Safe Speed Forums

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4295834.stm

£60 fine if your insurance runs out..

more grief for classic car/bike owners
people who live or work away
or get detained in hospital against thier plans.

This totally misses the point. Unlike car tax this is not a revenue issue but a road safety one - the act of not having insurance on your vehicle is not in any way a problem, it is solely the use of an uninsured vehicle that is an issue.

As such it is right and proper that the current system requires a road user to be caught without insurance, as that is the offence that needs to be enforced, not the harmless "non-offence" of keeping an uninsured vehicle off the road.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 10:17 this morning:

PR243: Uninsured driving out of control

news: for immediate release

DfT plans, announced today for a 'crackdown' on uninsured driving via the
registration records won't work says Safe Speed.

With an estimated 1.4 million uninsured drivers menacing our roads the
government foolishly intends to address the problem via vehicle records. But
most uninsured vehicles are improperly registered and the scheme won't work.

Safe Speed believes that plans are in place to fund a large-scale ANPR and
paperwork exercise from uninsured driver fixed penalties in a carbon copy of
the failed speed camera hypothecation scheme.

But, as usual, key facts are being ignored by an increasing incompetent
Department for Transport. For example:

* It's the DRIVER that requires insurance, not the VEHICLE, but these plans
depend of vehicle records not driver records.

* At any one time 3 million or so motor vehicles are 'in the trade' and have no
realistic registered keeper.

* Many of the vehicles being driven uninsured are 'throw aways'; lost to the
system and have changed keepers many times since the last accurate record.

* The police have the means to detect and prosecute around 150,000 uninsured
drivers each year. With 1.4 million uninsured drivers the average uninsured
driver can expect a £200 fine and 6 points once in NINE YEARS.

* 31% of DVLA records are known to be inaccurate.

* 'Paperwork' approaches to such problem make more and more people decide to
'work outside the system', and tend to have the side effect of INCREASING the
problem.


Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "The government must admit that it has failed to
tackle the very serious and real uninsured driver problem. A radical overhaul
of the way we pay for third party insurance is the only possible solution."

"Safe Speed investigations conclude that the only real solution will be to
charge a third party insurance premium as a fuel levy. This ends the problem
overnight at zero cost, and uses close to zero resources. Such schemes are
effective in Australia and South Africa."

<ends>

Notes for editors
=================

DfT PR:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2005_0098

Safe Speed Manifesto (includes proposal for insurance on fuel)
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html

Safe Speed response to uninsured driver consultation:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/uninsured.doc

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Paul, I'll admit it's been a few years since I left Oz, but since when do they have a fuel levy for 3rd party insurance? Last time I registered a car over there (2001) it was roughly the same process as here.

edit: forgot to mention, compulsory 3rd party insurance is only personal not property.

OK, I'll bite

How will this work precisely? Self and Mrs Buckmac both have cars. We are each named drivers on other's policy - both policies fully comprehensive with the 'drive other vehicles' clause. Each car registered in our own names.

With me so far? Good - keep up at the back there!

So, Mrs B neglects to renew - for whatever reason. Brown envelope (notice bad news is always in a brown envelope) arrives - request for a donation to local police charity (cough) for £60 for car not insured. Ignore CoFP (which one assumes they will use) turn up in court with my policy docs.

What's the answer here? Is it that old one that's been hashed and re-hashed on here about the 'borrowed' car having to be insured? As far as I'm aware, it does not have to be. However, technically, if I were to park or otherwise leave it, then it is uninsured. However, it's moot.

Supposing, I were to insure her car in my name and vice versa - and yes, it can be done, you do NOT have to be RK in order to insure a vehicle.

Then what happens? £60 donation request, ignore, arrive in court with full insurance docs (with Mrs B as named driver) for her car in my name.

I assume it would be a 'Not Guilty m'lud'

What a right bollyx they're making of the law - and all to address something which cannot be addressed this way as pointed out by Paul.

I despair.

_________________
Stultus est sicut stultus facit - a known fact
Stercus accidit - a truism!

This is just daft. The majority of uninsured drivers on the roads are unregistered and untraceable and so the only people this is going to tackle is those that have innocently left their vehicles unused for awhile and obviously let any insurance lapse or cancel as why would they need it? It's just one more unnecissary burden that means even fewer people are going to bother to make sure their vehicle is legit.

What are they talking about "New laws"??
The police have had access to insurance company databases since January of last year that I personally know of.


Utter bollocks.
Your chances of being involved in an accident do not change in the slightest whether you have insurance or not.


What makes the idiot who thought this rubbish up think that a driver who is not legal is actually going to register the vehicle in his or her name to start with?


These new "laws" aren't going to bother the illegal driver in the slightest, the only thing that may teach them is a longer jail sentence than the pissy 6 months that can be imposed at this moment in time.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

And jst to show how stupid the whole idea is - and where policing priorities lie -
Last night in Warks two news papers, both local had different headlines -

One shouting about un everything drivers and siezing cars - quoting the success in Durham with a similar policy using ANPR.Now this sort of operation in Warks usually shows us that we have several Traffic units , and quite a lot of police when cash is to be made.
The other had two pub landlords telling how they had been turned over and how abysmal the police cover is.

A tale of two priorities it seems.But then burglars don't have registration plates

But then the

I heard this on the 1 am news whilst on line but could not find a link so did not post up as thought I'd really misheard this.

Whilst I agree something needs to be done about those do not insurte their cars - my first reaction was on of how this resloves anything. IG posted ages ago about the first step being to close or legislate the wide boy "Arthur Daley" type car lots which sell throwaways at under £100 and no questions asked. After all these cars are never even registered - which means no records and thus no chance of a pick up on ANPR/GATSO etc. That's where logically you need to impose strict controls if you are going to impact and crack down on this problem.

As for the £60 fine is insurance expires and you fail to notify...I've patients in hopsital already fallen foul of SORN legislation. When one's dyng thew last thing ontheir minds is signing a SORN or any other declaration. Have filled in loads of paperwork to date explaining why person could not complete the required paperwork - as being on life support does rather limit ability to write anything. Do try to make sure any relatives keep home fires burning but again they are more mithered with hospital visits and so on. So I'd say some attention needs to be given to certain mitigating circumstances on that basis.

Also as buckmac mentions - the RK does not need to inusre the car. My mother is not the RK of the car she drives and insures in her own name - my father is the RK. So - could be a problem there if my Mum (unlikely) forgets to renew on time.

I'm insured to drive IG's car and a good many cars owned by various relatives. All cars owned by entire family are insured fully comp/any driver and this is where the advanced qualifications pay off a bit for us and also why we know we are all clean and make sure we remain so. So wonder what would happen if any one of us forgot to insure on time or took one of the classic car off the road for overhaul and forgot to notify break in insurances, given that all our own personal policies provide a third party cover for the odd car in the small print. Are they going to bother to check this? After all many RKs and owners do not.

Also - my youngest brother is a cost/management accountant (actually he's FD) with a medium sized manufacturing firm. His Sales Director had a mishap whilst driving out of the factory gates in a hired car - scraping the nearside. The hire car fell under the company's insurance whilst used by the firm and not the hiring company - the RK of the vehicle. How would they check this one out - supposing on or the other firm had a lapse due to some takeover deal or went bust and defaulting the DD and invalidating the policy as result?


Also worth remembering that leasing company of lease hired vehicles are RKs which is why there is a timing factor when these cars ping a GATSO as I understand for reading pepipoo and PH!


Law then is not righting the wrong it seeks to remedy! Like most other laws introduced by the inept control freakery government!

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Yes and no. IIRC one of the Traffic Cops type shows claimed uninsured drivers are 9 times more likely to have a collision, but obviously that's got nothing to do with them not having insurance and everything to do with so many being irresponsible drivers. If you paid for their insurance for a year they'd be no safer on the road, just as I'd be no worse by renewing my insurance late. I think it's a bit like the flip side of the 85th percentile - drivers at the 85th percentile aren't safer because they're driving at the 85th percentile, they're driving at the 85th percentile because they're safe drivers. I think the point is those that normally drive without insurance are increasingly likely to be part of a motoring underclass who just don't give a damn and that's what makes them more dangerous, but the Beeb didn't make it very well. (Or at all )

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I understand what you are saying, my statement was directed more on a "per user" basis rather than a generalisation of road users who choose to drive without insurance.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Yes, on an individual basis the difference is stuff all, which I think we were both saying. I think the Beeb's statement was meant generally, but the way it's worded could be taken as meaning individually. Which, as you said, is clearly bollocks.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Spot on.

If people thought about things before they started shouting things like rubbish,Bollo**s etc then perhaps it wouldn't seem so bad. Yes, the police have an Insurance data base on PNC at present but it is not 100% correct .

There are plans to seize vehicles which are stopped and found not have any insurance in force for the vehicle, but the problem is a logistics problem as the police forces, rota garages do not have the facilities to cope with the possible sudden influx of vehicles being brought in along with the other run of the mill recoveries,as they have to in law keep all vehicles recovered for minimum of 28 days,before they can crush or dispose of them.

Now in order to make operations like ANPR etc successfull the database which is used needs to at least up to date. When the police say that you will more likely to be involved in a collision with a uninsured driver is true, this is why, when I drive around and look at cars that I feel might have a driver who is either disqualified from driving, or no insurance, etc then in my experience when i attempt to go after them theyre off like startled rabbitts,which more often than not result in them having even the smallest of bumps ie,mirror to mirror.

I have seen this time and time again even when I do not get overly suspicious of the vehicle , they are always on the look out for police cars and most times out of the sight of you they run scared.

So it is a good idea that we deny these criminals the use of our roads and come down hard on them as no insurance undoubtedely means further offences which means more detected crimes,which has got to be good all round wouldnt you say.
Stephen

Of course if someone is using a vehicle on the road uninsured then they deserve strong punishment. However, this new scheme will not tackle that - it relies on the vehicles having accurate and up-to-date records with the DVLA. I'm not suggest you personally were, but anyone who believes the motoring underclass ensure they send of the V5C with correct details on is living in cloud-cukoo land. And that is exactly the reason why this scheme is largely pointless.

I agree with much of what you say there Stephen, but it's not only a logistics problem is it? Say a member of my household borrowed my car while I was away without my knowledge or permission, or adequate cover. Absolutely they deserve sanctions for driving uninsured, but do I deserve to come back and find my car has been seized and/or crushed? After all, I'm paying to insure the thing for my benefit and presumably the insurance database would show that cover exists for me. So what's the score there? Do I have to make a theft/total loss claim on my insurance because it was taken without my consent before being recovered and flattened by the police? Or are there sufficient checks and balances that ensure I get it back in one piece?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

a few scroats break the law, but they will prosicute every one who owns a campervan , classic car or motorbike who dosent renew thier insurance for the winter because they are out of the country or in hospital or because DVLA deny recieving thier SORN statement.

I think it would be reasonable enough to rely on the road tax cameras to send a HORT1 to any car seen driving without insurance. but to fine them strieght away is presumption of guilt before innocence.[/quote]

I agree totally with you Capri -

Once again the people who comply will be the ones to be chased,harassed and punished, whilst the ones milking the system , sit back and laugh - the best example of this is the benifit fraud system - it was revealed recently that a high percentage of persons reported are never actually targeted.

I see another danger hidden in this legaislation.

Since it simply relies on a car having a valid insurance in the same name as the keeper it will make life much easier for little Johnny who can afford a Ferrari but not the insurance. He gets it registered and insured in grandads name and the car doesn't get a second look from the automated police force.

The real police (what's left of them) are too busy clearing up the wrecks.

yet another "PCN tax" to clobber the easy target law abiding & respecting motorist who has a little lapse with while the real crims run around in ringed cars.

I mean how many more can they come up with? I wouldn't mind so much if they just turned around and said "okay, road tax is gonna be £800 a year" because it's an equal playing field and a tax-deductable expense, but these insidious stealth-taxes-by-fine are just so.... i know it's an overused phrase but so nazi-like in implementation.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction