Should speed cameras check tax, insurance and MOT?
Discussion
What do you think? Should speed cameras check for more than speed? Sensible enforcement or surveillance state?
IAM Roadsmart said:
The UK’s largest independent road safety charity, IAM RoadSmart, is highlighting to the police, councils and safety partnerships that the overwhelming majority of UK motorists support the use of safety camera technology to check for insurance, MOT and road tax offences.
Indeed, research conducted by the charity in the annual Safety Culture Report, which gauges drivers’ attitudes to key road safety issues over time, revealed that nearly 9 in 10 (89%) of over 2,000 motorists surveyed supported the idea of safety cameras being used to spot those who decide to flout the rules and drive illegally on public roads without the required documentation.
Indeed, research conducted by the charity in the annual Safety Culture Report, which gauges drivers’ attitudes to key road safety issues over time, revealed that nearly 9 in 10 (89%) of over 2,000 motorists surveyed supported the idea of safety cameras being used to spot those who decide to flout the rules and drive illegally on public roads without the required documentation.
Salted_Peanut said:
Pica-Pica said:
Why not a fuel tax that covers all, including third party cover?
Now that's far too sensible for an internet forum. Stop with all this sensibleness and start ranting and raving 
vonhosen said:
Salted_Peanut said:
Pica-Pica said:
Why not a fuel tax that covers all, including third party cover?
Now that's far too sensible for an internet forum. Stop with all this sensibleness and start ranting and raving Aretnap said:
vonhosen said:
Salted_Peanut said:
Pica-Pica said:
Why not a fuel tax that covers all, including third party cover?
Now that's far too sensible for an internet forum. Stop with all this sensibleness and start ranting and raving 18 year old with a drink driving disqualification and 6 at fault accidents buying a ropey chipped up bmw with 400bhp (for 3 minutes) fully insured by siphoning off his neighbors supper unleaded, can’t see any downside to that .
On a side note they do operate something like that in New Zealand, and lots of kids run around in modified motors, not sure exactly how it works
On a side note they do operate something like that in New Zealand, and lots of kids run around in modified motors, not sure exactly how it works
matjk said:
18 year old with a drink driving disqualification and 6 at fault accidents buying a ropey chipped up bmw with 400bhp (for 3 minutes) fully insured by siphoning off his neighbors super unleaded, can’t see any downside to that .
On a side note they do operate something like that in New Zealand, and lots of kids run around in modified motors, not sure exactly how it works
On a side note they do operate something like that in New Zealand, and lots of kids run around in modified motors, not sure exactly how it works
Vehicle insurance in NZ only covers hardware, all personal injuries (ie ALL bodily injuries) are covered by the Accident Compensation Corporation.
Therefore insurance is not compulsory - which makes things so much easier.
Supposedly any vehicle on finance is supposed to be insured - but I don't think it is a criminal offence if you don't have it.
Generally I don't bother with insurance these days.
caziques said:
Vehicle insurance in NZ only covers hardware, all personal injuries (ie ALL bodily injuries) are covered by the Accident Compensation Corporation.
Therefore insurance is not compulsory - which makes things so much easier.
Supposedly any vehicle on finance is supposed to be insured - but I don't think it is a criminal offence if you don't have it.
Generally I don't bother with insurance these days.
In the same way that it is a condition of my mortgage that I have building insurance, once I've paid off the loan I don't have to have it. Therefore insurance is not compulsory - which makes things so much easier.
Supposedly any vehicle on finance is supposed to be insured - but I don't think it is a criminal offence if you don't have it.
Generally I don't bother with insurance these days.
Seems like a viable alternative.
The problem is that speeding over the posted limit is a very easy clear cut offence for the speed camera partnerships to deal with.
I don't think it's a simple matter of dealing with the databases to find no tax/insurance/MOT. They are going to find the admin work to be huge:
no tax - just bought vehicle and have taxed it
no insurance - again just bought vehicle and insured it, driving other cars
no MOT - going to/from a prebooked MOT
I don't think it's a simple matter of dealing with the databases to find no tax/insurance/MOT. They are going to find the admin work to be huge:
no tax - just bought vehicle and have taxed it
no insurance - again just bought vehicle and insured it, driving other cars
no MOT - going to/from a prebooked MOT
Pica-Pica said:
I have always felt that having multiple taxes/duties/insurance on cars is inefficient. Why not a fuel tax that covers all, including third party cover?
This forum is full of threads moaning about DVLA response times. Let's just add the third party cover for 35 million cars into the equation. Thousands of claims a day! Yeah, I'm sure a govt dept is the best way of handling that. 
Aretnap said:
vonhosen said:
Salted_Peanut said:
Pica-Pica said:
Why not a fuel tax that covers all, including third party cover?
Now that's far too sensible for an internet forum. Stop with all this sensibleness and start ranting and raving As it makes the cost of third party insurance directly proportional to fuel usage, it does of course mean those who do lots of miles or have thirsty cars pay more than those who have an eco-car for 10 miles a week.
Having experienced the joy of having a parked car driven into by an uninsured driver who drove off and never had his collar felt, I'm all for it.
donkmeister said:
Having experienced the joy of having a parked car driven into by an uninsured driver who drove off and never had his collar felt, I'm all for it.
But unless you knew who the culprit was, it wouldn't help you. You'd have no third party to claim against. You'd be in exactly the same boat, needing to claim off your own comp insurance cover. donkmeister said:
As it makes the cost of third party insurance directly proportional to fuel usage, it does of course mean those who do lots of miles or have thirsty cars pay more than those who have an eco-car for 10 miles a week.
It would also mean that a 19 y/o with 5 previous accidents and a drink drive offence doing 100 miles a week would pay less than 55 y/o Mrs Miggins doing 150 miles a week in the same car. It would also mean young drivers with poor records being able to run high performance cars and manage their insurance costs, so a big increase in the numbers of KSI accidents. And it would mean haulage firms, with artics filling up with 1200 litres at a time, would pay a fortune, that would eventually have to be paid for by the consumer with higher costs of goods.
It's a terrible idea.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
donkmeister said:
Having experienced the joy of having a parked car driven into by an uninsured driver who drove off and never had his collar felt, I'm all for it.
But unless you knew who the culprit was, it wouldn't help you. You'd have no third party to claim against. You'd be in exactly the same boat, needing to claim off your own comp insurance cover. donkmeister said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
donkmeister said:
Having experienced the joy of having a parked car driven into by an uninsured driver who drove off and never had his collar felt, I'm all for it.
But unless you knew who the culprit was, it wouldn't help you. You'd have no third party to claim against. You'd be in exactly the same boat, needing to claim off your own comp insurance cover. 
iness with legislation. IAM Roadsmart said:
The UK’s largest independent road safety charity, IAM RoadSmart, is highlighting to the police, councils and safety partnerships that the overwhelming majority of UK motorists support the use of safety camera technology to check for insurance, MOT and road tax offences.
Indeed, research conducted by the charity in the annual Safety Culture Report, which gauges drivers’ attitudes to key road safety issues over time, revealed that nearly 9 in 10 (89%) of over 2,000 motorists surveyed supported the idea of safety cameras being used to spot those who decide to flout the rules and drive illegally on public roads without the required documentation.
Indeed, research conducted by the charity in the annual Safety Culture Report, which gauges drivers’ attitudes to key road safety issues over time, revealed that nearly 9 in 10 (89%) of over 2,000 motorists surveyed supported the idea of safety cameras being used to spot those who decide to flout the rules and drive illegally on public roads without the required documentation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff