Monday 3rd October 2005

Uninsured get crushed

New law means more squashed motors

---

Sorry mate, no insurance

The government's legislation to ban radar-based scamera detectors may also include measures to cut down on uninsured drivers. Proposed amendments to the Road Safety Bill, which are likely to get passed, will make it an offence to own a car which is neither insured nor registered as off the road.

On becoming law, the police will identify and prosecute uninsured motorists using a database of all registered vehicles in the UK. Any drivers without insurance and who have not registered their vehicle as off the road can expect to be fined and ultimately to have their cars crushed.

The move follows new police powers which, from July 2005, allowed the seizure and destruction of uninsured vehicles. From November, the police will start using automatic numberplate recognition (ANPR) technology to identify and prosecute uninsured drivers.

Road Safety Minister Stephen Ladyman said: "The vast majority of motorists are rightly fed-up with the small hard core of anti social motorists who drive without insurance. These new measures will mean that there is no hiding place for uninsured drivers.

"We estimate that every law-abiding motorist pays £30 a year because of uninsured drivers. This new measure will be coupled with new police powers to electronically spot and ultimately to seize and destroy cars without insurance. We are determined to rid the roads of the menace of uninsured driving."

The Road Safety Bill was introduced in the House of Lords immediately after the last election, and is currently in House of Lords Committee stage.

However, road safety campaign Safe Speed reckoned that, as most uninsured vehicles are improperly registered, the scheme won't work.

Safe Speed said the scheme is "a carbon copy of the failed speed camera hypothecation scheme."

The campaign said: "Key facts are being ignored by an increasing incompetent Department for Transport. For example:

• It's the driver that requires insurance, not the vehicle, but these plans depend of vehicle records not driver records.
• At any one time three million or so motor vehicles are 'in the trade' and have no realistic registered keeper.
• Many of the vehicles being driven uninsured are 'throw aways'; lost to the system and have changed keepers many times since the last accurate record.
• The police can detect and prosecute around 150,000 uninsured drivers each year. With 1.4 million uninsured drivers the average uninsured driver can expect a £200 fine and 6 points once every nine years.
• 31% of DVLA records are known to be inaccurate.
• 'Paperwork' approaches to such problem make more and more people decide to 'work outside the system', and tend to have the side effect of increasing the problem."

Crushing stuff...

[cazzer]

[quote]On becoming law, the police will identify and prosecute uninsured motorists using a database of all registered vehicles in the UK. Any drivers without insurance and who have not registered their vehicle as off the road can expect to be fined and ultimately to have their cars crushed.[/quote]

How are they going to know if your insurance covers more than one car? What about driving other cars third-party on fully comp insurance?
Or are they just going to target someone who owns a car without any insurance at all?

[tinman0]

cazzer said:

How are they going to know if your insurance covers more than one car? What about driving other cars third-party on fully comp insurance?

although you are covered to drive another car third party on your own insurance it must have a full policy to start with in the first place before your third party insurance becomes valid.

[GKP]

I have a car in the garage that hasn't seen the light of day for over ten years. Not required to SORN it but I recently had the V5 updated to the current format just so it didn't drop off the system.
Obviously there is no 3rd party insurance (fire n theft, yes) so it won't be on their database.

If a bloke with a yellow jacket and a clipboard turns up in his mobile squishing machine, I have a feeling there'll be a lot of shouting happenig on my driveway!

[boggy]

I fully Support this action provided it's aimed at the Driver's who put lives/other people's property at risk and drive with no Insurance. I would fight this if it was simply another way of the Government trying to Squeeze a little more Money out of us motorists (People who have a collection of car's and don't have them Insured 52 week's a year as they don't use them on the Road).

Boggy

[cazzer]

tinman0 said:

cazzer said: How are they going to know if your insurance covers more than one car? What about driving other cars third-party on fully comp insurance? although you are covered to drive another car third party on your own insurance it must have a full policy to start with in the first place before your third party insurance becomes valid.

Well ya learn something everyday don't ya

[Wildfire]

GKP said:

I have a car in the garage that hasn't seen the light of day for over ten years. Not required to SORN it but I recently had the V5 updated to the current format just so it didn't drop off the system. Obviously there is no 3rd party insurance (fire n theft, yes) so it won't be on their database. If a bloke with a yellow jacket and a clipboard turns up in his mobile squishing machine, I have a feeling there'll be a lot of shouting happenig on my driveway!

same as us, we have a number of cars that have been off the road for a good few years now. They have always been in a garage on axel stands and never insured. If a bloke turns up saying he is going to crush them then he can **** off.

[cross-eyed-twit]

Whats the betting the Government contract it out to some cowboy setups and they go around flouting their position, much like rogue clampers...

[jonnyb]

tinman0 said:

cazzer said: How are they going to know if your insurance covers more than one car? What about driving other cars third-party on fully comp insurance? although you are covered to drive another car third party on your own insurance it must have a full policy to start with in the first place before your third party insurance becomes valid.

Really! it doesn't say anything about that on any of my polices

[tinman0]

jonnyb said:

tinman0 said: cazzer said: How are they going to know if your insurance covers more than one car? What about driving other cars third-party on fully comp insurance? although you are covered to drive another car third party on your own insurance it must have a full policy to start with in the first place before your third party insurance becomes valid. Really! it doesn't say anything about that on any of my polices

i could be wrong and i will apologise in advance if I am - but that is my understanding of the driving other cars with third party insurance.

my direct line policy here doesn't mention it but i think its in the small print of schedule which i don't have to hand.

[Nostrils]

Many insurance companies are not allowing their full-comp policies to drive other cars for 3rd party cover as they believe people are using this to drive better cars (eg. Get insurance on a low group full-comp, a parent insures a high group car and the low group car legally drive it....with only 3rd party cover)

As for ANPR and this new scheme, you've all heard the saying...."Its only as good as the information put in....or current DVLA records Sh*t in = Shi*t out"

We would all agree that something needs to be done in the UK to stop these unisured drivers ruining it for the rest of us - with electronic MOT's on the horizon, the police will have access to more info to secure a proper conviction/crushing notice etc. I will see how it pans out as it will definitely have some glitches, government IT issues always do!

[d-man]

boggy said:

I fully Support this action provided it's aimed at the Driver's who put lives/other people's property at risk and drive with no Insurance. I would fight this if it was simply another way of the Government trying to Squeeze a little more Money out of us motorists (People who have a collection of car's and don't have them Insured 52 week's a year as they don't use them on the Road). Boggy

And there lies the problem really. It's legislation designed to let them automate fining people for no insurance. It all depends on your car being registered correctly to you, in the same way all the other automatic enforcement does. So if you're the sort of person this legislation should be targetting, you're already off the system and so it doesn't affect you. In the same way speed cameras and road tax fines don't affect you.

Of course if you're an enthusiast with several vehicles, all properly registered then you can get caught out. You'll get fined, you're the sort of person that's likely to pay up.

Tackling the real problem requires real Police to catch these people and a justice system with real power to deal with them. Instead we get more pointless legislation so the government can be Seen To Be Doing Something about people driving uninsured.

[mcflurry]

GKP said:

I have a car in the garage that hasn't seen the light of day for over ten years. Not required to SORN it but I recently had the V5 updated to the current format just so it didn't drop off the system. Obviously there is no 3rd party insurance (fire n theft, yes) so it won't be on their database. If a bloke with a yellow jacket and a clipboard turns up in his mobile squishing machine, I have a feeling there'll be a lot of shouting happenig on my driveway!

I assume the car would need to be on the public highway for an "offence" to be committed?

[vetteheadracer]

This is the usual government bollox......i.e. it will cost millions and achieve nothing.
If the police stop someone and they have no insurance, no tax, no MOT documents with them then they should be able to impound the vehicle there and then, but that doesn't stop the driver from driving another vehicle.

Crushing cars will not stop uninsured drivers.

[dcb]

d-man said:

Tackling the real problem requires real Police to catch these people and a justice system with real power to deal with them. Instead we get more pointless legislation so the government can be Seen To Be Doing Something about people driving uninsured.

Exactly.

Fining people who can't afford proper car insurance I don't see as the way forward.

Now putting them in jail and crushing their cars would be a much better thing altogether.

[RUSSELLM]

tinman0 said:

although you are covered to drive another car third party on your own insurance it must have a full policy to start with in the first place before your third party insurance becomes valid.

Whilst I don't disagree with the above as I'm not certain of the law, when the police issue a producer, they ask you to provide your insurance to drive the vehicle (eg I'm borrowing it & I'm insured to drive it third party only)

If the above is true, why do they not also ask for the insurance cover for the vehicle in question ?

[Flat in Fifth]

mcflurry said:

GKP said: I have a car in the garage that hasn't seen the light of day for over ten years. Not required to SORN it but I recently had the V5 updated to the current format just so it didn't drop off the system. Obviously there is no 3rd party insurance (fire n theft, yes) so it won't be on their database. If a bloke with a yellow jacket and a clipboard turns up in his mobile squishing machine, I have a feeling there'll be a lot of shouting happenig on my driveway! I assume the car would need to be on the public highway for an "offence" to be committed?

You are heading for disaster with that assumption McF.

If you read the original consultation the intent is to establish a system which allows

DfT said:

Continuous Enforcement of Motor Insurance Requirements from the Record

in other words enforcement and issuing of automatic fixed penalties of £100 untouched by human hand just as for DVLA do for VED unrenewed / SORN undeclared for some time.

The wording in the consultation paper is

DfT said:

We therefore intend to make it possible to prosecute a person for having control of an uninsured vehicle without first having to catch him using it on a road. We propose to introduce legislation making it an offence to be the registered keeper of a vehicle the use of which is not insured in accordance with section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Such an offence would not require the police to prove that the vehicle was in use on the road. Subject to certain exemptions, the possession of a vehicle without valid insurance would be an offence. Liability would rest with the keeper of the vehicle.

Much as I despise the uninsured this in my humble opinion is yet another example of New Labour legislation.

They take an issue which needs sorting.
They decide to legislate.
When said legislation comes into force one or more things have happened from the following list.
- Totally over the top
- Criminalises middle England who have something to lose. The great unwashed don't care.
- Unenforceable
- More loopholes than a loophole shop on loophole BOGOF day


Meanwhile the real problem children the legislation was aimed at continue to wave a V sign at the rest of society and carry on as before.

[tinman0]

RUSSELLM said:

tinman0 said: although you are covered to drive another car third party on your own insurance it must have a full policy to start with in the first place before your third party insurance becomes valid. If the above is true, why do they not also ask for the insurance cover for the vehicle in question ?

because you havent crashed it....

[pentoman]

What about if you're on the type of insurance that insures you on anything (eg motor trade)??? At the moment you don't inform your insurance company of every single vehicle you own (doing this would take up the entire day for some people I know). How can they possibly know that you're insured to drive it then? Do they fine you as guilty then its up to you to prove you're innocent?

Seems to me like a whole load of hassle for the law-abiding, and an easy to get round system for the law-avoiding (eg just dont register the car; steal some number plates, remove number plates, 1,000,000 other options)


Have the British always enjoyed being shafted or is it a recent thing ?

Russell
'86 190E, '62 Elan

[Kentish]

This is stupid!

I currently have a car in my garage, uninsured but it is taxed and MOT'd, I just don't wish to take it on the road at the moment.

I wondered how long it would be before a database exhisted to capture, tax, MOT and insurance and a penalty if you don't have all three.

[dern]

tinman0 said:

cazzer said: How are they going to know if your insurance covers more than one car? What about driving other cars third-party on fully comp insurance? although you are covered to drive another car third party on your own insurance it must have a full policy to start with in the first place before your third party insurance becomes valid.

Also your fully comp insurance only allows you to drive another car if it belongs to someone else, if it belongs to you then you're not covered. I can't believe that you're even covered if you claim it belongs to your wife (for example).

Mark