Don't really see what continuity of insurance has got to do with the problem of uninsured drivers.

Scenario A: Car is insured by to Dave, but is mainly driven by Jim who is not insured. Continuity of insurance indicates a false negative

Scenario B: Car is registered to Dave, whio is not insured, but has been taken for a run by Jim who is legitimately covered to drive the car 3rd party (in emergencies) under his own insurance policy. Continuity of insurance indicates a false positive.

This is just a labour-saving measure for lazy plods. In the age of instant mobile communication, it has no place.

Of course, these measures are dreamt up by the likes of Gideon Osborne for whom the problem of running a car has never been a consideration.

No! You can't drive someone else's car for business use on your own policy-you know that I didn't imply that.

My point was that continuity of insurance requirement is not an effective measure against uninsured drivers. It also moves the burden of proof from guilt to innocence which I find totally unacceptable.

Isn't that the wording the insurance companies choose? I presume it is simply a clause to discourage abuse. Otherwise one could simply drive someone else's car in a much higher insurance on a daily basis.

I don't think this system is widely used in Europe certainly not in Germany ,Italy,Switzeland ,Austria,and I think you need to look at the French system more closely what you are saying is that given a make of car everybody pays the same I don't think so .I think they use the system in use in Germany where the plates are only issued on the reciept of valid documentation .

In fairness the continous insurance law had been coming for years with the previous Government having got the ball rolling. There's plenty of things to blame Gideon for which are his fault without resorting to things which aren't.