Driving with no insurance - how come no automated NIP's?
Discussion
Probably a question that's been covered before, but..
AIUI it's pretty trivial to have cameras on gantry's and other locations doing nothing but scanning and recording the number plates of passing cars.
The insurance companies have a national database of which cars do/don't have insurance on them, the Police have access to it as it's how they do ANPR flags isn't it?
So how come that in the same way that millions of people get NIPs for speeding, the same isn't happening for driving without insurance?
AIUI it's pretty trivial to have cameras on gantry's and other locations doing nothing but scanning and recording the number plates of passing cars.
The insurance companies have a national database of which cars do/don't have insurance on them, the Police have access to it as it's how they do ANPR flags isn't it?
So how come that in the same way that millions of people get NIPs for speeding, the same isn't happening for driving without insurance?
And what about driving someone else's car on your own insurance. That won't be in the database either.
Conversely what about someone driving a car uninsured, but the car belongs to someone else who is insured to drive it? The car will show on the database as having insurance, but under these circumstances it is being driven illegally.
Conversely what about someone driving a car uninsured, but the car belongs to someone else who is insured to drive it? The car will show on the database as having insurance, but under these circumstances it is being driven illegally.
Edited by DIW35 on Saturday 8th December 14:48
So far as the database being wrong, possibly a silly question but how come it's not being "made to be right" as a matter of urgency (AIUI the number of drivers with no insurance is on the increase)?
As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
paddyhasneeds said:
So far as the database being wrong, possibly a silly question but how come it's not being "made to be right" as a matter of urgency (AIUI the number of drivers with no insurance is on the increase)?
As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
What about driving a car that is insured but you aren't one of the drivers who can use this plicy?The ANPR wouldn't pick this up...As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
esselte said:
paddyhasneeds said:
What about driving a car that is insured but you aren't one of the drivers who can use this plicy?The ANPR wouldn't pick this up...
Fair point, but in that scenario we're no worse off than we currently are, are we?It just seems strange that we have this problem, and seem to be doing little about it other than the occasional 30-strong mob of BiB in layby's and car parks etc. when it seems it should be relatively easy to police.
paddyhasneeds said:
Probably a question that's been covered before, but..
AIUI it's pretty trivial to have cameras on gantry's and other locations doing nothing but scanning and recording the number plates of passing cars.
The insurance companies have a national database of which cars do/don't have insurance on them, the Police have access to it as it's how they do ANPR flags isn't it?
So how come that in the same way that millions of people get NIPs for speeding, the same isn't happening for driving without insurance?
No insurance does not require a NIP to be given prior to summons.AIUI it's pretty trivial to have cameras on gantry's and other locations doing nothing but scanning and recording the number plates of passing cars.
The insurance companies have a national database of which cars do/don't have insurance on them, the Police have access to it as it's how they do ANPR flags isn't it?
So how come that in the same way that millions of people get NIPs for speeding, the same isn't happening for driving without insurance?
The offences that do are
1) Dangerous/careless/inconsiderate driving or cycling.
2) Dangerous position.
3) Offences under Sec 35 & 36 RTA 1988 (Failing to comply with traffic directions & signs)
4) Speeding.
paddyhasneeds said:
So far as the database being wrong, possibly a silly question but how come it's not being "made to be right" as a matter of urgency (AIUI the number of drivers with no insurance is on the increase)?
As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
depends on the wording of your policy. none of the ones ive ever had have required the car to be insured in its own right for me to drive it.As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
of course if you park it & leave it on the road & it hasnt got its own policy then it is illegal.
Excise Licence and speeding are offences that are cut and dried. No real argument otherwise.
Insurance debateable depending on what is in the policy so therefore not always cut and dried.
As VH states things will change when provision of Road Safety Act somes into force when continuous recording takers place i.e. when off the road then notification of that fact like SORN. Even then there could be argument as to state of Insurance.
dvd
Insurance debateable depending on what is in the policy so therefore not always cut and dried.
As VH states things will change when provision of Road Safety Act somes into force when continuous recording takers place i.e. when off the road then notification of that fact like SORN. Even then there could be argument as to state of Insurance.
dvd
paddyhasneeds said:
Probably a question that's been covered before, but..
AIUI it's pretty trivial to have cameras on gantry's and other locations doing nothing but scanning and recording the number plates of passing cars.
The insurance companies have a national database of which cars do/don't have insurance on them, the Police have access to it as it's how they do ANPR flags isn't it?
So how come that in the same way that millions of people get NIPs for speeding, the same isn't happening for driving without insurance?
Because the car isn't insured. You are AIUI it's pretty trivial to have cameras on gantry's and other locations doing nothing but scanning and recording the number plates of passing cars.
The insurance companies have a national database of which cars do/don't have insurance on them, the Police have access to it as it's how they do ANPR flags isn't it?
So how come that in the same way that millions of people get NIPs for speeding, the same isn't happening for driving without insurance?
Hooli said:
paddyhasneeds said:
So far as the database being wrong, possibly a silly question but how come it's not being "made to be right" as a matter of urgency (AIUI the number of drivers with no insurance is on the increase)?
As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
depends on the wording of your policy. none of the ones ive ever had have required the car to be insured in its own right for me to drive it.As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
I think the reason this doesn't happen is that
1 - the car being driven does need its own insurance
2 - you are normally only covered to drive other cars "in an emergency", i.e. not daily
3 - the cover on the "other car" will only be 3rd party.
If an insurance company discovers that the majority of your mileage is being done in the more expensive car, it can refuse to pay out. The same is true of teenagers who insure a car in mum or dad's name and add themselves as a named driver to keep the premium down. Again, if the insurance company discovers that the teenager is indeed the main driver, they may refuse to pay out.
At the end of the day, insurance companies aren't stupid, and have come across all the tricks that people try and use to minimise their premiums.
At the end of the day, insurance companies aren't stupid, and have come across all the tricks that people try and use to minimise their premiums.
Edited by DIW35 on Saturday 8th December 22:41
paddyhasneeds said:
As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
Ahem, trade insurance.mrmr96 said:
Hooli said:
paddyhasneeds said:
So far as the database being wrong, possibly a silly question but how come it's not being "made to be right" as a matter of urgency (AIUI the number of drivers with no insurance is on the increase)?
As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
depends on the wording of your policy. none of the ones ive ever had have required the car to be insured in its own right for me to drive it.As for driving someone else's car on your own insurance, my understanding is that a car has to have primary insurance on it doesn't it? That is to say if we have three cars in the family I can't take out a policy on the cheapest one, and then drive the other cars under the "Any other car third party" clause?
I think the reason this doesn't happen is that
1 - the car being driven does need its own insurance
2 - you are normally only covered to drive other cars "in an emergency", i.e. not daily
3 - the cover on the "other car" will only be 3rd party.
One of those being, any other vehicle owned by yourself or your employer
So I still have to have all my cars insured under seperate policies, but I could drive my girlfriends car fully comp even if she didnt have it insured, as its not in my name or my address. If it were stolen then it wouldn't be covered though.
Bearing in mind, this policy is for a group 20 motor I suspect the other guys on here with a similar policy will be either running similar exotica or be motor traders as they're very similar policies.
Edited by C2HYM on Sunday 9th December 09:15
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff