Safe Speed Forums

Also cheaper than taking it to the scrappers himself.

Yes, InGear could give us the word on the street, although InGear can only give us the police policy on the matter, not the actual legal position, which are often very different.

Everybody, including law makers and judges, uses the term 'parked' to describe a car that is not in use. When I park my car, I stop using it. In other words, 'parked' is the opposite of 'in use'.

The Road Traffic Act says that a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is a policy in force in respect of third party risks. This implies driver can use the vehicle, presumably to drive it. It also implies and that no law is broken if he does not use it, irrespective of any policy. It does not matter if the vehicle uses some road - the act specifies a person.

Even if it could be argued that a person is using a car when it is parked (which seems contradictory to me), it would be very difficult to pin down exactly which person is using the car, as the owner, last driver, official keeper, etc. can all be different.

What mystifies me if that a law is broken if you use a vehicle on a road without a policy, but the type of uses is left to the reader of the act to imagine. For example, I may be able to park the car, and I would not be using it in any way, but if I shelter from the rain in an uninsured car, then I have fallen foul of the law. Hmm... do any judges read this site?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Nothing strange about that at all. A driveway is private property and insurance, tax, licencing etc only relate to the public roads.

I don't find it strange as in unexpected, more strange as in what's the sense of it. Not needing insurance if the car was a non runner, that would make sense. Bit like declaring SORN when the tax disc runs out. But it seems that if it's on a driveway the plod can't do anything about it unless they can prove it was uninsured when it was driven there in the first place. But I don't see any way round it while we insure drivers rather than the cars.

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

The sense of it is that not all roads are public and not all driveways are 10ft of concrete outside your house.

Once you have the law which states insurance etc only applies to the public roads then there will always be small anomalies that crop up.

I've always been led to believe that car 'usage' is not the moving of the car, as in driving it, but actually using the part of the road it occupies.

IANAL, but the wording of the act implies that to break this law, a person must use the actual car, not the part of the road the car occupies.

The car may use the road when it is parked but there is no law that requires a policy to exist when this happens.

In a very abstract sense, the person who parked the car in the road could be said to be using the car to use the road, but there would have to be a rational to explain this usage, and what benefit it offered - no one could believe that a person parks his car in order to use the road, although situations do exist, for example to save a parking space. In this case, it would not be lawful.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Section 143(1) of Road Traffic Act 1988 says:

1. Subject to provisions of part of this Act

a) aperson must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to theuse of that vehicle by that person such a policy of inusrance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirementsof this Act

b) a person must not cause orpermit any person to use a motor vehicle
on a road or other public place unless theere is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle by that other person such a polciy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with requirements of this Act

Unless the insurer of a vehicle delivers a certificat of inusrance to the person taking out th policy the requirements will not have been met. Therefore, anyone using, or causing or permitting to be used, a motor vehicle on a public road or other public place, commits this offence.

The problem with term "use" is that it is contextual - courts interpret "use" in way secific to terms of the Act (per basingwerk).. "cause/permit" is wider - and we get advice from CPS when wording charge for this.

As for uninsured conviction we have to prove defendant had use of vehicle, and for owner of vehicle to be convicted we must prove that defendant was in fact the owner and that the driver was his/her employee was using cehicle in course of employment

This is why it would be difficult to get conviction if car was parked up without insurance So liabilty for damage in Paulie's hypothetical example would come straight from own coffers of actual owner! But no charg could be brought as it would be impossible to prove use of car on road by either party.

basingwerk wrote:

Everybody, including law makers and judges, uses the term 'parked' to describe a car that is not in use. When I park my car, I [i]stop using it. In other words, 'parked' is the opposite of 'in use'.

basinwerk wrote:

What mystifies me if that a law is broken if you use a vehicle on a road without a policy, but the type of uses is left to the reader of the act to imagine. For example, I may be able to park the car, and I would not be using it in any way, but if I shelter from the rain in an uninsured car, then I have fallen foul of the law. Hmm... do any judges read this site?

If I copped you snoozin' in driver's seat, behind steering wheel - I'd have you for "not being in control" and for "no insurance"

Fair do's In Gear, you know what you're talking about. I always have proper insurance, no funny business, rest assured, occifer.

_________________
I stole this .sig

So I can't type! Hate computers! Woz 'avin' a bad typing morning!