Looking in the convictions section of the local rag, I was ogling the various people "getting" away with no car insurance and faced with so-called fines ranging from a mere £100 to £500, less than most policies, especially for the younger folk.
Now, we all know that if you set the fine too high (i.e. more than their insurance premium) then these scum won't pay it anyway, so how about an alternative method:
Set the fine provisionally high, say a minimum of £2000 and 9 points on their licence and hold their car in a pound with the threat to crush it if they don't pay up.
Then, offer to reduce the fine to £50 + costs (and no points) if they can produce a new insurance certificate (checked against the database, obviously) within 10 working days of the court date.
At least then people have some incentive (and still might have the cash) to actually get insured, which is surely the objective of fining these people in the first place?
Any thoughts?
|
TOB - this is very good idea but I think it would fall foul of the major problem that I see today. There are literally thousands of pieces of legislation which have been introduced in the last few years; some of them are very good and some are petty and spiteful (think wheelie bin nonsense) but they almost all suffer from the lack of either a will or the people to enforce them. They go for the easy ones (wheelie bins etc) and anything difficult or time consuming goes by the board. What you are suggesting would probably involve another Government computer system and databse (Help!) and while it is a really good idea and I can't see it happening, or working well if it is introduced.
|
|
forget fining them just sell the cars and crush the owners :-)
|
|
|
True, new computer systems and government never mixes. I think the only way of enforcing this is to NOT involve the government!!
i.e. the courts use the insurance company database to check the validity of the new policy (already exists and works!) and then flag the database to stop the policy being cancelled and refunded.
At the end of the year, the insurance companies would be responsible to tell the courts if the policy wasn't renewed so the reasons could be checked out.
Or yeah, crush the owners... :)
|
|
How about mandatory third party only state insurance paid for by a rise in petrol prices. I'm sure some countries do this.
|
Good idea BBD but it would it be a 'flat' rate? If so I would be sudisising the insurance of chavs in blinged up Saxos and that wouldn't suit me! If it was fair and tailored to the driver and/or the car it would be an adminstrative nightmare.
|
|
|
BBD, are you seriously suggesting MORE rises in petrol prices???
It's clear that 99% of insurance dodgers are just laughing at the system. But look what a stupid system it is! Anyone arriving in the country (and a lot who already live here!) can buy a banger for a hundred quid, no tax no insurance, and drive it around for a few weeks until *maybe* they get caught. Slightly clever ones get a cover note to process all the other paperwork, or pay the first premium then cancel: end result the same but less likely to get caught. Worst case scenario, car is seized and crushed, 100 quid fine, return to stage 1, buy a 100 quid banger...
And there is no legal requirement to carry any documents in the car or any positive form of ID, not even a driving licence. This is simply ludicrous.
The law has a lot more teeth in Spain. If a debt remains unpaid for a certain time, the person or body owed can apply to the court to have that person's bank account(s) frozen, no money in or out until the debt is paid, maybe years hence. It is impossible to open a bank account or get paid salary or benefits or anything without ID, and with one pen stroke, all accounts in a person's name are frozen.
It wouldn't work with illegal immigrants or the ducking and diving Del Boys of this world but it'd be a start.
|
"BBD, are you seriously suggesting MORE rises in petrol prices???"
Yes, But I'm also suggesting that you wouldn't be required to pay for basic third party insurance.
|
Ok, devil's advocate time.
Chav1 drives into back of chav2's saxo.
Chav 2 claims whiplash, loss of earnings while he has 4 months off work, damage to saxo ('I just had it painted and serviced, innit?'), and walks away with £££s from the insurance.
Chav2 meets Chav1 and hands over his 'nice little earner', which Chav1 uses to buy banger #2, which Chav3 conveniently drives into next week... and the cycle continues.
|
We basically have no control over uninsured drivers!
However, we can insure ourselves comprehensive and there are some insurers who won't penalize your NCB if you're hit by uninsured drivers.
It is stated that average motorists pay £30/year extra premium for uninsured drivers.
Premium rises due to
1. high cost of replacement hire cars
2. high cost of hourly charge for mechanics
3. complex design of cars which means slight collision will result in huge damage
4. uninsured drivers
In UK, people often discard perfectly good cars just because they are out of warranty or repair cost exceeds value of vehicle. That's why some chavs can buy bangers for £100.
Our system is designed in a way to encourage uninsured driving [£100 banger + £200 fine when caught].
Why not ask all insurers not to blame policy holders if they are hit by uninsured drivers??
Edited by movilogo on 22/09/2008 at 11:26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now we all know that if you set the fine too high (i.e. more than their insurance premium) then these scum won't pay it anyway
IMO either they should pay the fine, or be locked up for a bit. Something like that. Flog 'em, perhaps, as well as the people who made and make such punishment impossible.
Set the fine provisionally high say a minimum of £2000 and 9 points on their licence and hold their car in a pound with the threat to crush it if they don't pay up. Then offer to reduce the fine to £50 + costs (and no points) if they can produce a new insurance certificate (..) within 10 working days of the court date.
This is handing them a gift on a plate. So, I should pay (say) £500 insurance. I don't pay it. My small fine for being a good boy and finally coughing up has saved me money in a quite acceptable way, TYVM. Also, it wouldn't help people who have lost, perhaps in a major way, from being involved in some sort of incident with an uninsured driver.
Confiscating the car is a good start, and would tend to affect people with lots of money and people with little money at least somewhat equally (yes, I know someone who's very rich indeed would not notice the loss of the F'rarie - but the cost would be relevant against their unpaid insurance cost).
|
If you've read the "no insurance - car seized threads", you come to the conclusion that policing and the law is getting to be a bit of a postcode lottery like the NHS and education.
How come in parts of the country the law will take your car away and in others issue a summons or whatever and let the procedure potter through the courts to a £100 fine?
I'm entirely in agreement with FT. Confiscate the car every time.
|
|
|
FT - what you say is fine but the fact is thousands of very seriously unpleasant criminals are being let out of prison early to make room for the new scum. The chances of a fine defaulter going to jail are a big zero, I suggest
|
Then offer to reduce the fine to £50 + costs (and no points) if they can produce a new insurance certificate (..) within 10 working days of the court date.
Then they do what they're doing now. Get legitimate insurance cover, collect impounded car, cancel insurance.
|
Monitor if poss and on second offence, crush the car.
|
Moniitoring doesn't seem to be possible - that is why there are so many uninsured drivers on the road in the first place!
|
|
|
Monitor if poss and on second offence crush the car.
I don't agree with destroying the vehicle, unless it's knackered (if I may say that) - confiscating, yes (for re-sale). I might even allow the offender to buy the thing back (at the current going rate).
|
Why not just reduce the premium? Many drive uninsured just because they can't afford it.
|
Why not just reduce the premium?
But how? Reduce the risk? Insure for no profit (even HMG mightn't do this!)?
Many drive uninsured just because they can't afford it.
Many people steal things for the same reason, and do all sorts of nasty stuff. It's absolutely no excuse whatsoever.
Edited by FotheringtonThomas on 22/09/2008 at 13:17
|
Insure for no profit
Insure for less profit.
|
|
|
|
Imagine the adminstrative nightmare of getting clear legal title to a confiscated, uninsured car, in a police compound and belonging to a finance company and with payment is still owing What would the HPI check come up with, how would you get ALL the keys from the 'owner', how would you get a V5? I wouldn't think of trying it!
|
movilogo wants a nil/low profit insurance scheme for those who "can't afford" it.
If people can't afford insurance, they can't afford a car. They'll have to walk or go on the bus.
I don't believe it's "can't afford" (which is no excuse) I think it's more "can't be bothered mate and what are you going to do about it, anyway?"
I "can't afford" the sort of car I would really like. How do you propose to help me out, movilogo?
|
I "can't afford" the sort of car I would really like. How do you propose to help me out, movilogo?
With cheap credit you can afford every car - however expensive it is. ;)
Of all people who drive uninsured, we have following major categories
1. Who are hardcore criminal - they'll always drive uninsured
2. Who can't afford - they might buy insurance it was affordable
3. Who are insured in general BUT not insured for a specific journey (borrowed mates card without DOC on their own policy)
4. Uninsured by accident - didn't notice insurance expired last week.
5. any other [can't remember now....]
I'm sure not all of above people deserve same punishment. Some people will really buy insurance if they are made affordable. There had been some TV documentaries about this issue.
The greed of some bank bosses created the current credit crunch. In same way, greed of some insurance bosses has made insurance premium go up.
|
movilogo's categories:
1) Maybe one of the force who posts on here will know better, but I'd suggest that sensible hardcore criminals will always have insurance, maybe through some fronting company, so they won't get a tug because of an ANPR problem.
2) Can't afford - don't accept. They'll just have to grow up, wont they?
3) Uninsured on mate's car - as at 2 above.
4) Didn't notice insurance expired. Do me a favour. Every time my insurance is approaching renewal, at least half a dozen companies write offering a quote. Need to grow up as above.
Insurance premiums are more expensive than otherwise because of those who won't insure.
The idea of some kind of basic policy is a bit nutty, with respect. It suggests that having a car is some sort of right, available to all through the welfare state.
Gimme strength! Getting the feckless off the road would be far better than encouraging them to go on it.
|
|
|
"With cheap credit you can afford every car - however expensive it is. ;)"
People living beyond their means. The real reason the world banking system is in the do dah.
"The greed of some bank bosses created the current credit crunch"
So the people that mortgaged up to the hilt, knowing they couldn't pay back long term are not to partly blame.
As has been said, can't afford within your budget, walk or use public transport.
|
|
|
|
|
It would be the new owner's because he bought it from a legitimate agency, with relevant paperwork.
Most of the other issues you mention must also be relevant to destroying confiscated vehicles.
That someone has a key for a vehicle does not mean that it's theirs, or that they may drive it. Sanctions to people who think it does may be applied!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is one solution to the problem - remove the source of vehicles from purchase from people without insurance cover already in place and stop all cash purchases and all purchases without proper identity and driving licence checks. Anyone selling a car to someone that proves to be without a licence or uninsured should face the same fines and points as the perpetrator so that people will stop selling cars to anyone that walks up to them. I suspect this would end the practice of private car sales but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Anyone that tries to own a car which they haven't bought would get flagged immediately as it should be possible to link that person with their NI number, bank account and address. All these details would have to check out before the car could be bought.
Enforcing consumer regulations so that even the worst banger had to work perfectly for 6 months would stop the bargain car sales in their tracks. Cheapest cars would then be about £1000 which would stop people buying them and risking getting them crushed.
As there are one million + uninsured drivers the present system clearly doesn't work.
Question is, if someone drives around uninsured but never has an accident where is the exact harm apart from to insurance company profits? If you force bad drivers to all have insurance then premiums may rise even further to compensate as you would be paying out for these numpties.
There could be cheap insurance policies which only insured someone for small claims eg maximum £1500. They'd only pay say £150 a year which is affordable. Anything above that amount would have to be paid back to the insurance company over time. It would make people far more careful about how they drove. You'd then have long term insurance eg 5 years with one company and they would be able to do attachment of earnings or benefits to get the money back along with the annual premiums. If they continued to have further accidents then more of their money would be taken so that they would actually suffer hardship and face the consequences of their poor driving. It could also work like a personal insurance pot so if you paid in so much you'd get out so much in damage allowances.
|
Why not just lock up all of the non insured motorists?.
Before any talks about prison overcrowding, Just put more people in each cell, After all prison is meant to be a punishment!. Until there is actually a proper deterrent people will continue to drive round uninsured and it will be the innocent party that loses out/ pays for it.
As for anyone claiming that this is breaching the human rights of our uninsured motorists, why not have one of our delightful uninsured motorists drive into there car, and then lets see how they feel about them.
Sorry about the rant, But the whole uninsured motorist thing is beyond a joke. what possible incentive is there for people to buy an insurance policy when the fine for being caught is much less than the policy, especially for younger drivers.
|
|
|
Enforcing consumer regulations so that even the worst banger had to work perfectly for 6 months would stop the bargain car sales in their tracks.
It would halt the sales of *all* cars, wouldn't it?
If you force bad drivers to all have insurance then premiums may rise even further to compensate as you would be paying out for these numpties.
NCD and high/low premiums already make allowances for "good" and "bad" drivers.
There could be cheap insurance policies which only insured someone for small claims eg maximum £1500.
Erm, hang on a minute. You can already vary the premium by changing the excess.
They'd only pay say £150 a year which is affordable. Anything above that amount would have to be paid back to the insurance company over time.
That's unworkable - what if I, on (say) the average wage, in the average situation, cause damage to something (or someone) else, resulting in a legitimate claim for millions? I will never be able to pay it, and no-one would accept that.
(..) If they continued to have further accidents then more of their money would be taken so that they would actually suffer hardship and face the consequences of their poor driving.
This happens - increased premiums.
|
People do sometimes have glitches with their insurance, and sometimes take the risk of driving an uninsured car for a short distance (for repair, restoration, etc.). If someone is pulled under these circumstances a fine is all right.
However it seems to me that those who are plainly and deliberately driving about uninsured, or allowing their cars to be driven by drivers they know aren't covered, should face a mandatory driving ban, with guaranteed porridge if they violate it. What could be simpler?
|
|
Driving ban = they'll drive anyway = invalid/no insurance = more insured drivers
|
You're right of course.
What I suggest is giving them chauffeurs on the state who drive them around in state owned vehicles where-ever they need to go. I have in mind the pub, the supermarket, the other flat where the bird and the kid lives so they don't get the benefit cut, the footie, and the mate's house where they start off in the morning before doing a bit of cash work.
In summer, obviously, they'd want a ride to and from the airport for their fortnight away in the sun.
Simple and fewer uninsured drivers on the road.
|
|
|
Sorry, I meant this
Driving ban = they'll drive anyway = invalid/no insurance = more uninsured drivers
|
|
|
|
|
>> Enforcing consumer regulations so that even the worst banger had to work perfectly >> for 6 months would stop the bargain car sales in their tracks. It would halt the sales of *all* cars wouldn't it?
They have to work 6 months without fault as it is but there is a caveat that takes price paid, age and condition into consideration. Remove that caveat and the motor trade would start inspecting vehicles properly rather than denying all knowledge of anything being wrong with things they were selling. No other industry is tolerated for selling shoddy goods so why is the motor trade different?
>> If you force bad drivers to all >> have insurance then premiums may rise even further to compensate as you would >> be paying out for these numpties. NCD and high/low premiums already make allowances for "good" and "bad" drivers.
The greater proportion of idiots the insurance cos have to pay out for will involve a degree of premium uplift for everyone as you'd still the MIB and have to pay out further costs for insured but useless drivers.>> There could be cheap insurance policies which only insured someone for small claims eg maximum >> £1500. Erm hang on a minute. You can already vary the premium by changing the excess.
Yes, but that only applies to damage to your vehicle not to the damage to the third party.>> They'd only pay say £150 a year which is affordable. Anything above that amount >> would have to be paid back to the insurance company over time. That's unworkable - what if I on (say) the average wage in the average situation cause damage to something (or someone) else resulting in a legitimate claim for millions? I will never be able to pay it and no-one would accept that.
The pay back would only apply to vehicle and property damage. Personal injury damage could be paid back centrally but with a means tested proportion going to the person causing the injury. There is always the choice to pay full premiums. If you don't want to take the risk with the cheap insurance then do without a car or get a better job.
>> (..) If they continued >> to have further accidents then more of their money would be taken so that they >> would actually suffer hardship and face the consequences of their poor driving. This happens - increased premiums.
Premium increases don't reflect the damage you have actually caused though. With the above principal any costs above your threshold you have to pay back. If you can't afford full insurance or don't want the risk of having to pay back millions then you don't have a car. Anyone found to be uninsured and driving should be forced to pay all their back premiums and if they can't afford to do so should have community service imposed until they have repaid it that way.
At some point people have to realise if they can't afford something legally then they have to go without. The sanctions against those that can't or won't pay is a way of accelerating their choice and making sure they face consequences as I am fed up of people bleating they can't afford insurance when they have a car and usually sky tv, a skin full of booze and cigarettes lying around. They can usually afford it but would rather spend the money on other things.
|
>>They can usually affordit but would rather spend the money on other things.
That's often true, and dealing with that means giving them incentive to pay. Locking them up is one option but is it even enough and might it just drive people into worse behaviour having nothing left to loose?
|
|
|
>>At some point people have to realise if they can't afford something legally then they have to go without. The sanctions against those that can't or won't pay is a way of accelerating their choice and making sure they face consequences as I am fed up of people bleating they can't afford insurance when they have a car and usually sky tv, a skin full of booze and cigarettes lying around. They can usually afford it but would rather spend the money on other things.
Yes, paying for insurance is boring when you can buy luxuries with the money instead.
My answer to this is to permanently confiscate the vehicle. No ifs, no buts. If the vehicle is high value, then that reflects the drivers ability to pay so the penalty is proportionate. If the vehicle belongs to someone else, well, tough, they (the uninsured) will have some explaining to do to the owner as to why they wont be seeing their car again.
The beauty of this is that the sort of person to lend a car to another without insurance "might" be the sort that would maybe exert retribution in less PC way. That'd learn 'em.
|
My answer to this is to permanently confiscate the vehicle. No ifs no buts. If the vehicle is high value then that reflects the drivers ability to pay so the penalty is proportionate.
We seem to agree there..
If the vehicle belongs to someone else well tough they (the uninsured) will have some explaining to do to the owner as to why they wont be seeing their car again.
However, why punish someone who had no part in the offence?
The beauty of this is that the sort of person to lend a car to another without insurance "might" be the sort that would maybe exert retribution in less PC way. That'd learn 'em.
That is a *most* unfortunate suggestion. I hope that anyone considering that would
be locked up.
|
>> If the vehicle belongs to someone else well tough they (the uninsured) >> will have some explaining to do to the owner as to why they wont be >> seeing their car again. However why punish someone who had no part in the offence?
Sorry, have to disagree with you.
A car is a responsibility. The majority of un-insured cars would be private cars, not corporate. I know full well who is or is not insured on my car. Anyone who is not on my insurance document is NOT insured and I would accept responsibility for allowing my cars use. Of course, the car may be taken without my knowledge or its possible that an owner could lie about knowing who was using it. Perhaps keys should be looked after better then.
>> The beauty of this is that the sort of person to lend a car to >> another without insurance "might" be the sort that would maybe exert retribution >> in less PC way. That'd learn 'em. That is a *most* unfortunate suggestion. I hope that anyone considering that would be locked up.
Well, I wasnt thinking of physical retribution actually. I was thinking of cause and effect of ruining anothers property.How about guilt, awkwardness, stopping of priviledges, paying relative back personally, shunning and exclusion from social circles? Thats just for starters when you end up getting someone elses car crushed.
|
I know full well who is or is not insured on my car. Anyone who is not on my insurance document is NOT insured
Is this true?
|
No I don't think it is. If you lend me your car I can drive it with minimum 3rd party cover on MY insurance. If I use a garage courtesy car I am covered as if the car was my own, while mine is in the workshop. The latter is not the case with all policies though.
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 23/09/2008 at 19:26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
