RE: Time Up for Uninsured Drivers
Discussion
Well, that's me ****ed then.
I've got eight bikes. Often they're taxed, but not insured; why insure a bike until you're actually going to use it?
This could easily cost me well over £1k a year in total.
Wonder if someone in the insurance industry has been pushing for this.
[quote]This is another typical piece of New Labour rubbish designed to solve a genuine problem by fining people who are doing no wrong nor causing any harm, but who have omitted some piece in a bureaucratic paper chase and who they believe can afford to pay. Instead of requiring the police to stop form filling and actually stop neds out on the road with neither tax, insurance, an MOT or anything else. That of course is too much like hard work and involves risk.
[/quote]
Indeed.. I can't help thinking "Outlaw it and you make outlaws of the people doing it"... how many people are going to just register vehicles in fake names etc and not bother at all.
I've got eight bikes. Often they're taxed, but not insured; why insure a bike until you're actually going to use it?
This could easily cost me well over £1k a year in total.
Wonder if someone in the insurance industry has been pushing for this.
[quote]This is another typical piece of New Labour rubbish designed to solve a genuine problem by fining people who are doing no wrong nor causing any harm, but who have omitted some piece in a bureaucratic paper chase and who they believe can afford to pay. Instead of requiring the police to stop form filling and actually stop neds out on the road with neither tax, insurance, an MOT or anything else. That of course is too much like hard work and involves risk.
[/quote]
Indeed.. I can't help thinking "Outlaw it and you make outlaws of the people doing it"... how many people are going to just register vehicles in fake names etc and not bother at all.
SlimJ said:
blueST said:
My Father is restoring an old MG. It is not insured as it is currently reduced to it's component parts in the garage, and has been for 10 plus years. Does this mean his car will now have to be insured?
No, as I guess it will be SORN'd 
Read the article.
So let me understand this...... Some paper pusher in Whitehall went around and counted all the insured cars and then counted all the cars on the road in the country and by an amazing skill in basic math came to the conclusion that the difference between the two figures must mean that there are X number of cars being driven on our roads without insurance.
The logic would sound good to me if it didn't pre-suppose that all cars without insurance would be on the road.
Now thinking about this a little longer two thoughts popped into my head, the government wants old cars off the road and for us to buy new energy efficient ones this helps with its commitment to the other G countries to lower it's carbon emissions and helps to stimulate sales in a failing motor industry. the second thought was considering that all insurance is now taxed, just how much will the government be making by doing this?
I'm all for getting uninsured drivers off the road, but not at the expense of another of our civil liberties.
We have already seen the anti terrorism laws being used to bully smaller countries and their banks as well as by councils for spying on people, what makes me think this isn't just another step towards dictatorship?
The logic would sound good to me if it didn't pre-suppose that all cars without insurance would be on the road.
Now thinking about this a little longer two thoughts popped into my head, the government wants old cars off the road and for us to buy new energy efficient ones this helps with its commitment to the other G countries to lower it's carbon emissions and helps to stimulate sales in a failing motor industry. the second thought was considering that all insurance is now taxed, just how much will the government be making by doing this?
I'm all for getting uninsured drivers off the road, but not at the expense of another of our civil liberties.
We have already seen the anti terrorism laws being used to bully smaller countries and their banks as well as by councils for spying on people, what makes me think this isn't just another step towards dictatorship?
As I've said many, many times, as have others, this is all easily fixed by including third-party insurance (and road tax) in fuel taxation.
I don't really care what the downsides of that approach are; the upside is that everybody is insured, and all of this ludicrous totalitarian "enforcement" machine is finally removed.
A new government won't help here - the Civil Service aren't elected, and aren't accountable, but it is they who propose these policies to ministers. Surprisingly, few such policies involve reducing civil service headcount.
I don't really care what the downsides of that approach are; the upside is that everybody is insured, and all of this ludicrous totalitarian "enforcement" machine is finally removed.
A new government won't help here - the Civil Service aren't elected, and aren't accountable, but it is they who propose these policies to ministers. Surprisingly, few such policies involve reducing civil service headcount.
skwdenyer said:
Err no it wouldn't be. It is not covered by SORN as it has been off the road since before SORN came into being.
In which case it doesn't even appear on the SORN / Road Tax database. Anyway, you can get 'off-road' insurance specifically designed for classic car restorers and kit-car builders. What if a garage was broken into and some very valuable or hard to trace parts were stolen? Its very cheap too because there is no on-road risk. Probably less than £100 a year.
This country is becoming more like the film 'minority report' whereby you are actually found guilty of a crime before you commit it. Yes, I am totally anti un-insured drivers, and I think anyone found driveing without insurance should be dealt with in the appropriate manner. But being fined without the car being on the road? That is just another tax. Yes, if you SORN the vehicle it doesn't get the fine, but I for one have a motorbike that is taxed all year round, but only insured for use on the road from March to October, or thereabouts. Added to which, if you have more than one vehicle, trying to remember to sorn them when not in use is sometimes overlooked, especially when the vehicle is a project in bits etc. And yet, there is no real offence being commited. People should have stood up to the government when the SORN idea was first introduced as that was a fine for not taxing your vehicle, even if not on the road. Before anyone says that all fines could be avoided by filling in the SORN or whatever forms they come up with next, just remember that in todays busy life, some things get over looked, yet no harm/offence is really committed. And it won't be long until there are more forms to complete when the government don't earn enough from this latest scam. However, easy way out? Don't ever register a car to your name, and the system can't find you. Drive with stolen/copied plates off a car with tax and insurance and ANPR won't catch you either. Simple.
And in response to the person who got fined for the X1/9 on the road for no insurance, the road traffic act states that all vehicles on the public highway must be taxed, MoT'd (if applicable) and insured against third party risks. Therefore the offence was commited without driving, just by being there. So while it is harsh to get caught, it is also fair when you were breaking the law.
And in response to the person who got fined for the X1/9 on the road for no insurance, the road traffic act states that all vehicles on the public highway must be taxed, MoT'd (if applicable) and insured against third party risks. Therefore the offence was commited without driving, just by being there. So while it is harsh to get caught, it is also fair when you were breaking the law.
Its time car tax in total was abolished, the loss would be compensated by an increase in fuel duty. More you drive more you pay. No need to bother with the hassle of getting and cashing in tax disks.
Should also be a cost saving for the treasury and it would also cost the immigrants with their untaxed cars as well.
The MOT is now computerised and so is insurance, ANPR cameras (which are springing up everywhere) can take care of handing out the fines to offenders.
SORN would then need to apply to insurance rather than tax.
Sorted!
redstu said:
Its time car tax in total was abolished, the loss would be compensated by an increase in fuel duty. More you drive more you pay. No need to bother with the hassle of getting and cashing in tax disks.
Should also be a cost saving for the treasury and it would also cost the immigrants with their untaxed cars as well.
The MOT is now computerised and so is insurance, ANPR cameras (which are springing up everywhere) can take care of handing out the fines to offenders.
SORN would then need to apply to insurance rather than tax.
Sorted!
Sorry mate but that is far too simple and removes the opportunity for control and criminalising everyone to get more money through fines!Should also be a cost saving for the treasury and it would also cost the immigrants with their untaxed cars as well.
The MOT is now computerised and so is insurance, ANPR cameras (which are springing up everywhere) can take care of handing out the fines to offenders.
SORN would then need to apply to insurance rather than tax.
Sorted!
Doesn't anyone in government ever actually think?
Mr. Upright Citizen is either fined for having a taxed, but uninsured, car in the garage, or must declare SORN.
Mr. Uninsured Driver buys a car for cash, gives a false name and address to the vendor, the vendor informs the DVLA of change of ownership. Mr. U. Driver is free to drive without insurance until spotted by ANPR or stopped by the police (as was the case before this new legislation).
Law-abiding Mr. U. Citizen is affected.
Criminal Mr. U. Driver is not affected.
Another piece of legislation in the long list of recent laws which inconvenience the law-abiding while leaving the criminal unaffected.
As already pointed out, government now appears to be about appearing to do something, regardless of whether that "something" has any effect.
Mr. Upright Citizen is either fined for having a taxed, but uninsured, car in the garage, or must declare SORN.
Mr. Uninsured Driver buys a car for cash, gives a false name and address to the vendor, the vendor informs the DVLA of change of ownership. Mr. U. Driver is free to drive without insurance until spotted by ANPR or stopped by the police (as was the case before this new legislation).
Law-abiding Mr. U. Citizen is affected.
Criminal Mr. U. Driver is not affected.
Another piece of legislation in the long list of recent laws which inconvenience the law-abiding while leaving the criminal unaffected.
As already pointed out, government now appears to be about appearing to do something, regardless of whether that "something" has any effect.
Edited by gareth_r on Friday 23 January 13:07
Horse_Apple said:
Soovy said:
Horse_Apple said:
Crushing all uninsured or untaxed vehicles (and taking an axe to the hands of the offenders?) would do more to aid congestion and road safety than any other innitiative.
But it would be unpopular with Labour voters who run them.
enda-mmg said:
ok so i've not a BMW 325i regestered in my name taxed and mot'd...
i drive a 306 and im insured fully comp therefore i am able to drive the 325...
so, are these mew laws going to affect me...HELP!!!
You do realise that you CANNOT drive your BMW 325 on your 306's insurance, dont you?i drive a 306 and im insured fully comp therefore i am able to drive the 325...
so, are these mew laws going to affect me...HELP!!!
When you are covered to drive other cars 3rd party only by your fully comp policy, it does not include cars that you are the registered owner of.
Also the other car must have its own insurance policy on it.
This is to stop people doing exactly what you are!!!
Otherwise I could only insure one of my cars, but have a fleet of 50 others uninsured. IE: someone could buy and insure a banger, then go out and buy a Ferrari, not insure it, but drive it on the other policy.
Saab_of_Doom said:
The law only affect people who follow the rules as always.
Short of some kind of orwellian seizing of all unregistered vehicles and crushing them I don't really see any way that the government can stop uninsured drivers.
Uninsured drivers = scum.
The police are currently empowered to do just that and perfectly good cars are getting crushed every day!!Short of some kind of orwellian seizing of all unregistered vehicles and crushing them I don't really see any way that the government can stop uninsured drivers.
Uninsured drivers = scum.
It's just another way of raising money .. good old New Labour.
No reason why they should not use speed cameras and ANPR to cross check the DVLA and insurers database to see actual vehicles in use without insurance.
This as usual is taxing the majority and those actually guilty of the problem will probably find a way of not paying anyway. Skum IMHO.
No reason why they should not use speed cameras and ANPR to cross check the DVLA and insurers database to see actual vehicles in use without insurance.
This as usual is taxing the majority and those actually guilty of the problem will probably find a way of not paying anyway. Skum IMHO.
rev-erend said:
No reason why they should not use speed cameras and ANPR to cross check the DVLA and insurers database to see actual vehicles in use without insurance.
Both systems, of course, being completely infallible with 100% accurate and correct data. And nobody use false plates or details. 
rev-erend said:
It's just another way of raising money .. good old New Labour.
No reason why they should not use speed cameras and ANPR to cross check the DVLA and insurers database to see actual vehicles in use without insurance.
This as usual is taxing the majority and those actually guilty of the problem will probably find a way of not paying anyway. Skum IMHO.
I work in Insurance and was responsible with many other senior systems analysts and designers for the design of the car insurance data interfaces for the Motor Insurers Database. This is the database that the Police have access to every time they do a numberplate recognition check be it automated or manual.No reason why they should not use speed cameras and ANPR to cross check the DVLA and insurers database to see actual vehicles in use without insurance.
This as usual is taxing the majority and those actually guilty of the problem will probably find a way of not paying anyway. Skum IMHO.
If you think that is big brother THEN listen to this! - because soon uninsured drivers will not have anywhere to hide and will be nicked within minutes or strating their engines.
Streaming video is the future - ustream.com etc and pretty soon everyone will be live streaming from their mobile phones. The police already use live streaming interfaced with APNR to send the datastream to the MID. The MID sends all the data back to the police officer or automated system in the field, which includes all the driver details that you give when you apply online for a policy and the car details and the policy cover details. this can then be matched against the Police and national criminal intelligence databases. This is live now and is helping to catch many crims as well as stopping people without car insurance.
The vision of the near future is very BIG brother and enables the Police to determine false number plates instantly - the technology is already being tested!
If you want to read more about ultimate Big Brother on our roads visit my blog at : http://www.car-insurance.tv/carinsuranceblog Car Insurance Blog
There's nowhere for the crims to hide!!
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff