Seen elsewhere and thought BR may be interested:
Was it not in the Middle Ages that 'The Rack' was the preferred method of torture for miscreants.? At least the innocents were left alone.
Seems history is repeating itself but this time not only the scoat gets hammered but the law abiding too.
tinyurl.com/5qoc2
Whilst I can see why this should be considered I am concerned that more and more we are being entangled in legislation. Surely with APNR, Insurance Discs and proper use of fines/disqualification then this should be sufficient.
If they want it to be 100 per cent foolproof why not implement third party State Insurance through a levy on fuel? I believe that was done by one of the states in Oz.
Note that there is an EMail address to vent your dislike?????
DVD
|
|
But I dont dislike! seems like a good idea to me!
|
So, if I have a second classic car where, say, the RFL is due December 2005 but the insurance and MOT is due in June 2005. Come MOT time, the car fails and needs extensive structural welding, which I need to save up for. I cannot let the insurance lapse until the RFL lapses?
Oh hang on! I can stick the RFL in for a refund and claim SORN from June 2005.....
I get it. Quite a good idea then! However, will it be enforced effectively? This is Britain after all....
|
|
|
|
Based on a brief scan, this seems to be a good move. What is the problem with it?
If your car is legitimately off road and SORNed, you don't have to insure it. If it needs taxing, it needs insuring. Simple. And now they can pursue them.
One step closer to paperless Car tax renewal as well?
|
Driving without insurance is already an offense.
The increase in uninsured drivers is a social and policing problem.
I can see this being one more thing driving the problem underground, more and more cars 'not existing'.
I'm still suprised when I see the 'traffic police' type programs on TV where they are unable to trace the owner of a vehicle - notwithstadning all the legislation that has come into effect.
I can see the day coming when you will only be able to buy petrol with your all-in-one multifunction ID card, when your thumbprint is scanned, insurance and mot checked, tax paid, teeth brushed, bottom wiped and voted for the right party.
Nightmare.
|
A badly thought out approach to a serious problem.
Why not put third party insurance on petrol ?
for:
related to miles driven, fuel consumption, vehicle efficiency, mostly inescapable
against:
Not manipulable behind the scenes, it is more difficult to get all the money from one pot rather than attacking many different pots, whether or not it is better by any other measure, it would mean less revenue for the government.
|
Sorry simply don't see your beef with this one.
Given that the police can access the DVLA and Motor Insurer's Database when using ANPR systems what is wrong with a clerk in an office checking the two and issuing penalty notices? Seems to me to be a wholly sensible extension.
Whilst older cars may have already dropped off the list it is becoming increasingly difficult to do this, and incresingly painful if caught.
My only problem is that the fine is too low. It needs to be higher to make it cheaper for most to get insurance.
|
If I have a car. It is taxed and MOT'd. The insurance is due for renewal today. However, I am off on holiday tomorrow and I don't need the car for three weeks. So why waste my money ? I'll reinsure it when I get back. Its not on the road, nro will it be, but I don't want to SORN it because its not worth cashing in the tax for that time period.
But I'll be breaking this law. Why, on what basis, and to what benefit ?
It is already against the law to use a car on the public highway without insurance. Now it is illegal to have one on my own land without RTA insurance which even the RTA doesn't think it needs.
|
Agree totally.
3rd party insurance and road tax should be paid by including them in fuel charges. That's fair on everyone and would also ensure that those using more fuel would pay more.
ANPR is great in that it doesn't need a lot of resource to manage, however it doesn't get round cloning which is becoming a problem with unlicenced mini-cabs. Also, it can't deal with foreign registered vehicles which is another boom industry.
|
In theory including third party insurance within fuel is a great idea.
But in practice what about the morons who crash into everything and constantly claim? What about Kevin, the 17 year old idiot who's just bought a 300bhp wedge shape Supra off Ebay for a grand? Now he can legally drive it, whereas before insurance stopped him..
|
The biggest issue I have with this is that it does nothing to stop our continental friends coming over in the ferry or train without adequate insurance.
Also the fines for breaking the law have got to be higher than the insurance! thats a fundamental thing that has gone wrong. Especially if you have low income the courts will impose a fine so low in comparison to insurance that market forces take over
|
|
lets see if we get any response to backroomers input
|
|
|
|
If they want it to be 100 per cent foolproof why not implement third party State Insurance through a levy on fuel? I believe that was done by one of the states in Oz. Note that there is an EMail address to vent your dislike?????
yes, everyone, please note.
i agree that the minimum insurance should be funded via a tax on fuel.
do send in your comments to the email address as pointed out by dvd.
|
So if you are on holiday or taken to hospital and can't renew,or maybe you can't renew beacuse there's some welding to be done and the welder isn't available for a week you become a criminal despite the vehicle being in your garage.
Of course you should have done it prior to the renewal date but hey this is the real world!
This will not prevent the habitual criminal who has never registered the vehicle, who has no intention of getting either tax or insurance1
I sometimes wonder whether it would be cheaper to get a banger, and clone the plates......
|
[snip]
"motoring". I'm pretty sure that the word is "motoring".
|
Hmmm this sounds to me pretty sucky-for me for example, I have a car which is 'off the road' but because I don't have a private offroad place to park it, it is on the public highway (a public parking bay outside my house). The car is taxed from before the insurance ran out and incidentally is still MOT'd, but until I can sell it, what choice do I have? Incidentally, I thought it was legal to park a car on the public highway WITHOUT insurance as long as it was taxed and parked legally-if this IS illegal I may well be foul of the law at the moment as the car that is laid up is taxed, MOT'd but not insured and it is on the public highway (as far a the law is concerned).
Seems to me another one of those things where there already exists the laws to adequately punish people who commit these crimes, making more laws won't mean squat except to people 'like me and you' who correctly register and tax their vehicles etc.
I'll bet the hard core of people who commit most no insurance offences are the kind who wouldn't care or pay a fine, don't even know what a registration document looks like.
|
|
I'd also like to add that the reason why under this new law I couldn't SORN it is because I don't have an off road place to legally SORN it to so I made sure it was taxed before the insurance lapsed. Hopefully it will be gone before the current tax runs out..
|
The new databases and use of them will reveal your car as uninsured if a policeman should check. And whether or not you're driving it, you'll still get nicked.
M.
|
|
|
marsexpress -
the relevant law is
Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) 1988 c. 52
Compulsory insurance or security against third-party risks
143.?(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act?
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves?
(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
144.?(1) Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court the sum of £15,000, at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control.
etc. etc.
[ my note - i believe that the term "use on a road" includes parked vehicles, even when they are parked in a private car park to which the general public has access; e.g. a a pub or supremarket car park ].
|
[ my note - i believe that the term "use on a road" includes parked vehicles, even when they are parked in a private car park to which the general public has access; e.g. a a pub or supremarket car park ].
here is the offical definition:
Road Traffic Act 1988.
192.?(1) In this Act?
"road", in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes,
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel the fine for not having insurance should be a multiple of the gross premium for the 3rd party cover of that vehicle, on the basis of the average of the top 5 insurers. This would soon stop young drivers using uninsured cars as it would be cheaper to pay the insurance rather than the fine. Also this would ensure that the fine was tied to the risk of the car, so the more powerful, the bigger the fine. It would also stop the reduction in the fine amount due to financial circumstances.
The registered keeper should also be made to take out insurance for the period the car was not covered. This would be at a special rate as insurers would know that no claim could be made for this period.
|
|
|
