More authoritarian idiocy - illegal to own uninsured car now

[tinman0]

thinfourth2 said:

tinman0 said:

[The yearly SORN system serves two purposes:

1. To trip the average person up and issue a fine.
2. To create un-nessasary work to keep civil servants in employment.

lets look at my lawnmower

It is road registered and the tax is £0.00 a year.

But because it isn't insured i SORN it.

So once a year i have to tell the DVLA i'm not sending them any money, but if i forget to tell them i am not sending them any money i will get a fine of £80 for not sending them no money.

Its frankly nuts

Totally agree. Got hit with that several years ago when my father couldn't be bothered to SORN my car whilst I was in the US for a couple of months. There was one hell of a row that day!

[tractorguy]

These new rules won't change a thing (apart from making money for the insurance companys and keeping the DVLA busy), if people want to drive uninsured before the new rules there still going to do it when they've came in. Did speed cameras stop people speeding?

[Shuvi Tupya]

tinman0 said:

Shuvi Tupya said:

tinman0 said:

I have no problems with SORN as it stood a few years ago. I think it's perfectly logical for the owner of a car to make a declaration that the car is off the road and does not need taxing.

It is against the law to drive an untaxed car, we have the technology to catch untaxed drivers, what is sorn achieving, apart from job security for DVLA staff?

Eh, that's what I said at the bottom of my post!

Ah, apologies

[Shuvi Tupya]

tractorguy said:

Did speed cameras stop people speeding?

Exactly. Can anyone name me ONE piece of legislation that actually stopped a crime being commited by those who are not law abiding citizens?

[GeraldSmith]

Shuvi Tupya said:

tractorguy said:

Did speed cameras stop people speeding?

Exactly. Can anyone name me ONE piece of legislation that actually stopped a crime being commited by those who are not law abiding citizens?

Sounds to me like you have unrealistic expectation of what legislation is about. No law will stop people from breaking it, but a good law is one that is clear and unambiguous, easy to enforce and which would not inconvenience the law abiding citizen.

A bad law is one that is confusing or cannot be enforced or which people will contravene unintentionally.

This proposal has some of those attributes, it makes it simple (OK, arguably it's not complicated now), it is easy to enforce (you don't need to catch people doing anything, a computer can enforce it) and arguably it will not inconvenience most people who wouldn't own a car without insurance anyway. However it's a bit borderline on a few of those and the big downer of it is that it relies on the DVLA and it's systems, which are not the world's most reliable!

[Halb]

Getragdogleg said:

jeff m said:

So the police now have no excuse with Travellers.

Just take the crusher to site and fire it up.
I don't usually watch reality TV, but could make an exception here

Then what ?

you have a bunch of people at the side of the road with nothing. where do they go, what do they do ?

don't get me wrong, they annoy me too but at least the ones who live in laybys have a van or bus to live in and we are not funding a fking council house or paying for a flat for them.
Also you might be surprised at how many travelers have jobs and pay tax/insurance etc.

The ones who annoy me the most are the pikeys who are minted yet still pay sod all, crusties who live in an old bedford on the 303 are not such a problem.

There was a programme on recently that said more travellers live in fixed accommodation than vehicles.

[Tunku]

thinfourth2 said:

lets look at my lawnmower

It is road registered and the tax is £0.00 a year.

But because it isn't insured i SORN it.

So once a year i have to tell the DVLA i'm not sending them any money, but if i forget to tell them i am not sending them any money i will get a fine of £80 for not sending them no money.

Its frankly nuts

I think something in my head just broke after reading that.

[Shuvi Tupya]

GeraldSmith said:

and arguably it will not inconvenience most people who wouldn't own a car without insurance anyway.

That is where you are very very wrong!

Lots of people have uninsured but taxed classic cars sitting in garages waiting for sunny days. They now have a choice of insuring them throughout the winter, or getting rid of their pride and joy

[Engineer1]

No, you could Sorn it then buy 6months tax, sorn it again etc.
The real issue seems to be that you should be able to de-register a vehicle for road use in such a way that it was de-registered until you consciously went and re-registered it.
Lets say you send the reg plates and V5C back to the DVLA get an ID plate and a V5E document that states you own the vehicle but it isn't a road going vehicle, in order to re-register MOT, and re-apply for the V5 and reg.
Sounds fair and creates an obvious and detectable offence.

[thinfourth2]

Shuvi Tupya said:

GeraldSmith said:

and arguably it will not inconvenience most people who wouldn't own a car without insurance anyway.

That is where you are very very wrong!

Lots of people have uninsured but taxed classic cars sitting in garages waiting for sunny days. They now have a choice of insuring them throughout the winter, or getting rid of their pride and joy

Also alot of classics are zero VED so keeping them taxed for 12 months costs very little. but if you don't send the DVLA your zero pounds they send you a £80 fine

[Larry Dickman]

Shuvi Tupya said:

GeraldSmith said:

and arguably it will not inconvenience most people who wouldn't own a car without insurance anyway.

That is where you are very very wrong!

Lots of people have uninsured but taxed classic cars sitting in garages waiting for sunny days. They now have a choice of insuring them throughout the winter, or getting rid of their pride and joy

Obviously I can't be sure as I don't know how these new measures will operate, but I really don't think that will be the case & as I said earlier in the thread, I think you will be able to sorn for either insurance, ved or both.

I don't think you'll need to cancel either your ved to sorn for no insurance, or, cancel your insurance to sorn for no ved.

[GeraldSmith]

Shuvi Tupya said:

GeraldSmith said:

and arguably it will not inconvenience most people who wouldn't own a car without insurance anyway.

That is where you are very very wrong!

Lots of people have uninsured but taxed classic cars sitting in garages waiting for sunny days. They now have a choice of insuring them throughout the winter, or getting rid of their pride and joy

You think so? I think you will find that most owners of classics have them on specialist limited milage policies. You want coverage for theft and fire even in the car is in the garage and insuring for 2,500 miles over six months is barely any different to insuring for 2,500 over a year.

The issue with this really isn't the principle, it's the detail. Having to tax and insure or SORN shouldn't be a problem so long as you can do it quickly and easily on line. Until they publish some detail it's hard to judge but having the DVLA at the centre of it has to be the biggest concern.

[Shuvi Tupya]

GeraldSmith said:

Shuvi Tupya said:

GeraldSmith said:

and arguably it will not inconvenience most people who wouldn't own a car without insurance anyway.

That is where you are very very wrong!

Lots of people have uninsured but taxed classic cars sitting in garages waiting for sunny days. They now have a choice of insuring them throughout the winter, or getting rid of their pride and joy

You think so? I think you will find that most owners of classics have them on specialist limited milage policies. You want coverage for theft and fire even in the car is in the garage and insuring for 2,500 miles over six months is barely any different to insuring for 2,500 over a year.

The issue with this really isn't the principle, it's the detail. Having to tax and insure or SORN shouldn't be a problem so long as you can do it quickly and easily on line. Until they publish some detail it's hard to judge but having the DVLA at the centre of it has to be the biggest concern.

I totally agree about the DVLA being the biggest concern

Actually i agree about the classics too. I have one and it is not worth cancelling the insurance when it is not being used. I think the real pain will be for people who just have a selection of vehicles that they use as and when.

[gareth_r]

Who bloody cares what people could or could not do?


Will this stop people criminals driving while uninsured?
No, because they will ignore this law in exactly the same way as they ignore the current law.


Will this enable the sodding DVLA to collect "fines" from people who have not driven while uninsured?
Yes.

[Petemate]

As mentioned by someone earlier, it is a good idea to have insurance even for a pile of bits in the garage backed up by a V5c in the desk in the bedroom.
When I was working on one of my cars, for a long period, I converted the insurance to 'laid-up' and the cost was very reasonable for 1) cover in the event of fire etc (for etc read travelling persons) and 2) any likely legislation like this one looming

Edited for spelling - I wasn't REALLY doing anythin 'covert'!!

Edited by Petemate on Friday 14th January 19:08

[derestrictor]

Here's an idea, albeit one that emanated from bearded fizzog of a Scouser ce matin.

Given that the majority of the composition of the price of fuel is little more than a despotic imposition aka theft, it seems that if the authorities were serious about requiring minimum standards of 3rd party insurance, then there seems no reason to reallocate some of this ill-gotten gain to the general coverage of the same.

To wit, you drive and you're insured.

Theft, damage and other comprehensive tennets of coverage would still require private investment but this premise would solve the basic problem at hand.

Sensible policies for a Toynbee free dictatorship.

(The actual costing would be funded by the redirection of Manchester City Council's copious bank account and the savings from the beheading of all council elders throughout the land to the new regime's exchequer.)

[gareth_r]

Petemate said:

As mentioned by someone earlier, it is a good idea to have insurance even for a pile of bits in the garage backed up by a V5c in the desk in the bedroom.
When I was working on one of my cars, for a long period, I coverted the insurance to 'laid-up' and the cost was very reasonable for 1) cover in the event of fire etc (for etc read travelling persons) and 2) any likely legislation like this one looming

This legislation will not affect a pile of parts in the garage, which would either be on SORN, or not even affected by SORN.