Uninsured drivers face crackdown

[Paul K]

BBC

Uninsured drivers are to face automatic fines of at least £60 in an attempt to reduce rising levels of illegal driving in the UK.
New laws being announced by the government will give police access to insurance company records.
Currently police have to catch uninsured drivers using their cars in order to prosecute them.
But the new powers will make it illegal to own a car without insuring it or declaring that it is not being used.
As well as the fines, the new powers will mean uninsured drivers could have their vehicles seized or crushed.

The planned change will mean police can automatically send out fines based on insurance company records.
Cameras that can read number plates - such as those used in London's congestion charging zone - will also be used to trap uninsured drivers.

Even if this move only takes 50% of the uninsured idiots off the road it has to be a good thing.

[Derek]

Yep,

After seeing the hassle my G/F went through when someone uninsured hit her this gets a from me.

[SMHarman]

So how is that different to now, I got a £60 fine for failing to return my SORN on time. If you don't have a cover note (or MOT) you cannot get your road tax, whats the news here? Why has it taken 8 years of Labour government to think about getting tough on this?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

So how is that different to now, I got a £60 fine for failing to return my SORN on time. If you don't have a cover note (or MOT) you cannot get your road tax, whats the news here? Why has it taken 8 years of Labour government to think about getting tough on this?

Agree. A neighbour frequently seems to be in possession of cars with out of date tax discs, so unlikely to be insured.

If you have no MoT your car is not insured. Perhaps there now needs to be a better check kept on cars having an MoT.

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Angua

Agree. A neighbour frequently seems to be in possession of cars with out of date tax discs, so unlikely to be insured.

If you have no MoT your car is not insured. Perhaps there now needs to be a better check kept on card having an MoT.

sorry but this is not quite correct, if your car is not of a satisfactory road worthy condition your car is not covered even by a valid policy, it is set out this way because a MOT certificate is only proof of road worthiness the moment it is issued, (and even then is no guarantee), how ever a car can be without an MOT ie its juts expired and has not yet been renewed but the vehicle can still be of a satisfactory and safe condition, where as many with a current MOT have infact deteriated beyond road worthiness and need attention. Of course not having a current MOT is an offence, but it having one or not does not reflect the condition of the vehicle, nor its insurable cover with your insurance schedule.

What does concern me with this is, are the type of people who on a continual basis drive without insurance etc, now going to shop for cars from the scrap yard which are almost certainly going to be in a dangerous condition, as this is where they are likley to return soon anyway and will be picked up far cheaper than most 2nd hand rotboxes, that may still have some roadworthiness about them. Really a law also needs to be introduced to stop scarp dealers selling complete cars to joe public, but that would bring about a big problem with claimants wanting salvage (to purchase back their written of car), which does return insurance companies funds, and thereby helps to a certain extent of keeping premiums lower, higher premiums may mean more uninsured drivers.

[Jon M]

£60 fine isn't good enough IMO, they should at the very least have their vehicle empounded until valid insurance is produced and ideally given a criminal conviction that stays on their record.

[marky]

Originally Posted by Angua

Agree. A neighbour frequently seems to be in possession of cars with out of date tax discs, so unlikely to be insured.

If you have no MoT your car is not insured. Perhaps there now needs to be a better check kept on card having an MoT.

they do all new mot,s have a computer print out instead of being hand written and the info put on a national database

[me283]

It's a nice idea, bt on further thought I can't say I'm that impressed with the move. Uninsured drivers are a concern, but this £60 fine will not impact the real dangers of people who don't register their car in the first place.

Secondly, going by the computer is not foolproof. There is a central register of vehicles covered by insurance companies, and I recently asked my insurers to check this register for the car which struck me - I did not claim on my own insurance, and the other driver refused to provide his details later on. The vehicle concerned was not shown. This may be because it was a "fleet vehicle" ie the company had a policy that covered "any vehicle in it's possession/ being used for it's business". These policies are becoming rarer, as most insureres ask you to state precise vehicle details now.

Finally, this does not address the real proble. An uninsured driver will now (potentially) be fined £60, which doesn't help the driver of the car that is hit by the uninsured driver; what it does help is the government's finances. Some help that is.
__________________

Originally Posted by Jon M

£60 fine isn't good enough IMO, they should at the very least have their vehicle empounded until valid insurance is produced and ideally given a criminal conviction that stays on their record.

That is a much better idea IMO... but it doesn't earn Tony's lot a whole heap of money in fines

[Pierre]

Absolutely nowhere near harsh enough.

Once again the government are shown to be weak, imposing weak penalties.

Let me see:

Pay anywhere typically between £300 - £2500 in insurance

Or don't pay insurance and if you happen to get caught pay £60.



If you caught driving without insurance it should be a minimum £1000 fine and automatically banned for a year.

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by Paul

BBC


Even if this move only takes 50% of the uninsured idiots off the road it has to be a good thing.

The bit I dont get is where this leaves people in my situation, we have my old car uninsured but taxed right outside our house, the way I understand it I could be vulnrable to this new fine yet I dont see what I have done thats illegal

[marky]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

The bit I dont get is where this leaves people in my situation, we have my old car uninsured but taxed right outside our house, the way I understand it I could be vulnrable to this new fine yet I dont see what I have done thats illegal

If its parked on the road it needs to be insured if its on the drive then no

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by marky

If its parked on the road it needs to be insured if its on the drive then no

I dont see why, if its parked on the road it needs to be roadworthy and taxed (12month mot and 5 months tax would seem to suggest it fills those criteria). Maybe its just something I havent thought of but I dont see how it could possibly need insuring if it is just sitting outside my house waiting to be collected by an auction.

[marky]

Originally Posted by ZrByte

I dont see why, if its parked on the road it needs to be roadworthy and taxed (12month mot and 5 months tax would seem to suggest it fills those criteria). Maybe its just something I havent thought of but I dont see how it could possibly need insuring if it is just sitting outside my house waiting to be collected by an auction.

If a car(1) parked in front of it and car(2) hit your car , wich caused you car to hit car(1) car(1) would have to go through your insurance, if that makes sense

[altis]

We could have a national 3rd party insurance based on a petrol levy.

Inescapable!

Drive further - pay more tax.

Drive a big car - pay more tax.

Great theory but I can't ever see it being accepted.

[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by marky

If a car(1) parked in front of it and car(2) hit your car , wich caused you car to hit car(1) car(1) would have to go through your insurance, if that makes sense

That does make sense though the reason I didnt think of that one was because I always thought it was the person who caused the accident in the first place who everybody would claim from, unless my vehicle was on the road and it was further driver error from myself that caused me to hit the next vehicle.
Now if I understood your example correctly you just mean that car (1) would go through my insurance either to claim off me so my insurance can claim off car (2) insurance or just go through my insurance company to claim from car (2). I just dont see why that is needed