Safe Speed Forums

The DfT proposes:

"Continuous Enforcement of Motor Insurance Requirements from the Record"

This is the description:

Our aim is to put in place an effective prevention scheme that deters people from driving
uninsured but which does not require police intervention, and will have a minimum impact on the
honest motorist. We therefore intend to make it possible to prosecute a person for having control
of an uninsured vehicle without first having to catch him using it on a road.

We propose to introduce legislation making it an offence to be the registered keeper of a vehicle
the use of which is not insured in accordance with section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Such
an offence would not require the police to prove that the vehicle was in use on the road. Subject to
certain exemptions, the possession of a vehicle without valid insurance would be an offence.
Liability would rest with the keeper of the vehicle.

This would be a new offence, additional to the existing offence of "using a vehicle on a road or
other public place without third party insurance" as required by Section 143 of the Road Traffic
Act 1988. The new offence would initially attract a fixed penalty of £100. If, after the issue of a
fixed penalty notice, the vehicle continued to have no policy of insurance for its use then the case
could be prosecuted in the Magistrates Courts. It is proposed that the maximum penalty on
prosecution be a fine at level 3 (£1000). The new offence would not attract endorsements on a
Driving Licence. Its purpose would be to deliver a sharp lesson to those motorists who fail to
renew their insurance on time, and to deter all motorists from committing the more serious
offence of actually driving whilst uninsured.

There are a number of circumstances in which the registered keeper of a motor vehicle has no
intention of driving or keeping the vehicle on the road and who therefore may assume that they
have no need for insurance. Examples would include a vehicle that is off the road for repairs or
restoration, or a vehicle which is laid up during the winter months. Providing that the keeper has
made a Statutory Off Road Declaration (SORN) to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
(DVLA), there would be no requirement for insurance to be in place.

I'm really happy to accept that we have a real problem with uninsured driving, and that "something needs to be done". I have extreme doubts that this is it. I'm very concerned that the usual "offenders" will be normal responsible folk who are away - perhaps abroad or in hospital.

I''m also concerned that this represents yet more pressure to undermine the registration process. After all if you're not traceable, you can't be fined.

The consultation documents are here:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 33114.hcsp

Safe Speed will be opposing this proposal for the following reasons:

* The founding report (The Greenaway report) was inadequately scoped.

* There's no logical basis for it to be an offence to have a vehicle off the road and allowing the insurance to lapse. Vehicles only need insurance when they are on the road.

* There's a big admin load dealing with a large number of vehicles that are legitimately off the road.

* They keep forgetting that it's the driver that needs insurance, not the vehicle.

* The DVLA seem to be cock-up city these days, and it's getting worse (presumably as folk seek to find ways of opting out of the system).

* There must be many circumstances where the registered keeper (RK) isn't responsible for insurance. (leased company car for example, with the lease company as RK - if the lessee gets the insurance wrong, why should the lessor be liable?)

* Anyone got any more flaws?

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

The "self-insuring" conglomorates who bail-bond shedloads of money will no doubt get hassled by this.

What about also owners of classics who insure per journey - perhaps only one or two trips per year? (Not sure if it still is but it used to be often they have theft/fire cover but not road use cover all year round)

Well thats another poorly thought out idea.

OK uninsured drivers are a massive problem but really fall into four catagories;

1 Drivers driving a vehicle for which they have no insurance cover although the vehicle is insured (borrowing a mates car)

2 The Criminal element who neither insure or register their vehicles

3 Joy riders/TWOCKERS

4 People who have taken the trouble to register their vehicles but can't be arsed to insure it but still drive it

The reality is that this law won't prevent anything as group 4 are a small minority of the problem.

Since there is already a fine for not registering SORN and you cant get the vehicle Tax without insurance who do they intend dealing with here.

What it has though is the hidden agenda of removing more police from the road and making a political statement that they "are doing something".

I have long held that SORN is wrong if only because it is possible not be able to properly declare SORN even though the vehicle is off the road and will not be used on it. You have to give the postal address where the vehicle is kept. This means that it is impossible to properly declare SORN if the vehicle is kept somewhere that has no postal address. For example, within a parcel of land apart from any dwelling, on a trailer, or within another vehicle. The DVLA will not accept an OS grid reference or the registration number of the vehicle in which it is kept.

These examples are entirely plausible. Someone may live at one end of the country, own woodlands at the other, and want to keep a vehicle on that land for maintenance of that land. There are many motorsport enthusiasts whose competition vehicles will never need to be taxed and insured and who keep those vehicles on trailers or "garaged" in a transporter. The enthusiast is insured under a club policy but only while actually competing.

Just as the Government did not account for all possibilities when drafting the SORN regulations, I suspect that they will miss possible and plausible reasons why a vehicle may reasonably not be insured. As Paul wrote, it's the driver not the vehicle that needs insurance.

What of a serviceman (or woman) who is suddenly called to serve in some remote clime. They store their car in their garage and go to do their duty overseas. Trust me here, notifying DVLA that your car is off the road is most definitely not a priority (particularly if your insurance expires in a month but your tax expires in ten) when you have a transport to catch in a few hours and your life could depend on packing the right gear!

Some months ago, I met a couple who have retired and who now live a nomadic life taking their fifth-wheel RV to Spain etc. for the winter and returning to UK for a couple of months each summer to MOT and tax their pick-up and visit friends and relations. They used to insure it in UK but their insurance company will no longer offer European cover (because they don't have a permanent UK address). They have found a foreign company to ensure their British-registered vehicle while it is in mainland Europe. So, they intend to take out UK insurance cover only for their time in UK and cancel their UK policy as soon as their pick-up's wheels are back on French soil. I suspect that the rules wouldn't cope with such a situation.

_________________
Will

How about people on short term driving bans?

Surely you can't be insured if you are banned. Do they expect people to SORN the car for a couple of weeks then tax it again when the ban expires? If so that would effectively extend the ban for the time it takes to insure and tax the vehicle.

Also what abou the following...

Driving without owners consent
Driving whilst on a SORN
Driving after change of ownership

There are also a number of cases where kids buy cheap cars, driver around for a couple of months then dump them. There is no way the law will keep track. It will take at least a month AFTER the change of ownership before the system will even flag it up. If the new owner gives false details to the previous owner on the form then he will be un-traceable.

Another "sticking plaster" solution....typical of this government...

More than one million people are still driving with out tax so the system does not work...

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I've always had a troublesome thought with this stuff.

So I leave the country, and whilst away the tax and insurance run out.

However I'm not in the country so not under the jurisdiction of UK law, as long as I SORN it before I return what can they find me for.

Or is this not really an offence but some strange liability, like maybe a TAX.


Chris

I'm not defending this, but it's not exactly going to catch large numbers of people, is it?

The circumstances under which people may fall foul of it are pretty limited, and it won't do anything to touch those driving "disposables".

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Safe Speed issued the following PR at 17:10 today:

PR152: Red Tape won't solve uninsured driving says Safe Speed

NEWS: for immediate release

The Government proposes to create a brand new offence of "failing to
renew your motor insurance", In a consultation document issued
recently by the DfT, we learn of plans to further inconvenience
legitimate and responsible motorists while criminal drivers remain
outside of the system.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) commented: "Why is it that the government's
attempts to improve our roads always seem to impinge largely on normal
responsible motorists? We're absolutely certain that under the
proposed legislation the typical 'offender' will be someone who is out
of the country or in hospital when his motor insurance expires.
Obviously it's important that drivers are insured, but we need to
catch those driving without insurance, not those who have no intention
of driving."

Paul continues: "The problem with red tape solutions is that they cost
a great deal and deliver very little benefit. In this case we might
even be making matters worse by encouraging criminal drivers to move
outside the system even further. After all this legislation cannot be
applied if the registered keeper cannot be traced."

Safe Speed's recently published road safety manifesto proposes ending
the uninsured driving nightmare by giving full consideration to
including third party insurance for all within the cost of motor fuel.

"The beauty of our proposal," said Paul, "is that it ends uninsured
driving once and for all. It uses negligible resources and it frees up
Police officers from the need to enforce insurance regulation. Police
would have more time to concentrate on actual road dangers. This would
be very positive for road safety. The system works right now in South
Africa, and we must urgently investigate the effect of doing it here.

<ends>

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

We'd really appreciate it if any quote could include our web address.
Some people are having trouble getting in touch with us. Thanks.

The recent official report by Professor Greenaway finds that we have
1.2 million uninsured drivers.

The new DfT proposal is here:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 33114.hcsp

This is the DfT's description:

"Our aim is to put in place an effective prevention scheme that deters
people from driving uninsured but which does not require police
intervention, and will have a minimum impact on the honest motorist.
We therefore intend to make it possible to prosecute a person for
having control of an uninsured vehicle without first having to catch
him using it on a road.

We propose to introduce legislation making it an offence to be the
registered keeper of a vehicle the use of which is not insured in
accordance with section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Such an
offence would not require the police to prove that the vehicle was in
use on the road. Subject to certain exemptions, the possession of a
vehicle without valid insurance would be an offence. Liability would
rest with the keeper of the vehicle.

This would be a new offence, additional to the existing offence of
"using a vehicle on a road or other public place without third party
insurance" as required by Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
The new offence would initially attract a fixed penalty of £100. If,
after the issue of a fixed penalty notice, the vehicle continued to
have no policy of insurance for its use then the case could be
prosecuted in the Magistrates Courts. It is proposed that the maximum
penalty on prosecution be a fine at level 3 (£1000). The new offence
would not attract endorsements on a Driving Licence. Its purpose would
be to deliver a sharp lesson to those motorists who fail to renew
their insurance on time, and to deter all motorists from committing
the more serious offence of actually driving whilst uninsured.

There are a number of circumstances in which the registered keeper of
a motor vehicle has no intention of driving or keeping the vehicle on
the road and who therefore may assume that they have no need for
insurance. Examples would include a vehicle that is off the road for
repairs or restoration, or a vehicle which is laid up during the
winter months. Providing that the keeper has made a Statutory Off Road
Declaration (SORN) to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA),
there would be no requirement for insurance to be in place."


The DRAFT Safe Speed road safety manifesto is here:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html

The DfT also recently consulted on proposals to seize uninsured
vehicles. The Safe Speed response to that consultation is here:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/uninsured.doc
It contains further details of our proposals.

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

Not any more - you just tick the box and it's done.

Gareth

You're right! I've just had a look at the V14 and it's been revamped so that you now only declare that the vehicle is kept off the road. Only about a year ago, a friend had some fun trying to give DVLA an OS grid reference because he dumped his newly-bought series landie in a field shelter until he could get around to restoring it. He ended up giving DVLA his home address (about five miles from where the vehicle is), which which the DVLA advised him to do even though that was not the truth!

_________________
Will

The other snag is that the DVLA often fails to send a SORN reminder, or it gets lost in the post. You need to sign a SORN form every year or you get a continuous registration fine.

People have suggested to send a letter saying "my vehicle is SORN until further notice" but I looked at the law quickly and it is possibly legal for them to require notification as required.

Gareth

Sorry, I'm out of the loop here, being on the other side of the planet.

Can someone tell me what SORN actually means?

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

Statutory Off-Road Notification.

It's what you have to do if you have a vehicle that is not going to be used on the road and therefore not subject to VED (Vehicle Excise Duty, aka Road Tax).

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

This whole mess seems like a crock of the proverbial to me. Our system, while not perfect, seems to cover almost everything.

I agree that a fuel excise would be more equitable than a fixed fee per vehicle but at lease every registered vehicle in Australia has some form of insurance even if it only covers people.

To me the perfect system is the fuel excise proposal as it would not even matter if the car was unregistered. If you buy fuel for it you are covered by third party/property insurance, and the more you use it the more insurance you pay.

Obviously this does not take into account the varying driving standards but I cannot see any way to bring them into play at a third party level.

Full insurance cover, including fire/theft, would then be up to the individual and the cost would be based on the usual driver as in the current situation. So if you value your car you have to take out your own insurance to cover the loss if you are at fault, but at least you can rest assured that if the other vehicle is at fault, regardless of whether it is being used legally, your vehicle is covered.

There is no such thing as a perfect system but at least this sort of proposal means that you don't become a criminal if you forget, cannot afford, or simply do not receive the renewal.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

I'm not sure how that would work in the case of someone illegally using Asda Smartprice vegetable oil or red diesel on the public highway. Would failure to pay road-fuel duty also give rise to uninsured driving, or would those who pay the duty be subsidising the criminal activities of the duty dodgers?

_________________
Will

That's an interesting question that I hadn't considered. If the government purchased third party insurance in blocks then I guess we'd probably end up paying the insurance policy for the duty dodgers. Personally I find this pretty much acceptable. I think in general customs and excise enforce fule duty fairly well and don't see any reason why this shouldn't continue.

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

Then what of those who use fuel for purposes other than road transport? If you're going to charge for motoring insurance with road fuel, you must surely provide the means for non-motorists to recover that element of fuel tax.

Sports aviation, boating, and off-highway motorsport spring to mind. Looking at sports aviation: Foot-launched excepted, sports aircraft burn between seven litres per hour for a low-powered microlight to ten times that for a Pitts Special. I suspect that 20 litres per hour would be a reasonable average. I suppose most sports aviators manage to get in between fifty and two-hundred hours per year, with the average being around 100 hours. So that's about 2,000 litres per year on average. Compare that with motoring averages of 10,000 miles per year at 35 miles per gallon, which means roughly 1,300 litres of fuel per year. So, the sports aviator could pay more for insurance that he cannot use than the motorist pays.

This would be grossly unfair unless you provide the means for non-motorists to recover the insurance element, which would probably create a huge administrative burden as every lawnmower, boat, microlight, etc. owner applied for their rebates.

_________________
Will

I agree about this problem. We have a lawn mower and a couple of petrol generators. It REALLY annoys me to pay motor fuel duty on non motor fuel use. But the insurance thing wouldn't change things by much - the duty is paid now on these kinds of uses. The insurance premium would likely be around 8 or 10p per litre. Duty is about 55p per litre I think (without checking).

Surely "AVGAS" for petrol powered aircraft doesn't have motor fuel duty added does it?

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

AVGAS does have fuel duty applied, albeit at a much lower rate than road fuel. Even so, it is more expensive at the pump than MOGAS. Turbine fuels (JET A1 and AVTUR) don't have fuel duty. Even though you can run diesels on those fuels, and your fuel bills would be considerably reduced if you did, such aviation engines are rare because you can only get turbine fuel where jets operate, and that tends to be larger airfields where landing fees etc. are astronomical.

Most sports aviation in this country involves uncertified (i.e. permit-to-fly) aircraft operating from farm fields or ex-military bases where no avgas is to be had. Even if avgas were to be had, many of these aircraft can't use leaded fuel, and so must use mogas anyway.

Assuming an insurance premium of around 10p per litre, an average sports aviator would be paying two hundred pounds per year for something that he can't use. That is grossly unfair and by no means as insignificant as "the insurance thing wouldn't change things by much" implies.

At each end of the range we have, say, someone operating about two-thousand pounds-worth of flexwing microlight for fifty hours a year and someone operating a Pitts for two hundred hours a year. The former would burn about 350 litres per year and so would pay <fe>only</fe> £35 for insurance they couldn't use. However the Pitts owner would burn 4,000 litres per year and so would pay a massive £400 for "motoring" insurance.

Let's put this another way. The European "Single Sky" policy will introduce an annual ATC service charge. It is rumoured this will be over two thousand pounds per year from every recreational pilot with commercials paying a little more. It has been suggested that is grossly unfair because someone who flies for only fifty hours a year will pay a disproportionately high hourly rate, so it was suggested that an ATC levy be added to fuel charges. Of course, most sports aviators get their fuel from road-side pumps, which would require the levy be raised at that POS. The charges shouldn't be that much, just over a pound a litre which, judging from your response above, you would consider fair even though you cannot use the ATC services that the levy buys.

_________________
Will