No Insurance- Fine versus Premium?
Discussion
Thought it best to ask the question on this forum:-
Now that I am old and grey (mid forties) I have slightly lost touch with what your average 18-25 yr old with no no-claims bonus would pay for say the average ten yr old 1.6-2ltr non-performance car?
Last week the average fines being dished out for no-insurance were about £150 plus costs (when other usual no licence and no MOT were thrown in). This would seem to me to be of little deterent (as said in many threads). If the fine should at least match the cost of the insurance, what sort of level would forum readers deem suitable?
Nick
Now that I am old and grey (mid forties) I have slightly lost touch with what your average 18-25 yr old with no no-claims bonus would pay for say the average ten yr old 1.6-2ltr non-performance car?
Last week the average fines being dished out for no-insurance were about £150 plus costs (when other usual no licence and no MOT were thrown in). This would seem to me to be of little deterent (as said in many threads). If the fine should at least match the cost of the insurance, what sort of level would forum readers deem suitable?
Nick
Martin Hayter said:
I think the deterrent they've being using on a pilot basis in Cumbria is great - confiscation of the car (assuming it's not nicked!).
It sounds good, and could possibly work well, but, and there's a very big but...
If seizure is a sanction applied by the law against an offender, then there's no legitimacy in applying the sanction without a prior court hearing.
This is a fundamental legal principle. How do they get around it? Seizure is not regarded as a criminal penalty? Sure looks like a criminal penalty to me...
Pigeon said:
Well said Safespeed.
An idea has just popped into my head - dunno how good it is, but: Make the fine double the insurance premium - and use half of it to pay for insurance. Offender then has no incentive to go and buy another £30 shitter and continue driving with no insurance in a car the BiB don't (yet) know about.
Spot on!! Totally agreed.
However how would one get the fine out of the scroat? They would just refuse and have it taken out of their benefits for the rest of their lives
Operation TAKEAWAY in Cumbria.
Involves seizure of vehicles which are being driven on the road by a person who is known to be uninsured.
The vehicle must be a target vehicle or if not, supervisory authority must be sought prior to seizure.
Insurance needs to be checked before vehicle is returned. Often a disclaimer is obtained for the vehicle because the subject is unable to get insurance to reclaim it.
Vehicle is removed from the road under the obstruction of highway legislation.
Legal provision
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, reg 103 and s42, Road Traffic Act 1988 and s137 Highways Act 1980
Greetings all.
Ian, BiB from Cumbria.
Paul and a few of you will know me reasonably well.
Out of the frying pan into the fire.
I won't post regularly, but I'll no doubt cross swords in the friendliest possible way with some of you.
Involves seizure of vehicles which are being driven on the road by a person who is known to be uninsured.
The vehicle must be a target vehicle or if not, supervisory authority must be sought prior to seizure.
Insurance needs to be checked before vehicle is returned. Often a disclaimer is obtained for the vehicle because the subject is unable to get insurance to reclaim it.
Vehicle is removed from the road under the obstruction of highway legislation.
Legal provision
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, reg 103 and s42, Road Traffic Act 1988 and s137 Highways Act 1980
Greetings all.
Ian, BiB from Cumbria.
Paul and a few of you will know me reasonably well.
Out of the frying pan into the fire.
I won't post regularly, but I'll no doubt cross swords in the friendliest possible way with some of you.
iaha said:
Operation TAKEAWAY in Cumbria.
Involves seizure of vehicles which are being driven on the road by a person who is known to be uninsured.
The vehicle must be a target vehicle or if not, supervisory authority must be sought prior to seizure.
Insurance needs to be checked before vehicle is returned. Often a disclaimer is obtained for the vehicle because the subject is unable to get insurance to reclaim it.
Vehicle is removed from the road under the obstruction of highway legislation.
Legal provision
Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, reg 103 and s42, Road Traffic Act 1988 and s137 Highways Act 1980
So it's a fudge then isn't it? We're seizing as a criminal penalty without a hearing, and we're pretending that it's because the vehicle is causing an obstruction?
It's very worrying that this is taking place in the UK. Why don't we do away with courts altogether, and just let the Police act as judge, jury and executioner?
It might seem obvious that insured / uninsured is a black and white issue, but it won't always be black and white. There could be complex questions about identity, who was driving, who owns the vehicle, entitlement to drive under other policies and so on.
We have a legal system - some say the best in the world - with trials, advocacy, rights and appeals to ensure that the law is applied justly, and we can't sweep all that away simply because it's expedient.
And to cap it all, if there's an available legal parking place, seizure under obstruction of the highway legislation will be illegal. I hope you're not pulling people and making seizures under such circumstances.
iaha said:
Greetings all.
Ian, BiB from Cumbria.
Paul and a few of you will know me reasonably well.
Out of the frying pan into the fire.
I won't post regularly, but I'll no doubt cross swords in the friendliest possible way with some of you.
It's great to see you "out and about". I hope everyone makes you welcome. My comments above are not directed at you personally in any way.
ca092003 said:Yes - many cars in UK are insured as company cars, so it's hard to tell whether they are actually insured.
BiB ascertains whether car is insured (via insurance database)
If insured then then PC says "On your way, sir!"
If not insured then car is confiscated.
For example, when I used to have company cars, as well as insurance for the car I had on lease, my insurance tended to include "Any car driven by me on company business".
CraigAlsop said:
BiB ascertains whether car is insured (via insurance database)
If insured then then PC says "On your way, sir!"
If not insured then car is confiscated.
Yes - many cars in UK are insured as company cars, so it's hard to tell whether they are actually insured.
For example, when I used to have company cars, as well as insurance for the car I had on lease, my insurance tended to include "Any car driven by me on company business".
OK, so the insurance database should reflect which drivers are covered by the particular policy. The idea is to get uninsured drivers off the road. ADmittedly we may need to re-engineer some process to achieve that. I can't see the problem myself.
We don't insure cars, we insure drivers. If a car is stopped and the driver isn't insured, arrest the driver and put him through due process. IF after a fair trial he doesn't pay the fine, then impound the car as a means to paying the fine. Impounding the car before fair trial just isn't on.
What next? Not insured - ho hum, we'll put your kids in a workhouse/make your wife work as a prosi til the fine is paid?
What next? Not insured - ho hum, we'll put your kids in a workhouse/make your wife work as a prosi til the fine is paid?
I think the point iaha was making was that, when a driver is stopped and found to have no insurance he is arrested and removed from the vehicle.
The vehicle, assuming there is no other insured driver present, becomes an obstruction as it is blocking the road.
It gets removed.
To reclaim it and drive it away, the claimant obviously needs insurance to do so.
This is how I read it.
The vehicle, assuming there is no other insured driver present, becomes an obstruction as it is blocking the road.
It gets removed.
To reclaim it and drive it away, the claimant obviously needs insurance to do so.
This is how I read it.
swilly said:
I think the point iaha was making was that, when a driver is stopped and found to have no insurance he is arrested and removed from the vehicle.
The vehicle, assuming there is no other insured driver present, becomes an obstruction as it is blocking the road.
It gets removed.
To reclaim it and drive it away, the claimant obviously needs insurance to do so.
This is how I read it.
That's correct.
It is quite restricted to targetted drivers, known disquals and uninsured. We have a list of target drivers, most if not all of whom use their vehicles in commision of crime.
The purpose is to get the criminal off the road, and remove their mode of transport.
We have had some success, particularly in West Cumbria and it has recently been expanded to include my area which is South Cumbria (traffic).
ca092003 said:
BiB stops car, either spot check or ANPR alert.
BiB ascertains identify.
BiB ascertains whether car is insured (via insurance database)
If insured then then PC says "On your way, sir!"
If not insured then car is confiscated.
Am I missing something?
Insurance database is not guaranteed correct or up to date.
Many cars do not show insurance, company cars etc.
Also many bikes for whatever reason often have no insurance details listed, don't know why. But to be used to remove a vehicle from the road, especially if the driver says he is insured, is not a risk either I or my bosses would take.
iaha said:
The purpose is to get the criminal off the road, and remove their mode of transport.
"...remove their mode of transport" without trial.
I'm quite sure now that this is out of order.
I fully approve of getting uninsured drivers off the road using any legal means, but this is looking increasingly illegal to me.
safespeed said:
I'm quite sure now that this is out of order.
I fully approve of getting uninsured drivers off the road using any legal means, but this is looking increasingly illegal to me.
It seems quite above board to me, if my understanding is correct.
If the unisured driver is stopped and arrested, but is accompanied by an insured driver then the insured driver can continue on with the car.
The car does not get impounded as it is no longer obstructing the road.
As I work in the Midlands the seizure in Cumbria is of little help/problem to me at present, to get back on topic - what I needed was an indication of people's feelings on the levels of fines compared to premiums.
A fine of twice the premium was mentioned (can't alocate a fine to anywhere but treasury at present) but if we don't have a rough idea of a premium cost then how can you set the fine?
I need a few actual quotes.
Nick
A fine of twice the premium was mentioned (can't alocate a fine to anywhere but treasury at present) but if we don't have a rough idea of a premium cost then how can you set the fine?
I need a few actual quotes.
Nick
iaha said:
BiB stops car, either spot check or ANPR alert.
BiB ascertains identify.
BiB ascertains whether car is insured (via insurance database)
If insured then then PC says "On your way, sir!"
If not insured then car is confiscated.
Am I missing something?
Insurance database is not guaranteed correct or up to date.
Many cars do not show insurance, company cars etc.
Also many bikes for whatever reason often have no insurance details listed, don't know why. But to be used to remove a vehicle from the road, especially if the driver says he is insured, is not a risk either I or my bosses would take.
Iaha
Indeed. That is why prevously on this topic (and of ANPR) I've suggested that we need to find ways of ensuring the data is more accurate. That also includes data regarding taxation and MOT's (of which I don't think there is any sort of database anyway).
safespeed said:
The purpose is to get the criminal off the road, and remove their mode of transport.
"...remove their mode of transport" without trial.
I'm quite sure now that this is out of order.
I fully approve of getting uninsured drivers off the road using any legal means, but this is looking increasingly illegal to me.
Our legal eagles at HQ have looked at the legislation and the implications of the operation and are happy to run it. I'll let them take the flak. Meanwhile, if I can physically prevent a target disqual driver or regular uninsured user from being a risk on the road, and at the safe time frustrate the criminal activity of the target groups, I'm happy to do so!
Paul, I'll reply to your email at work tonight.
Regarding the original posting, the only info I have is from asking the average 18 - 19 year old driver on the streets of Kendal, the 1200 Nova/ Corsa is about £1200 per annum to insure.
My nephew has just past his test. Insurance on his Peugeot 106 came in at a stonking £1900. He reduced that to about £1000 by doing pass plus. It's probably back up to £1900 now having written the damn thing off last month!!
ca092003 said:
ca092003 said:
BiB stops car, either spot check or ANPR alert.
BiB ascertains identify.
BiB ascertains whether car is insured (via insurance database)
If insured then then PC says "On your way, sir!"
If not insured then car is confiscated.
Am I missing something?
Insurance database is not guaranteed correct or up to date.
Many cars do not show insurance, company cars etc.
Also many bikes for whatever reason often have no insurance details listed, don't know why. But to be used to remove a vehicle from the road, especially if the driver says he is insured, is not a risk either I or my bosses would take.
Iaha
Indeed. That is why prevously on this topic (and of ANPR) I've suggested that we need to find ways of ensuring the data is more accurate. That also includes data regarding taxation and MOT's (of which I don't think there is any sort of database anyway).
I agree.
MOT data soon will be accessed via PNC - (From VOSA)
Taxation database has always been available to PNC, but it's so out of date it's virtually useless.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff