Headline: Motorist has to pay £135
Discussion
This is the headline in the court hearing section of my local paper. A 25 yr old driver admitted driving a car without insurance and otherwise than in accordance with a licence and failing to produce an MOT test certificate. He was ordered to pay £100 fine and £35 costs and had 6 points put on his licence.
Let me get this right... here's a driver with no MOT and no Insurance and he's fined about the same amount as 2 weeks insurance for the average young driver (last year, aged 24, I paid about £2000 in car insurance).
Where's the justice here? What incentive is there to insure or MOT (and hence maintain) your car? If I get caught 20 times a year (very bad luck) then I'm not out of pocket. The lad who has just received this fine is even less likely to buy insurance now that the cost will have spiralled with the 6 points he got, so he's probably going to go uninsured another year and risk another £100 (shock horror) fine.
I bet the fine dates back to 1950 when £100 was a lot of money. What's going on?
Daz
webmaster - barryboys.co.uk
Let me get this right... here's a driver with no MOT and no Insurance and he's fined about the same amount as 2 weeks insurance for the average young driver (last year, aged 24, I paid about £2000 in car insurance).
Where's the justice here? What incentive is there to insure or MOT (and hence maintain) your car? If I get caught 20 times a year (very bad luck) then I'm not out of pocket. The lad who has just received this fine is even less likely to buy insurance now that the cost will have spiralled with the 6 points he got, so he's probably going to go uninsured another year and risk another £100 (shock horror) fine.
I bet the fine dates back to 1950 when £100 was a lot of money. What's going on?
Daz
webmaster - barryboys.co.uk
alans said:
seems to be the going rate in Southampton magistrates court for no insurance, although a few weeks ago somebody got done for £25 I kid you not. my son is looking at paying 2.5K third party f&t for his first car
Blimey alan, whats his first car then 
. No 1 son (17) has quiet a few quotes around the £1K mark on a first car (pug306-1.4 £1.5K) in godsport.
Harry
It makes sense to be legit if you're fully comp, which I am on my 'zoom zoom' but my main car is 3PFT and costs me about £500 a year with a reasonably high excess too despite 4 yrs NCB. I could replace my car (just about) for £500 so surely I'm better off taking the risk of the £135 fine than renewing my insurance?
The problem is I'm old fashioned and have a conscience and couldn't brake the law in that way. However, I do see the motivation behind why so many do ....
The problem is I'm old fashioned and have a conscience and couldn't brake the law in that way. However, I do see the motivation behind why so many do ....
If he never had insurance and has no intention of getting insurance then the punishment is too lenient.
However, recently my son was asked to produce and discovered his MOT had expired (by 2 days) When he produced the documents he was cautioned for the offence of driving without insurance (because it was only valid if the car was MOT'd) In his case we're hoping for no points and less than £200 fine ....
However, recently my son was asked to produce and discovered his MOT had expired (by 2 days) When he produced the documents he was cautioned for the offence of driving without insurance (because it was only valid if the car was MOT'd) In his case we're hoping for no points and less than £200 fine ....
See this, you can get away with murder (almost) these days...
Different story for those caught speeding though, most would be happy with either ruling me thinks..
www.eveningnews24.co.uk/Content/News/story.asp?datetime=11+Dec+2003+12%3A06&tbrand=ENOnline&tCategory=NEWS&category=News&brand=ENOnline&itemid=NOED11+Dec+2003+12%3A07%3A50%3A080
Different story for those caught speeding though, most would be happy with either ruling me thinks..
www.eveningnews24.co.uk/Content/News/story.asp?datetime=11+Dec+2003+12%3A06&tbrand=ENOnline&tCategory=NEWS&category=News&brand=ENOnline&itemid=NOED11+Dec+2003+12%3A07%3A50%3A080
There doesn’t seem to be any consistency in sentencing. I stop a lad (18) who was riding a stolen moped. He failed to stop for Police, got chased for twenty minutes, cutting up every body. He was over the drink drive limit, no licence and no insurance.
He got a £75 fine and 12 month ban.
I got 2 ‘Police’ points on my licence for "ramming" him with the van !!
muley said:
However, recently my son was asked to produce and discovered his MOT had expired (by 2 days) When he produced the documents he was cautioned for the offence of driving without insurance (because it was only valid if the car was MOT'd) In his case we're hoping for no points and less than £200 fine ....
Did the police check the policy to see if the insurance would have been valid? Some only specify that the car must in a roadworthy condition, which is even sillier because the Road Traffic Act 1988 states that the condition of the vehicle cannot be used as a reason for insurers to invalidate third party liabiility, much the same way as they can't say that being drunk invalidates your policy.
Gareth
I agree it looks ridiculous when compared to the cost of Insurance.
Bear in mind that before Their Worships passed the sentence an enquiry would be made as to the financial standing of the accused. Prisons are full so no option there. What would be the point of fining him 1000 if he had no means to pay? Presumably they came up with a fiqure that he could pay with some hardship.
Our masters inform us that it is the fact that they are caught and convicted which is deterent/punishment in itself and the reason why hanging no longer applies for Murder.
DVD
Bear in mind that before Their Worships passed the sentence an enquiry would be made as to the financial standing of the accused. Prisons are full so no option there. What would be the point of fining him 1000 if he had no means to pay? Presumably they came up with a fiqure that he could pay with some hardship.
Our masters inform us that it is the fact that they are caught and convicted which is deterent/punishment in itself and the reason why hanging no longer applies for Murder.
DVD
Makes me sick to hear this sort of thing. The only up-side is that this particular pond-life specimen didn't (presumably) cause any damage to anyone else's car while driving without insurance.
The whole system sucks. A fine so small is stupid. Fineing the guy any more when he is impoverished is stupid. Car insurance going up as a result of being fined for not having car insurance is stupid, as he simply won't buy it next time. It is partially caused by car insurance being so pricey in the first place, but guess why this is - yup, it is because there are so many uninsured drivers driving around, causing hugely expensive claims!
The trouble is that people view being able to drive a car (and often a smart one at that) as a "Right", not a "Priviledge" (sp?). There should be some way of only allowing people with the necessary documentation to take to the road, and preventing the rest. (And I maintain, as with this and many other things, it is not the size of the punishment which will deter people from commiting crimes, it is the chance of them getting caught. While matey knows that he can drive for many years without insurance and get away with it, why shouldn't he? It makes astute financial common sense.)
And as for not being able to pay a larger fine ... it comes down to people being able to create more trouble than they can ever get themselves out of, financially. Bring back the poor-houses? What if this guy was given 6 months hard labour? Or publically flogged? (No, I'm not joking.)
Oli.
The whole system sucks. A fine so small is stupid. Fineing the guy any more when he is impoverished is stupid. Car insurance going up as a result of being fined for not having car insurance is stupid, as he simply won't buy it next time. It is partially caused by car insurance being so pricey in the first place, but guess why this is - yup, it is because there are so many uninsured drivers driving around, causing hugely expensive claims!
The trouble is that people view being able to drive a car (and often a smart one at that) as a "Right", not a "Priviledge" (sp?). There should be some way of only allowing people with the necessary documentation to take to the road, and preventing the rest. (And I maintain, as with this and many other things, it is not the size of the punishment which will deter people from commiting crimes, it is the chance of them getting caught. While matey knows that he can drive for many years without insurance and get away with it, why shouldn't he? It makes astute financial common sense.)
And as for not being able to pay a larger fine ... it comes down to people being able to create more trouble than they can ever get themselves out of, financially. Bring back the poor-houses? What if this guy was given 6 months hard labour? Or publically flogged? (No, I'm not joking.)
Oli.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff