Continuous Insurance Enforcement

[Tino]

7db said:

Assume a fee for SORN will come next.

SHHHHHH!!!!
Dont give them any ideas!

[SS2.]

oldsoak said:

At the moment you have to be caught driving an uninsured vehicle.

Or using a vehicle. And a vehicle is being used even if it is parked on a road (or other public place).

[oldsoak]

SS2. said:

oldsoak said:

At the moment you have to be caught driving an uninsured vehicle.

Or using a vehicle. And a vehicle is being used even if it is parked on a road (or other public place).

Indeed, but the point I was trying to make (perhaps badly) was it would save a lot of police man hours sitting down the road from 'chummy' who has been reportedly been driving his uninsured bag of scrap on the road. Waiting for said scrote to actually jump into the vehicle and set off on his run to Tesco's...so you could nick the 'arstard'.

ETA
Oh and also when he gats nicked, impound the bag of scrap into the bargain...Job done another liability removed from the roads!

Edited by oldsoak on Tuesday 12th January 09:29

[saaby93]

I dont think this works on 3 levels
1) arent most uninsured drivers driving their mates or their mums car which is insured but not for them? ( so wont show up on this system)
2)when I've seen ANPR stops for no insurance most(?) are where the DVLA computer doesnt realise the driver actually has insurance to drive another car.
3) what is this going to do to classic car owners who want to take out their P&J as soon as the sun's out. Currently they phone up for a few days insurance, and many keep their cars taxed all year round to avoid the bother with SORN. AFAIK it takes almost a week to SORN and unSORN. How is that going to work with insurance? Or are they just going to take the risk of driving without insurance/tax in their quiet neck of the woods?
i.e. will it make compliance worse?

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 12th January 09:53

[Nick_F]

saaby93 said:

I dont think this works on 3 levels
1) arent most insured drivers driving their mates or their mums car which is insured but not for them?
2)when Ive seen ANPR stops for no insurance most(?) are where the DVLA computer doesnt realise the driver actually has insurance to drive another car
3) whatis this going to do to classic car owners who want to take out their P&J as soon as the suns out. Currently they phone up for a few days insurance, and many keep their cars taxed all year round to avoid the bother with SORN. AFAIK it takes almost a week to SORN and unSORN. How is that going to work with insurance? Or are they just going to take the risk of driving without insurance/tax in their quiet neck of the woods?
i.e. will it make compliance worse

The insurance premium on my 'classic' is barely £100 a year - not worth the aggro of taking out cover for a few days at a time when I want to use it: it stays 'taxed' (it's exempt) and insured all year.

[saaby93]

Nick_F said:

The insurance premium on my 'classic' is barely £100 a year - not worth the aggro of taking out cover for a few days at a time when I want to use it: it stays 'taxed' (it's exempt) and insured all year.

is that with no claims?
I was thinking more of where someone adds their modern day classic as a temporary vhicle onto the main insurance.

[oldsoak]

saaby93 said:

I dont think this works on 3 levels
1) arent most uninsured drivers driving their mates or their mums car which is insured but not for them? ( so wont show up on this system)

I think you're missing the point here saaby...its not the driver this legislation is aimed at but the uninsured vehicle itself.

saaby93 said:

2)when I've seen ANPR stops for no insurance most(?) are where the DVLA computer doesnt realise the driver actually has insurance to drive another car.

again its the vehicle...the UNINSURED vehicle that is the target

saaby93 said:

3) what is this going to do to classic car owners who want to take out their P&J as soon as the sun's out. Currently they phone up for a few days insurance, and many keep their cars taxed all year round to avoid the bother with SORN. AFAIK it takes almost a week to SORN and unSORN. How is that going to work with insurance? Or are they just going to take the risk of driving without insurance/tax in their quiet neck of the woods?
i.e. will it make compliance worse?

It will mean they have to SORN the vehicles or have in place an insurance policy that allows them to use the vehicle on a road...I doubt that anyone who has such a vehicle would mind keeping it legal...and they probably would have the vehicles insured all year round after all they wouldn't want their classic car stolen or damaged without any avenue of compensation being available would they?

Anyway, looking on the brighter side of this, I believe a lot of uninsured losses can be avoided and perhaps lives saved by getting uninsured vehicles off the road more readily than is now possible.

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 12th January 09:53

[Nick_F]

saaby93 said:

Nick_F said:

The insurance premium on my 'classic' is barely £100 a year - not worth the aggro of taking out cover for a few days at a time when I want to use it: it stays 'taxed' (it's exempt) and insured all year.

is that with no claims?
I was thinking more of where someone adds their modern day classic as a temporary vhicle onto the main insurance.

From memory yes, and I think it's a policy that accrues NCD, too. Limited to 1,500 miles.

[saaby93]

oldsoak said:

Anyway, looking on the brighter side of this, I believe a lot of uninsured losses can be avoided and perhaps lives saved by getting uninsured vehicles off the road more readily than is now possible.

I think that was my point, arent most uninsured vehicles these

saaby93 said:

I dont think this works on 3 levels
1) arent most uninsured drivers driving their mates or their mums car which is insured but not for them? ( so wont show up on this system)

oldsoak said:

I think you're missing the point here saaby...its not the driver this legislation is aimed at but the uninsured vehicle itself.

if the vehicles still not insured for that driver it will make no difference

[Noger]

Ignores the huge amount of "White collar" uninsured driving due to lack of business use of course.

But does play well with the Dail Mail reader.

[oldsoak]

saaby93 said:

if the vehicles still not insured for that driver it will make no difference

If no insurance exists for a vehicle it is uninsured full stop and falls foul of this legislation.
AIUI, No matter who the driver is The DOC extension of someone else's policy does not cover a vehicle that is not insured in its own right by its owner or keeper.

[Nick_F]

Noger said:

Ignores the huge amount of "White collar" uninsured driving due to lack of business use of course.

But does play well with the Dail Mail reader.

We have to provide proof of business use cover before making a journey, otherwise we can't submit an expenses claim. Big operation, though, so plenty of people with time to sit about and think of/administer such things.

[saaby93]

oldsoak said:

saaby93 said:

if the vehicles still not insured for that driver it will make no difference

If no insurance exists for a vehicle it is uninsured full stop and falls foul of this legislation..

I think we know that

So all the vehicles which are currently legally ininsured and off road will fall foul, even though that's not a problem
whereas
all those vehicles on the road with some insurance, but being driven by someone not covered, continue to escape

I cant help thinking theyve gone for the wrong target

[Frix]

oldsoak said:

saaby93 said:

if the vehicles still not insured for that driver it will make no difference

If no insurance exists for a vehicle it is uninsured full stop and falls foul of this legislation.
AIUI, No matter who the driver is The DOC extension of someone else's policy does not cover a vehicle that is not insured in its own right by its owner or keeper.

This is the sorry state of affairs that we find. I don't think the question is so much about the intention of the legislation which is all well and good. The point is enforcement of it is going to be a nightmare. I have kept vehicles uninsured perfectly legitimately. Who will check this? I suspect I may just get sent a letter telling me I have broken xxx law cough up and we are sending a truck for your car. If they are going to allow for checks then these will come to the police. In what form? Are we going to have a dedicated unit purely for insurance? There are loads of cars on the MID that have no insurance details. There are far less that actually have no policy at all. The errors caused by inexact registrations entered are common. As already mentioned - second cars will need looking at. I can't see it working unless there is something I am missing. I suspect a far greater number of hours spent sorting out the mess than is saved by not having to catch them driving.

[SS2.]

Frix said:

I have kept vehicles uninsured perfectly legitimately.

And you will be able to continue to do so, albeit that you will need to ensure that SORN declarations are made (where applicable).

[saaby93]

SS2. said:

Frix said:

I have kept vehicles uninsured perfectly legitimately.

And you will be able to continue to do so, albeit that you will need to ensure that SORN declarations are made (where applicable).

I'm trying to work out what difference that makes.

If ANPR finds it's on the road uninsured that results in a stop
If ANPR finds it's on the road but SORN that results in a stop

Is the only difference the extra effort to SORN/deSORN?

[SS2.]

saaby93 said:

Is the only difference the extra effort to SORN/deSORN?

Have a read - s.22 Road Safety Act 2006.

[oldsoak]

I think we need to keep our feet on the ground and not read into this far more than is intended...the what if's and however's have no place here nor has agenda driven hysteria.

We are all aware that uninsured vehicles and their drivers are the scourge of the roads and the misery and expense to innocent and legally insured these twonks cause us every year doesn't bear thinking about...This legislation is I believe, aimed primarily at removing the vehicles these people use without having to wait to catch them driving one on a public road. Are we not in favour of doing that now?

I for one welcome any and all legislation that aims to rid us of the 'uninsured driver curse' that has been with us for so long.
If you keep uninsured vehicles legally now, you will still do that after this legislation comes into effect. At the worst (AFAICT) the only bit of inconvenience will be having to SORN the vehicle (if you ain't already doing that).
Mistakes will undoubtedly be made but mistakes happen in all walks of life, its part of life's rich tapestry to err.
I venture to suggest that the only people who should be complaining about this are those who currently sail up and down our roads in vehicles that are in no way shape or form insured so to do.
If that sounds a bit Orwellian to you it really wasn't intended to, so lets not indulge in the 'if you don't do anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about' arguments again please.

[EU_Foreigner]

If the UK insurance racket was made the same as on the continent it would be so much easier. Over there, the car is insured - not the person.

So the case of the person his mum's / uncle's etc car and not being insured would not be possible then.

[oldsoak]

EU_Foreigner said:

If the UK insurance racket was made the same as on the continent it would be so much easier. Over there, the car is insured - not the person.

So the case of the person his mum's / uncle's etc car and not being insured would not be possible then.

The car is insured over here too. That's what this is supposed to make sure happens in all cases where it should.
It means that 'Johnny Criminal' can't avoid paying insurance and just SORN his car and still use it on a road when he feels like it.