payments because their client had been remiss and forgotten to MOT the vehicle in time?
Yes, the insurer would still be responsible for the third party costs. They would however have full right of recovery off the policy holder. This means they could claim their losses from the policy holder.
In most cases no MOT means no insurance. I have not seen tax mentioned in a policy to this extent but I guess the insurer could argue the vehicle should not been on the road if the road tax has not been paid.
-
If someone is uninsured they should auction the car and put the money into the MIB fund for uninsured driver claims
I agree on thay I think its mad that vechicles either impounded or seized by police for what ever reason are just crushed :(
Out of intrest I wonder what the treehuggers say on this. After all most of the cars crushed are ok
Why not auction the vechicle off as is done with unclaimed stolen property etc?
when I lived in exeter I used to pass the local impound yard for on the recovered vechicles taken off the M5 by the highways unit as was near where I worked . Most cars in there where sound but they where crushed as standard practice if not claimed with in 5 weeks mind you the police garage was just up the road and they had some real wrecks that had been seized.But again why not auction these off as scrap. make sure the car itself is beyond use or stip and sell as parts. Get the community service offenders working on this or get them stripped down by prison labour.
-
Jail the gits with no insurance.
I got hit last year by a muppet with no tax, insurance, mot or licence (he was serving a drink driving ban) He hit me while I was stationary in my car, he was on a bike, very near killed himself. All he got was £60 fine and a 1 year community service order. I now pay £250 a year more for my insurace, lost 2 days wages due to no car and paid a £300 excess. And the to55er is taking my insurance company to court for damages :shock:
So yet again a person abiding to the law gets shafted and a law breaker gets away with it, no change there.
I am all for all vehicles being insured, when I built my kit car I had storage/build insurance, cost £25 a year, no problem in my eyes.
We should give the police bigger sticks and a licence to use them :D
-
We should give the police bigger sticks and a licence to use them :D
That may solve many problems :D