More authoritarian idiocy - illegal to own uninsured car now
Discussion
This proposal is absurd and is a complete erosion of civil liberties. Lets face it, you have to pay tax on insurance, the government see drivers as a cash cow, we have to now buy insurance against third party risks for vehicles kept in our garages.
1. There will be problams created for those buying or selling cars. If you buy a car and go to sell your old one then you will have to have two insurance policies. At present you can keep one of them off the road. The new owner will obviously insure it when that new owner is found; however, it can take weeks or months to sell a car. Perhaps there is a coercion to sell the car sooner, perhaps at a lower price, to avoid having to insure two. These "we buy any car" companies that apparantly offer you crap money will be the winners in this. If you did sorn the car then the new owner would have to wait a number of days before they could even drive it home - for obvious reasons that it a terrible idea. What about those who can't afford to insure two cars at once?
2. Then there is the general use of cars. At present many insurance policies allow you to drive a second vehicle on the insurance of your primary vehicle. There may be instances, track car or sports bike, where you would not require insurance at all. This insurance applies when you are driving it so assuming you didn't leave it in a public place it would not require insurance yet you would be insured against third party risks.
3. The biggest problem with the system of taxing a vehicle is the time involved. An offence is comitted if you do not display the round peice of paper. At present if you had a second car which was parked off the road no insurance required but taxed you could nip on your computer and be fully insured within minutes, any time of day. If you had the vehicle sorned, you immediatly needed to use it lets say topically it is a 4*4 which you kept for bad weather and you notice at 6 am and decide I want to take that to work instaed of my RWD something. If you had to tax that vehicle, if it was sorned, you would have to either go to a post office, so there is the taxi cost of getting there and the inconvenience and they are only open weekdays during certain times albeit not on holidays(you could have bought insurance online on Christmas Day). Or you can order it which would take days to arrive. This is all cost and inconvenience.
What is the point of this anyway? The government appeared to be advancing an argument that these vehicles are used in emergencies without insurance. If my previous argument stands up you could buy insurance at any time within minutes. Therefore those who use it in an emergency without insurance did so in the face of the opportunity to immediatly buy insurance.
This proposal undermines the good work of the insurance industry who have sought ot make it easy to buy insurance. ie. online, because now you will have to wait days or go to significant expense.
Perhaps each of use should, by letter, our local MPs and complain. Post on here if you did so!
1. There will be problams created for those buying or selling cars. If you buy a car and go to sell your old one then you will have to have two insurance policies. At present you can keep one of them off the road. The new owner will obviously insure it when that new owner is found; however, it can take weeks or months to sell a car. Perhaps there is a coercion to sell the car sooner, perhaps at a lower price, to avoid having to insure two. These "we buy any car" companies that apparantly offer you crap money will be the winners in this. If you did sorn the car then the new owner would have to wait a number of days before they could even drive it home - for obvious reasons that it a terrible idea. What about those who can't afford to insure two cars at once?
2. Then there is the general use of cars. At present many insurance policies allow you to drive a second vehicle on the insurance of your primary vehicle. There may be instances, track car or sports bike, where you would not require insurance at all. This insurance applies when you are driving it so assuming you didn't leave it in a public place it would not require insurance yet you would be insured against third party risks.
3. The biggest problem with the system of taxing a vehicle is the time involved. An offence is comitted if you do not display the round peice of paper. At present if you had a second car which was parked off the road no insurance required but taxed you could nip on your computer and be fully insured within minutes, any time of day. If you had the vehicle sorned, you immediatly needed to use it lets say topically it is a 4*4 which you kept for bad weather and you notice at 6 am and decide I want to take that to work instaed of my RWD something. If you had to tax that vehicle, if it was sorned, you would have to either go to a post office, so there is the taxi cost of getting there and the inconvenience and they are only open weekdays during certain times albeit not on holidays(you could have bought insurance online on Christmas Day). Or you can order it which would take days to arrive. This is all cost and inconvenience.
What is the point of this anyway? The government appeared to be advancing an argument that these vehicles are used in emergencies without insurance. If my previous argument stands up you could buy insurance at any time within minutes. Therefore those who use it in an emergency without insurance did so in the face of the opportunity to immediatly buy insurance.
This proposal undermines the good work of the insurance industry who have sought ot make it easy to buy insurance. ie. online, because now you will have to wait days or go to significant expense.
Perhaps each of use should, by letter, our local MPs and complain. Post on here if you did so!
mattviatura said:
This idea is a real piece of Tony Blair-style legislation. I'm starting to realise Cameron is as much of a prick as I thought he was before the election.
Can we not just have a Conservative party back?
Amen. SORN is a bloody disgrace in itself, this proposal is icing it with turd.Can we not just have a Conservative party back?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to cut the inconvenience and expense of uninsured drivers, put the price of pay-as-you-go 3rd party insurance on petrol, then everyone will be insured. Cheapest, simplest, easiest to administer.
Of course, it doesn't stoke the government's hard-on for control.
The Black Flash said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to cut the inconvenience and expense of uninsured drivers, put the price of pay-as-you-go 3rd party insurance on petrol, then everyone will be insured. Cheapest, simplest, easiest to administer.
Well that would be really fair wouldn't it? So some 17 year old in a chav'd up Fiesta who drives around like a pr1ck parking the car on its roof [other thread] pays a tuppence extra on a litre of fuel, whereas Doris or Dave in his or her Micra also pays the same. Mind you some city-boy in his 911 Turbo would be quids in .. well unless he happens to crash into Fiesta boy.Edited by fido on Monday 10th January 10:07
fido said:
The Black Flash said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to cut the inconvenience and expense of uninsured drivers, put the price of pay-as-you-go 3rd party insurance on petrol, then everyone will be insured. Cheapest, simplest, easiest to administer.
Well that would be really fair wouldn't it? So some 17 year old in a chav'd up Fiesta who drives around like a pr1ck parking the car on its roof [other thread] pays a tuppence extra on a litre of fuel, whereas Doris or Dave in his or her Micra also pays the same. Mind you some city-boy in his 911 Turbo would be quids in .. well unless he happens to crash into Fiesta boy.Edited by fido on Monday 10th January 10:07
sinizter said:
It's third party insurance, so yes, it would be fair. Much fairer than Fiesta boy running around uninsured and hitting either the Micra, the 911 or both.
It does not deal with basic insurance issue of moral hazard - i don't think i need to explain that one, but needless to say if we do not contribute individually to our insurance costs then we will naturally take more risks as it will not hit our pockets.I would prefer the scenario where Fiesta boy is stopped by ANPR and he either coughs up the annual premium or has his car scrapped or sold within 7 days AND a fine (which he may or may cough up) with temporary record ['yellow card' as they have for other misdemeanours].
Edited by fido on Monday 10th January 10:41
fido said:
sinizter said:
It's third party insurance, so yes, it would be fair. Much fairer than Fiesta boy running around uninsured and hitting either the Micra, the 911 or both.
It does not deal with basic insurance issue of moral hazard - i don't think i need to explain that one, but needless to say if we do not contribute individually to our insurance costs then we will naturally take more risks as it will not hit our pockets.I would prefer the scenario where Fiesta boy is stopped by ANPR and he either coughs up the annual premium or has his car scrapped or sold within 7 days AND a fine (which he may or may cough up) with temporary record ['yellow card' as they have for other misdemeanours].
Edited by fido on Monday 10th January 10:41
I'm not at all convinced by your assertion that people will take more risks; I don't believe that insurance premiums are what stops people crashing into other people. And besides, existing rules regarding dangerous driving etc would still apply.
And if the police aren't spending time looking for uninsured drivers, they can do something else.
I agree with the article.
Declare your car SORN if you wish to 'restore it', it's not much effort.
And it's likely to reduce the number of w
kers who drive uninsured, maybe only a little bit (as they will then drive untaxed and uninsured).
The money saved from this should be re-invested in detection equipment to catch those bds though.
Declare your car SORN if you wish to 'restore it', it's not much effort.
And it's likely to reduce the number of w
kers who drive uninsured, maybe only a little bit (as they will then drive untaxed and uninsured).The money saved from this should be re-invested in detection equipment to catch those b
ds though.I Love Lamp said:
And it's likely to reduce the number of wkers who drive uninsured, maybe only a little bit (as they will then drive untaxed and uninsured).
The money saved from this should be re-invested in detection equipment to catch those bds though.
How will it have ANY effect at all.kers who drive uninsured, maybe only a little bit (as they will then drive untaxed and uninsured).The money saved from this should be re-invested in detection equipment to catch those b
ds though.How will it save ANY money.
People are far more likely to surrender a Tax disc to stay legal than they were which will give the DVLA more
k upI Love Lamp said:
I agree with the article.
Declare your car SORN if you wish to 'restore it', it's not much effort.
And it's likely to reduce the number of wkers who drive uninsured, maybe only a little bit (as they will then drive untaxed and uninsured).
The money saved from this should be re-invested in detection equipment to catch those bds though.
Well it will stop maybe 4 people and i think that is a generous estimate.Declare your car SORN if you wish to 'restore it', it's not much effort.
And it's likely to reduce the number of w
kers who drive uninsured, maybe only a little bit (as they will then drive untaxed and uninsured).The money saved from this should be re-invested in detection equipment to catch those b
ds though.I Love Lamp said:
I agree with the article.
Declare your car SORN if you wish to 'restore it', it's not much effort.
It's an effort which no-one should have to make.Declare your car SORN if you wish to 'restore it', it's not much effort.
Its only purpose is to enable "them" to keep track of us. I should not have to tell the government if I wish to keep a piece of my property on my land and not use it on the public highway.
Read on here for any number of occasions where the DVLA have ballsed up and cost people a great deal of time and/or money.
It should be sacked off, along with the greater part of the DVLA, and replaced with something simpler, cheaper, and which doesn't penalise the law-abiding.
The Black Flash said:
I Love Lamp said:
I agree with the article.
Declare your car SORN if you wish to 'restore it', it's not much effort.
It's an effort which no-one should have to make.Declare your car SORN if you wish to 'restore it', it's not much effort.
Its only purpose is to enable "them" to keep track of us. I should not have to tell the government if I wish to keep a piece of my property on my land and not use it on the public highway.
Read on here for any number of occasions where the DVLA have ballsed up and cost people a great deal of time and/or money.
It should be sacked off, along with the greater part of the DVLA, and replaced with something simpler, cheaper, and which doesn't penalise the law-abiding.
The Black Flash said:
I Love Lamp said:
I agree with the article.
Declare your car SORN if you wish to 'restore it', it's not much effort.
It's an effort which no-one should have to make.Declare your car SORN if you wish to 'restore it', it's not much effort.
Its only purpose is to enable "them" to keep track of us. I should not have to tell the government if I wish to keep a piece of my property on my land and not use it on the public highway.
Read on here for any number of occasions where the DVLA have ballsed up and cost people a great deal of time and/or money.
It should be sacked off, along with the greater part of the DVLA, and replaced with something simpler, cheaper, and which doesn't penalise the law-abiding.
What I do have a problem with is the yearly SORN that was introduced afterwards. That was merely designed to catch people out.
One of my vehicles is currently SORN'd and has been for the last 4 years - why do I need to keep telling DVLA that it's SORN'd? It'll be SORN'd for another couple of years, why can't I make that declaration now?
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.
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?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 lawnmower1. To trip the average person up and issue a fine.
2. To create un-nessasary work to keep civil servants in employment.
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
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?
This....
Anyway why not just scrap the current tax scheme altogether and put the tax onto fuel, then everyone has to pay it, cuts down all admin overheads of sending papers out every six to twelve months etc...
JK55 said:
3. The biggest problem with the system of taxing a vehicle is the time involved. An offence is comitted if you do not display the round peice of paper. At present if you had a second car which was parked off the road no insurance required but taxed you could nip on your computer and be fully insured within minutes, any time of day. If you had the vehicle sorned, you immediatly needed to use it lets say topically it is a 4*4 which you kept for bad weather and you notice at 6 am and decide I want to take that to work instaed of my RWD something. If you had to tax that vehicle, if it was sorned, you would have to either go to a post office, so there is the taxi cost of getting there and the inconvenience and they are only open weekdays during certain times albeit not on holidays(you could have bought insurance online on Christmas Day). Or you can order it which would take days to arrive. This is all cost and inconvenience.
Summer car is currently tucked up in garage awaiting a Sunny weekend or week (The arrival of summer), when this happens I ring up my insurance company and purchase said insurance or buy online and go driving. With the new scheme and a SORN car I have to wait for insurance documents to arrive (minimum of a week thanks to Royal Mail) before I can even go to the post office and tax the car before I can drive it...Anyway why not just scrap the current tax scheme altogether and put the tax onto fuel, then everyone has to pay it, cuts down all admin overheads of sending papers out every six to twelve months etc...
The Black Flash said:
[
It's an effort which no-one should have to make.
Its only purpose is to enable "them" to keep track of us. I should not have to tell the government if I wish to keep a piece of my property on my land and not use it on the public highway.
This.It's an effort which no-one should have to make.
Its only purpose is to enable "them" to keep track of us. I should not have to tell the government if I wish to keep a piece of my property on my land and not use it on the public highway.
I can't agree more.
It's a further erosion of our bloody hard-won rights of freedom and private property.
Why should I have to insure and SORN an unused car because the DVLA suspects I might use it on the road? How far do we take this, registration of steak knives because they have the POTENTIAL to be used illegally?
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?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff