Safe Speed Forums

The present philosophy is to move away from "warranted" police to partially trained "law enforcement personnel", such as community support officers and, in towns, private security persons (door guards or bouncers) (don't laugh, it's true)
Since a jury is likely to see things differently to trained legal people, there is a move to use appeals to get the case before a judge with no jury.
As for anpr data.....the retention of data guarantees that the law enforcers will have the information they need to not only look back to an event but also to see if any witnesses may have been present at that time....and remember that the acpo also has access to private cctv, such as filling station forecourt cameras.
As for tax evasion and avoidance.
Who cares ?
It has to be spent somewhere, so gets taxed there.....and GB is one of the worlds largest tax havens, that and its island subsidiaries.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

As said - the biggest offence in UK today - not paying a Government levied tax .Someone said -
"Stop theft -the Government won't stand competition"--getting more true every day .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Quite.
But now we have government-owned operations moving abroad to avoid their own taxes: NEWS

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

It's a cunning plan to curb immigration - take the jobs overseas, make the country poor and no one will want to come here ,whether illegally or not

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

The Telegraph here

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I believe Paul quoted : The road to a Police State is paved with personal safety. I also think that if I am insured then why not for all the vehicles that I own ? I can only drive one at a time, and even if I simply provided a register for the others along with a small additional fee to cover theft, why not ?
The way I understand it, they are not asking you to retain insurance just the status of the vehicle, so if nor insured then you will need (if prior to 'if registered in '98 I think it is) have it SORN'd. That is how it is now so I am not sure what is new ?

If all drivers have a State 3rd Party then even if someone where to steal your vehicle, then it would not have to come off your insurance. I would not like to deal with the hassle of my insurance suffering and having to 'back process' to gain the value back after some 'person' stole it and damaged it and other objects etc.
I would worry with your system that my insurance goes up after an uninvited person illegally drives your car and you end up paying for it. When my car was stolen (many years back now) I was comforted to some degree that it was comprehensively insured and although it all may take some time it was all covered. (Happily my car was returned!)
If he had 3rd Party cover then that process deals with their actions and my insurance helps me sort out my vehicle, claiming against the '3rd party loss' facility.
The 3rd Party cover may even extend to other property items too perhaps ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

The main problem with adding basic TP insurance to fuel is fuel theft. Those that drive uninsured are going to be more likely to be the criminal sort that would steal fuel too. If you were going to go down that route then I think you'd have to make sure fuel could only be bought in advance either by the pay at pump or by pre-paying with an assistant.

The Motor Insurance Bureau already covers uninsured damage and is paid for out of the insurance premiums already paid. It is about £30-£50 a year for each policy. Depending on mileage and fuel economy an extra fuel tax would benefit some and cost others lots more.

You can't keep an uninsured vehicle physically on the road anyway so I don't see what the problem is. If you have a vehicle which is on the road then you have to insure it. If it's not on the road then SORN it. If you don't have any private land to park it on then sell it or insure it. You have to have a vehicle taxed to be physically parked on the road too so it is just rationalising current legislation.

From the article


They DON'T seem to care where it's parked.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

But if it's off the road, you simply SORN it. What is the problem? I can't see that this will inconvenience any law-abiding vehicle owner. Indeed, I can't see it catching more than a tiny handful of uninsured drivers. Much of the press comment seems to completely ignore the existence of SORN and suggests that vehicles where there is no intention to use them on the road will still need to be insured, which is just plain untrue.

_________________
"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

It's just a daily wail style hysteria. It's easy to SORN. There might be a problem for those people that have had vehicles off the road since before SORN though.

A bigger worry is inaccuracy within the MID. Insurance companies need to be clobbered heavily for not updating and having accurate data.

But if it's taxed and off the road - where's the need for insurance, except for damage to the vehicle -and surely that's my decision ,not DVLA,as long as I don't put it on road .Can't really see the need for this as the ANPR system pulls up any breach ,be it no insurance ( on vehicle), no tax or no MOT .I could decide to put my car off road from early in month till en of next month, when insurance is due. Refund =one month, so is it worth my while cancelling tax ,an SORN for this short period.And on asking for refun, they'll only Sorn for a short period,then ask you to reSORN for a year . Then what happens when you wish to put car back on road .

Smacks of the HERR Brown era of yet more laws not thouht out properly .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

This is about signing that your intention to have a vehicle off or on the road, so when or if ANPR picks you up - or not then they can show intent to drive without.

For example I have a car under SORN and I wish to reMOT and insure and then license. At the moment I have to get insurance for it just to find out if it is going to get an MOT easily (which I expect) then I can obtain the necessary license.
So would it be any different without the need to SORN, well I do have a couple of cars that have no need for SORN, and it is a hassle to remember to SORN, one year three yrs ago it all got in a right old mess and ai had about 18 mths of hassle with DVLA to sort it all out. I was away and I missed the deadlines to re-SORN, it was all highly stressful (although it was a very hard time anyway), I now have all SORN dates, bar one, at the same time which helps a lot, but I still worry every now and again as to when that is due. It all seems over the top. I have no intention to have a car on the road that isn't properly legal, but for years I have to keep telling them that they are off-road. Why can I not declare it off-road and that is it until I tell them otherwise ? If I sell them then that can alert them to the change/s.
This rule has to be for intent confirmation and Gov awareness as to where my cars may be. There is no benefit other than Gov 'rule' that I can see. It also implies mis-trust, they don't trust me to do the right thing.


Ah but theft can be added on, either by the individual or possible Gov arranged with the 3rd Party insurance. I agree that theft is a problem but I can't say that I know that those that might drive un-insured will steal fuel too ?
Some law abiding citizens can find themselves un-insured quite unintentionally too. This one solution fits all can resolve that but it is a difficult problem. With fuel now costing a silly sum no one wants to to it rise at all.
So how to deal with un-insured drivers? (being the core problem). What makes someone who has failed to pay insurance buy it?
Do we all just carry on paying for all those that fail to insure?
What if it was said that; if those that are un-insured crash they have to work (State provided if necessary, or if in work) half of their pay will be taken until they have re-paid the damage done to the other party.

How to expose them - is this worthwhile - probably not - have a Nation-wide open list and 'shame' your neighbours into paying ? I don't see that this will work ...
I'd like to know that I can drive as I am insured, and then just add a list of vehicles for any 'fire & theft' issues.
We have to make those that do not wish to be 'covered' pay for damage they inflict.

I know that we all pay out the £30-50 (£30 I think they say that it is), but how do we make those that won't insure themselves, into insuring or showing financial ability if they have an accident.
I agree too that those that need to travel for low income jobs take a hit here but I did think that a Gov 'card' that allows them to buy the fuel at the cheaper rate (via (with validation from) employers) that would stop all people from being penalised un-necessarily.
If you happen to live in a property that has no car area, but your car is only temporarily off the road - perhaps it has just run out of it's MOT and you are waiting to take it to the garage for the MOT or for repairs (etc) (not all garages have space to hold your vehicle), then the insurance is out and all of a sudden you have to SORN, but it may only be for a few days or a few weeks. Now I agree that it isn't a massive hassle to go online (although it is easier now than it was a few yrs ago), but when you haven't ever done it before, it is all new and you worry (as it has become so important / expensive) that you have filled in everything correctly and that it is registered properly.
Does SORN prevent un-insured drivers driving - I don't think so - other than it encourages vehicles off the road and I would suspect to those law abiding motorists more than, to those that choose to travel un-insured.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

There will have to be some dispensation for cars in the hands of motor dealers. They will want to put the cars on the road at a moment's notice and are not the registered keepers. Keeping track of that should be fun. The last owner gets the fine!

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I don't see how, as their 'sold car' info will show 'sold to trader' and do they not have special circumstances(?), so that their trade plates cover such (necessary) trading issues ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

1. Delays in the system of updating DVLA and hence ANPR.
2. Trade plates are a way of driving vehicles with no VED on the public highway.
2. The traders insurance is on their employees and not specific cars hence the opposite to the proposed system.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Presumably under current legislation there is some kind of dispensation for motor traders, which would continue unchanged. That is why they have to use trade plates when taking unlicensed vehicles in their stock out on the road.

_________________
"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

Trade plates exempt a dealer from VED not from the necessity to insure his drivers. Most dealers have a policy covering all their staff when driving any vehicle in their possession. Any car held by a dealer will either belong to him and be covered by that policy or will belong to a customer who, under the new proposals, will be also required to have insurance cover for the driving the vehicle.

I am still not entirely clear about the new proposals. The Telegraph report says that the "driver" must have insurance but a vehicle kept off road does not have a driver. Will it be the registered keeper who has to have the insurance or will it be sufficient that someone is insured to drive the vehicle. Or is the plan to transfer the insurance requirement from the driver to the car, whoever is driving it. I hope not as that would lead to a massive increase in premiums as every car could then be driven by a 17 year old learner or a thrice disqualified man.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

The proposal is that the situation should be exactly as it is with car tax. EITHER insured or SORN'd. Not both.

Use without the owners permission is unlawful and would not be covered by the owners insurance.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Most people who SORN have no intention of driving the vehicle. There are some who SORN to save on insurance and drive the car anyway. I don't see how this will affect those people.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

I must have been labouring under a misapprehension all these years! I always understood that SORN related to un-TAXED vehicles and had nothing to do with insurance? Surely SORN preceded ANPR...