Uninsured driving consultation closing

[safespeed]

The Official consultation into a power of seizure for uninsured vehicles is closing today.

Official document:
www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/pdf/dft_rdsafety_pdf_032269.pdf

Safe Speed response:
www.safespeed.org.uk/uninsured.doc

In brief I believe that the power of seizure would represent a criminal penalty that should not be applied without a prior court hearing. Neither do I believe that the power of seizure would affect the problem. The numbers simply don't add up.

Instead I recommend a new investigation into radical solutions, including adding an insurance premium to fuel duty. No more uninsured driving. No significant resources used.

If anyone wants to use the Safe Speed response as a template, please feel free. I expect they will still accept responses on Monday morning despite the fact that the consultation officially closes today.

[monster1]

Paul,

You argument for placing an additional premium on petrol to cover all vehicles third party is seriously flawed.

All that this would do is take any personal responsibility away from each driver. You could drive as fast as you like, hit as many cars as you like and never be in fear of getting points on your licence that will increase your premium.

The chances of getting caught for any motoring offence would stay the same but until I had reached 12 points I would have nothing to worry about. Even if I reached 12 points and got a month ban I could then get back into any sports car and speed off, knowing that if I hit anybody I would be insured.

The current points systems places responsibility onto each driver to keep their licence clean so as to reduce insurance premiums.

You have a valid point on the structure of the system to seize vehicles but remember that the person driving the vehicle that has been seized will also be given 6 points. If he still decides to drive then the second vehicle will be seized and he will also be disqualified.

This system will not take up much more time for police as local contractors are instructed to remove these vehicles. I have studied the reports given by Yorkshire, West Cumbria and Liverpool and these schemes have been working very well.

As to your argument on Human rights, “Criminal penalties may only be applied after a trial”. What about the fixed penalty system? The penalty has already been written in statute. There is always a system to appeal and this shall be the same with the seizure of vehicles.

Your argument on adding additional premium to petrol would in effect over triple the cost of petrol as the ‘law abiding’ motorist would be paying for the ‘dangerous’ motorist. Also the ‘law abiding’ motorist would be stung with an additional insurance policy to cover their vehicle fully comprehensive.

You would effectually be penalising the motorist that use their vehicles the most i.e. the motorists on this forum.

The trade in illegal fuels will go through the roof as will the siphoning of petrol from our vehicles and drive outs from petrol stations.

Lets be reasonable about this. Those who choose to drive without insurance should be targeted and they should be in fear of losing their vehicles. There is always the possibility that you may forget to renew your insurance. Your vehicle may still be taken away but remember, not all vehicles that are seized are crushed. All the driver has to do is get insurance then produce this to collect their car (storage fee around £105). So they would get the £200 fixed penalty and 6 points for no insurance, £105 storage and then the cost of the insurance policy.

There should be no reason to ‘forget’ to renew your policy as each insurer will send out renewal quotes and reminders.

I admire your commitment to get the best for the honest motorist but I think on this one you are playing on the wrong side.

[Pigeon]

I think that argument only works if avoiding insurance-related hassles is the major reason for wanting to avoid a crash. I'd have thought the possibilities of death, injury or just the sheer inconvenience of having to drag your car out of the ditch and find some alternative transport would be enough...

AFAIK in Australia petrol prices do include insurance, and it seems to work there.

[flashheart]

I was under the impression that we all paid artificially high insurance premiums anyway. This additional money goes into a big pot to compensate those who are victims of ininsured drivers. Yes, it is penalising those of us who abide by the law and do insure our vehicles, but is it any different to Council Tax?

I am in total favour of seizure and destruction, with big points and hefty fines. EVERYBODY knows they have to insure their car, EVERYBODY knows they have to MOT their car and EVERYBODY knows they have to tax their car. If you cannot sort your life out and make 3 simple payments a year then, frankly, you deserve everything you get.

I do not believe in this 'breach of Human Rights' crap either - we ALL KNOW what the law is. If we choose to step outside of the law we should do so knowing that we waive any HR protection. A burglar knows he should not be in your house so why shouldn't he get a kicking? (Sorry can of worms)

In Saudi, if you are caught stealing they cut your hand off - you will only do it twice.

Draconian, yes but I am sick to death of honest, hard-working, law-abiding people getting stung/ripped off and penalised by the minority who avoid the law.

I'll shut-up now!

[safespeed]

monster1 said:

Paul, You argument for placing an additional premium on petrol to cover all vehicles third party is seriously flawed. All that this would do is take any personal responsibility away from each driver. You could drive as fast as you like, hit as many cars as you like and never be in fear of getting points on your licence that will increase your premium.

I don't think I can be "wrong" in calling for an idea to be fully evaluated - because that's all I'm doing. And it works well in South Africa.

If the law is to provide punishment for driving offences, it's fairly bizarre to rely on an insurance company to do the job. Do you really think that's a good argument?

Those of us with newer or more cherished vehicles would still buy "comprehensive" insurance. It'd only be the third party element that'd be charged on fuel.

I do regard uninsured driving as a serious offence. That's one of the main reasons I'd like to think we could consign it to the history books.

I don't think the number on seizures work at all. Oddles of police resources used, and the problem remains the same. I'd rather those Police resources were used on road safety.