lets all chill! *if not insured prob have criminal record* hmmmmmmm not sure how that was worked out!.
i dont care if the next man is drunk and traveling at 100 mph in an uninsured car! . it is just another of lifes trivial problems. we must relax, as a nation.
our roads are "up tight" bad drivers come in all shapes, insured or not,
try this...... drive where your going, relax and dont let the silly people get to you. your journeys will be so much more pleasant................ relax
|
The understanding of democracy or civilisation or whatever we percieve it to be, is that we must have certain standards of common behaviour?
This allows people to go through life with the minimum of worry about events which are beyond their control, such as divorce, unemployment, problems with family, bereavement, or health etc.
Law, while it often mis-interpreted - for example by the idiot magistrate in Wales who let a plonker off with a repeat fine for sitting still in a court for 30 minuteslast week - is generally the consensus of the acceptance, by the majority, of common standards of behaviour.
Our laws include taxing and insuring cars - we are a democracy...if we do not agree, we have the right to chose our representatives in Parliament and make our voices heard.
Don't want to live by democratic law? It is not only the cars that should be crushed...it is also the facility to reproduce children who might follow the same patterns.
Matt35.
|
It is not only the cars that should be crushed...it is also the facility to reproduce children who might follow the same patterns.Matt35.
Well said sir! Crushed nuts anyone?
|
|
|
|
lets all chill! *if not insured prob have criminal record* hmmmmmmm not sure how that was worked out!.
Hmmmmmmm, worked out by criminal statistics.
Quote:"The system was piloted for six months in nine police forces. Following the success of the pilot, it will now be rolled out to 23 forces in England and Wales. Evidence from the ANPR trials has borne out police experience of strong links between road traffic offences and more serious crime."
www.cjsonline.org/news/2003/may/driving_crime_off_...l
|
Having been hit by an uninsured driver before, if someone was to bump into me again, I would probably insist on travelling with that person to view his documents, or involve the police.
If he was uninsured, I'd probably turn violent (which is out of character for me).
|
Mark,
"Slightly ridiculous, don't you think ?"
followed by....
"It would be equally sensible to say that if everybody drove at 5mph there would not only be virtually no deaths, I doubt if there would even be any accidents."
Now that IS slightly ridiculous. How about a bit of balance and perspective? You might as well say that if no-one drove anywhere they could never be hit by an uninsured driver!
When was the last time the consequences of an accident were made worse by the driver not being insured?
">>Presumably you would also want the same punishment for speeding?
Why ?"
Why not? Why trivialise speeding and demonise lack of insurance?
Patently,
"Cameras are there to make dangerous bits of road safer. If the drivers don't know they are there, how do they know that the bit of road is dangerous?"
WRONG - warning signs, road markings, surface changes, environmental indications and lowered speed limits are there to make dangerous bits of road safer. THAT's how drivers know it's dangerous. Cameras are there to deter and punish those who choose to ignore these warnings.
|
>"Slightly ridiculous, don't you think ?"
>followed by....
>"It would be equally sensible to say...
>>Now that IS slightly ridiculous
I think you missed the point. I said that they were equally sensible - i.e. absolutely not at all.
>>Why not? Why trivialise speeding and demonise lack of insurance?
I wasn't doing either - but they are not at the same level of magnitude. Excluding the nutter speeders, there is no way that driving at 75 in a 70, all other things being equal, is as serious as driving uninsured.
|
Today, I started looking around for insurance as mine runs out in early May, and I want to move from being a named driver on my Dad's policy to my own. My current insurance company has given me 1 year's NCB, and I'm 18, having been driving for just over a year. In that time I've never had an accident, or come close. I've never even scratched the car.
The car is an S-reg Citroen Xsara 1.9TD. I've tried 6 insurance companies so far - 2 quoted just under £3000 (slightly less than what I paid for the car) and the other 4 just said point blank that they wouldn't insure me.
Now, in my opinion this is a fairly good justification for driving around uninsured. While I know that there are some idiots around my age who can't drive and have no care over how they drive, but I'm sick of being tarred with the same brush as them.
Likewise, I detest people who drive around with no tax or MOT or insurance because they don't care and would never have had it anyway.
What about the people who just never thought that they'd be paying more than the value of their car just to insure it? Is it really surprising that lack of insurance is growing so quickly?
As it is, I'm going to be continuing on my dad's policy for some time to come. On the other hand, I'm completely in favour for the scanner and bar code. Even better, why not affix the scanner to petrol pumps so you can't fill up without scanning your car? With broadband, checking against a central database should be quick and cheap.
|
David - I sympathise with your position. My daughters went through the process about 15 years ago. I have to say that you are lucky to be able to spend £3K on a car (or was it someone else?). It will be cheaper to tag on to a parent's insurance for some while yet, but in the end you have to bite the bullet and go it alone, just to build up some no-claims discount for yourself. Probably wise to drive on the cheap for a few years to get through your most accident-prone period.
It may be that insurers realise that many novice drivers use their parents' coat-tails like this, and load those that don't heavily, to compensate. But you can't blame them for basing rates on accident and claim statistics. To them you are an unknown of a certain age, and it's no good saying 'I'm an unusually safe driver, please be kind to me'.
|
|
|
|
"Cameras are there to make dangerous bits of road safer. If the drivers don't know they are there, how do they know that the bit of road is dangerous?" WRONG - warning signs, road markings, surface changes, environmental indications and lowered speed limits are there to make dangerous bits of road safer. THAT's how drivers know it's dangerous. Cameras are there to deter and punish those who choose to ignore these warnings.
RIGHT - Cameras are part of that pattern of safety markings. They are part of the information presented to the driver to warn her/him.
Exactly how does a NIP in the post a few days later "deter" me at this bend, here, now?
Exactly how does a NIP in the post lessen the effect of an accident at this bend, here, now?
Simple - it doesn't. So if a camera is hidden then it only makes the regular users safer. They, of course, are the ones who know it is a blackspot. They are the ones who least need the warning.
The same logic that allows you to hide speed cameras allows you to withdraw bobbies from the beat, just beef up CID services to compensate. So long as the total rate of undetected muggings & rapes declines then that's ok, then? OK there were more violent incidents in total but we caught more of the offenders so that's ok? I think not.
|
Can't agree, patently - cameras should not be necessary with all the other warnings present. Why should taxpayers have to spend another £20,000 just because some people won't slow down.
"Exactly how does a NIP in the post a few days later "deter" me at this bend, here, now?
Exactly how does a NIP in the post lessen the effect of an accident at this bend, here, now?"
It doesn't - exactly my point. It's not a warning, it's punishment for breaking the law. But if you couldn't be so secure in the knowledge that there wasn't a camera there, you might just be tempted to slow down.
By your own arguments, someone breaking the speed limit doesn't automatically cause an accident - someone mugging someone DOES result in a mugging, so prevention is more important. The deterrent should be the knowledge that there may be cameras somewhere, just like the deterrent for muggers should be that there may be a copper round the corner.
Don't think bringing rapes into the debate adds anything.
|
How does going faster round that bend lessen the effect of an accident, here, now? How will higher speeds in the hands of some of the idiots on our roads make us all safer, anywhere, anytime?
And to get back to the original topic, how does a driver being uninsured make that bend more dangerous?
|
And to get back to the original topic, how does a driver being uninsured make that bend more dangerous?
Because that uninsured driver is also untaxed and unregistered ensuring that he will not recive an NIP if a camera happens to be just round said bend
|
|
.....which still doesn't make the bend any more dangerous.
|
Two points here I think...
Firstly, many drivers only have insurance because it's a legal requirement, and would quite happily risk it without otherwise. Drivers who still don't have insurance are unlikely to fulfill other legal requirements, such as a valid MOT - they can't get a tax disc anyway can they. I would personally rather have a well-maintained Audi come round a corner at me doing 80, than a beaten-up Pug 309 with bald tyres and defective brakes doing 60.
Secondly, accidents happen. And I want to know that the person who's going to run into the back of me while I'm waiting to turn right will have the ability to pay for the rebuild required on the back of my car.
|
"I would personally rather have a well-maintained Audi come round a corner at me doing 80, than a beaten-up Pug 309 with bald tyres and defective brakes doing 60"
Agreed - but I'd still rather have the Audi at 60 instead of either option, and whether the Pug is insured or not makes no difference.
And wouldn't you rather the person ran into the back of you at 40 than at 60?
|
You don't see a benefit to the person crashing into you being insured? Like you perhaps seeing some money to repair the damage to the car and possibly yourself?
|
Agreed - but I'd still rather have the Audi at 60 instead of either option, and whether the Pug is insured or not makes no difference.
But if the Pug is insured, it's also more likely to be MOTd and roadworthy. Unless you're talking about an insured but unroadworthy Pug, in which case it makes a big difference when I'm trying to get my own car sorted out, or negotiate a claim for my injuries.
And wouldn't you rather the person ran into the back of you at 40 than at 60?
Yes, I would. But then I'd also prefer him to concentrate on where he's going rather than looking in his rear-view to see if the last Gatso flashed at him.
|
Any one who has to look in a mirror to see if the last Gatso has flashed at him : should not be driving as he/she must be half blind: the flash can be easily seen...the reflection in the mirror even when you are looking straight ahead is quite bright.
Uninsured drivers? Lose their cars . full stop.
Frequent speeders - lose cars .
Some people don't want to adhere to laws. So laws must operate to ensure they have no choice in the matter..
madf
|
Maybe I am alone in not trusting Gatscos.
Even if I know that I am within the limit I tend to look back in case someone behind or going the other way has set it off in case I need to note the time, date and circumstances.
So they are distracting just by their presence.
I need a clean license and no mindless Metal Mickey is going to deprive me of that if I can help it.
|
SR:
The fact that the uninsured driver will not recive an NIP means that he can speed with impunity safe in the knowledge that the only way he can be caught is if an actual policeman is around. Having shown complete disregard for one very important law of the road how much regard do you think he'll show for the others?
You seem to be suggesting that driving without insurance is a crime of the same magnitude as speeding, kind of an 'all criminals are equal' deal. Do you consider all traffic offences to be equal? Should drink driving be treated the same i.e. "Regardless of whether you speed, don't have insurance, drive whilst drunk, have a faulty brake light you're a criminal full stop"?
|
BazzaBear/OldP,
I am not suggesting driving without insurance is a crime of the same magnitude as speeding (don't know where you got that idea, OP, so plese don't put words into my mouth), I'm questioning why some people feel that uninsured drivers should be hammered (huge fines, cars confiscated, etc.) while those who break the speed limit should be given token penalties, if any.
I think from the viewpoint of danger caused to others that driving without insurance is not necessarily at the top of the scale, and I would have thought if anything an uninsured driver might be less likely to speed in order to avoid drawing attention to himself. It would be dangerous to assume that disregard for one law means disregard for others - after all, those who break the speed limit don't necessarily go on to drive without insurance, do they?
|
Surely it's a red herring to link insurance directly with safety like speeding or Construction and USe Offences, though I accept the notion that an uninisured driver may well disregard other laws.
The point of insurance is to protect third parties in the event of the driver's stupidity or misjudgement. The real issue is personal injury, not some petty damage to a replaceable car. While the MIB provides a backstop it is a limited scheme with exclusions and my expereince with claimants was that they had a harder time than would other wise be the case.
The magnitude of sentence takes account of a failure to accept a basic responsibility to your fellow citizens. If you disagree with the principle of insurance the Motor Insurance Act already provides a get out; you lodge a security bond in court. The amount demanded will run to millions, but you will be paid the interest. Actually worthwhile for very big fleets IIRC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
