Not insured for commuting mismatch and odd behaviour??

[MitchT]

Just read the OP. Rather contradicts arguments in the "The of Amazon Echo" thread that the police are short on resource. This lot appear to have far too much time on their hands ... and big egos the massage.

[caelite]

Wildfire said:

Now I can understand this if I was a "yoof" on a scooter or heap of a commuter, but this is a new Ducati Monster, clean and shiny and I produced everything they asked for, but they seemed intent on trying to find something.

Sorry but, you where harassed by a couple of jobsworth officers, I doubt many here will disagree with that. But why does your financial means grant you any more right than anybody else to go about your business unperturbed by overreaching law enforcement? It's attitudes like this which are the reason why police with actions like this are allowed to get away with it 99% of the time.

[PorkInsider]

mjb1 said:

Maybe this has been added recently, and that's why there seems to be a crackdown on it, or maybe he was just bluffing to see if you'd crack?

You'd think they'd already have enough on pulling people with no insurance whatsoever, though, without pulling random people to argue whether their policy covers the exact activity they're undertaking at that moment.

Given the number of uninsured vehicles we're told are on our roads their ANPR must be pinging its bks off and gives them a much better chance of catching someone who really is uninsured.

[Green1man]

caelite said:

. But why does your financial means grant you any more right than anybody else to go about your business unperturbed by overreaching law enforcement? It's attitudes like this which are the reason why police with actions like this are allowed to get away with it 99% of the time.

I think you missed his point, nothing to do with financial means. He's not complaining about being pulled over initially, it's the time then took looking at the bike etc, What is the chance of finding things wrong with a 1 year old bike, what's the chance of a 1 year old Ducati not being insured. Is this an effective use of scarce police resources?

[GC8]

Wildfire said:

He left saying that they would come back to my house that evening and take the bike if it was found that I was not insured for commuting..

No he cant, and I suspect that he has a tiny penis. I don't believe that he could ever have taken it and even if he could, he couldn't have influenced what happened to it (youd get it back on production of the same certificate).

Id complain but youll probably meet obstruction and inertia, which is surprising because most decent policemen have probably cringed when they read this, and would be happier without tools like this as colleagues.

[2Btoo]

Wildfire said:

Cop: (looks at his hand held thing): My computer says social and domestic use. No commuting.

Me: I definitely have commuting, it was only £20 more. (Shows cop insurance cert on phone, which shows SDP and commuting).

Cop: My computer says you don't have commuting. If you don't have it we'll take your bike and crush it and you'll be charged with riding with no insurance.

I had a similar discussion with a copper the other day when driving a colleague's car home. I was stopped for an unrelated reason (leaving a secure site) and asked whether I was insured to drive the car. I said I was and he asked me for the details of my own car so he could look up the insurance policy on it. His system said I wasn't insured to drive other cars but admitted that his system was sometimes wrong. I replied that I was completely confident that I was although had no certificate to show. He believed me and let me drive on.

(For reference, I contacted my insurance company later to make sure I was right and I do indeed have such cover. Copper's system was wrong.)

OP- it sounds like the copper who stopped you was either having a bad day or was looking for something else. I'm not prying but would they have had any other reason to stop you?

[Dr Jekyll]

Perhaps a clean shiny Ducati looks like a weekend bike pressed into commuting service as a one off rather than a commuting hack, hence the insurance question.

[poo at Paul's]

I'd have been inclined to show them the certificate, ask if iwas being arrested or detained, if not, just put my lid on and ride off. They're not allowed to pursue you at any speed, you'd done nowt wrong from what you say, showed them the docs, then just leave. What can they do?

Arrest you, seize the bike, be shown to be out of order, and sued!


Surely there must be more to this.

[FlabbyMidgets]

Any updates?

[dacouch]

mickmcpaddy said:

If you show the police a copy of a valid certificate then that removes any rights the copper has to seizing the vehicle, despite whether he thinks the car is uninsured or not, even if he thinks the certificate is a forgery.

I cant find a link at the moment but there was a case a while ago involving Saga insurance and a borrowed car, the bloke that was stopped had a letter from his friend giving permission to drive and had the cert on him with DOC permission. The copper was having none of it and seized the car, from what I remember the overriding factor was he showed the copper the cert and that should have been the end of it.

Pryor v Greater Manchester Police is the case you are referring to.

The recent(ish) change in the law to recognise a Certificate of Insurance downloaded digitally to your phone etc as a legal document in the eyes of the RTA and thus a "Relevant Certificate"

[InitialDave]

They sound like a right pair of knobs, to be honest.

I wonder if they're as thorough when it comes to bikes being pinched.

[the tribester]

My commuting cover says 'journey to permanent place of work' so I wouldn't be able to drive to different client locations every day. Maybe the officers' insurance says the same so he was hoping to prove yours did too.

They cannot seize and crush your bike, you can get it back on production of valid insurance. Probably the same document you've already shown!

[catso]

It always seems odd to me that UK insurance companies are such arses, nitpicking over what's covered and what's not?

What's wrong with just insuring a vehicle and it being insured, whether going to work, carrying a passenger or even another person riding/driving it?

I don't know if it's just the UK insurance industry that is so particular? but, for example I can visit my Sister in Italy and drive her car whilst being fully insured on her policy, not dependent on who, why, how far and to where I am driving, as long as I have a valid licence. Similarly in the USA, I've borrowed a friend's car with no issues.

So why do our insurance companies have to make it so darn difficult?...

[exelero]

It's all about the money Mr Dick, and about the rip off.

[Gareth79]

the tribester said:

They cannot seize and crush your bike, you can get it back on production of valid insurance. Probably the same document you've already shown!

And even then, I recall the guidelines are that vehicles should only be crushed if they would be dangerous to be back on the road or the storage/auction costs would exceed the vehicle's value. When the vehicle is sold the proceeds less costs are returned to the owner.

[Sheepshanks]

catso said:

.". but, for example I can visit my Sister in Italy and drive her car whilst being fully insured on her policy, not dependent on who, why, how far and to where I am driving, as long as I have a valid licence. Similarly in the USA, I've borrowed a friend's car with no issues.

So why do our insurance companies have to make it so darn difficult?...

Most drivers pay a lot less here than elsewhere. Colleague in Germany pays €1000/yr for his 5 Series. My Merc is £250.

[4rephill]

Hmmm....... I wonder if the OP failed the attitude test?

Wildfire said:

..........Cop #1: Where are you going?

Me: Work

Cop: Where do you work?

Me: Gives him location of site I am off to today (I'm a contractor / have no fixed place of work and choose my own hours)

Cop: What do you do and who do you work for?

Me: Why?

Cop: Just answer the question.

Me: I don't see how it's relevant.......

Why question the relevance of the Officer's inquiry?

That gives the Officer the impression that you are being a bit evasive, leading him to wonder if you really work on that site, or if it just some random location that you suspect they won't bother checking out, and it comes across as you questioning his authority, instantly giving an attitude test fail.

Most people would, I suspect, just simply answer the question with an honest answer rather than questioning it's relevance, I know I would.

And to be fair to the Officer, plenty of people don't realise that they need to have commuting to work on their policies, and drive daily to work and back, technically uninsured.

I bet quite a few people have a car for daily transport, which they use for commuting to work and back, and a nice motorbike (such as a Ducati for example ), for a bit of weekend/evening fun.

The car may well be specifically insured for commuting to work, but the bike isn't because it isn't going to used for commuting. Then the sun comes out for a week and the owner decides: "I'm going to ride the bike to work this week and enjoy the ride!", not realising that it's not actually insured for that purpose.

I suspect the Officer in the OP's situation thought that would be the case because he sees it all too often, and it catches loads of people out (at the end of the day, whether you drive/ ride without the correct insurance knowingly or unknowingly, it's still the same offence)

Had it turned out that the OP was not correctly insured to commute to work and back on his bike, I wonder how many on here would be making their: "Huh!......Haven't the Police got better things to do?" posts?

And should those same people be involved in an accident with someone who it turns out did not have the correct insurance at the time, then they will be the first to post on here how the Police should catch them and get them off the roads!

As I read the OP's post, fair play to the Officer for checking that the correct insurance was in place!

As for the rest of what happened, that all sounds to Me as though the OP did fail the attitude test!

[James_B]

Sheepshanks said:

I wonder why some police officer still behave like this? Many ordinary folks only encounter with the police will be over traffic matters and my view of the police is still coloured by encounters with absolute aholes of coppers 30 yrs ago.

It's toxic to the public faith in police, and damages society because of this.

I was brought up to be absolutely respectful of and to police, and that's how I used to be, but a few interactions when I was doing absolutely nothing wrong have knocked that out of me a bit.

One where I was doing something arguably a little bit wrong (passed an off duty officer on the exit to a roundabout on my scooter, when he was on his "proper" bike), resulted in being screamed at for ten minutes after he forced me into a relatively hard stop, about how I was probably uninsured, and what would my family think if I died, and then him checking everything, twice, while being an utter cock.

I didn't help thing out by pointing out, politely at the end, that if it was risk of bereavement that concerned him then him being the best part of twenty stone was significantly more dangerous than me riding my scooter in a slightly spirited fashion.

He properly lost it at that point, telling me "I know where you work, don't you forget that".

I explained that ai knew where he worked too, and left, with my faith in the police dented just that little bit more.

[Tomo1971]

Could have been an over zealous Special Constable - and yes, SC's do operate for some forces RPU divisions.

[PorkInsider]

4rephill said:

Had it turned out that the OP was not correctly insured to commute to work and back on his bike, I wonder how many on here would be making their: "Huh!......Haven't the Police got better things to do?" posts?

Where are these posts you speak of?