Change to the law in the UK in relation to motor insurance.

enviro

Change to the law in the UK in relation to motor insurance.

"The law on motor insurance has changed. If you own a vehicle and it is registered in your name then it must be insured at all times. If you don't want to use the vehicle, then you must contact the DVLA to declare the vehicle "off road". There are penalties for not having a valid insurance policy, and if your policy does not appear on the Motor Insurance Database (MID) you can expect to receive a warning letter in the post, followed by a fixed penalty fine"


No where to hide for uninsured drivers, hopefully it will be the same here in Ireland... eventually

Link

ShadowHearth

enviro wrote: »

Change to the law in the UK in relation to motor insurance.

"The law on motor insurance has changed. If you own a vehicle and it is registered in your name then it must be insured at all times. If you don't want to use the vehicle, then you must contact the DVLA to declare the vehicle "off road". There are penalties for not having a valid insurance policy, and if your policy does not appear on the Motor Insurance Database (MID) you can expect to receive a warning letter in the post, followed by a fixed penalty fine"


No where to hide for uninsured drivers, hopefully it will be the same here in Ireland... eventually

Link

Hopefully?! Are you for real lad? What about people who have 2 cars? One car for driving all year and some fancy sporty thing for summer?!

I got my skyline parked and not in use. So I have to get insurance for it so it can rot in style and law?

Declaring car offroad? What if I need my second car ASAP?

Happened to me already, when I managed rear ending mondeo and had to switch back to skyline to get to work next day. I just switched insurance policies. What to do with this new system? Walk? I am not a fan of breaking law, as I allways apply for merphys law.

Bull**** idea.

challengemaster

Complete pile of money-making scheme ****

corktina

its a measure to make it harder for uninsured drivers to be on the road and as such should be welcomed by all those who pay for insurance. Its no different from having to declare your car off-road for road tax purposes...

basically if you dont insure it and get caught OTR, its byebye car time and rightly so

si_guru

challengemaster wrote: »

Complete pile of money-making scheme ****

How do you figure that out?

Simple rule.. if a car is taxed it must be insured.

You can delcare you car/s SORN (off the road) at anytime and recover unused tax.. ..and choose not to insure it. But if you are caught by ANPR the fine comes straight to your house.

If you are legal you have zero to fear!

guil

i'd say if your car is registered as off the road and ya take an insurance policy out on it then the insurer marks it off the register

Our man in Havana

Making sure the bloodsuckers don't lose out.

corktina

simple fact...

people who dont pay for insurance cost those that do extra money....

challengemaster

corktina wrote: »

simple fact...

people who dont pay for insurance cost those that do extra money....

I've a feeling Sean Quinn has cost everyone more than a few people who didn't pay for insurance. Just a guess though.

Big Nasty

challengemaster wrote: »

I've a feeling Sean Quinn has cost everyone more than a few people who didn't pay for insurance. Just a guess though.

True but not the point of the thread.

I think it's a great idea! Anyone driving without insurance has the potential to raise costs for the rest of us - basically they are stealing from your pocket.

Matt Simis

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Hopefully?! Are you for real lad? What about people who have 2 cars? One car for driving all year and some fancy sporty thing for summer?!

I have 2 cars, can you really get non-yearly insurance? I have both insured full time (though one is really cheap to insure) though not taxed full time.

challengemaster

Matt Simis wrote: »

I have 2 cars, can you really get non-yearly insurance? I have both insured full time (though one is really cheap to insure) though not taxed full time.

If you weren't getting classic insurance and had to fork out 2k+/year for both cars to be insured, would you be happy?

Big Nasty

challengemaster wrote: »

If you weren't getting classic insurance and had to fork out 2k+/year for both cars to be insured, would you be happy?

You're missing the point - if it's off the road it's not an issue. If you want to drive it for the weekend transfer your insurance.

Of course if it's sitting in your garden and is un insured and stolen that's your own hard luck but that's not really relevant to the topic.

Akrasia

enviro wrote: »

Change to the law in the UK in relation to motor insurance.

"The law on motor insurance has changed. If you own a vehicle and it is registered in your name then it must be insured at all times. If you don't want to use the vehicle, then you must contact the DVLA to declare the vehicle "off road". There are penalties for not having a valid insurance policy, and if your policy does not appear on the Motor Insurance Database (MID) you can expect to receive a warning letter in the post, followed by a fixed penalty fine"


No where to hide for uninsured drivers, hopefully it will be the same here in Ireland... eventually

Link

It's a stupid idea.

Much better idea, put the entire cost of 3rd party liability insurance cover onto the cost of the fuel as a post tax sur charge.

result : everyone who fuels their car has automatically paid for 3rd party insurance (at probably about 2 cent extra a litre)

There are no more uninsured drivers

If someone is involved in an accident that is not their fault, they can claim from the 3rd party fund.
If someone is involved in an accident that they caused, they get a fine, or penalty points, or a ban, and are removed from the roads or punished accordingly.

If people want comprehensive or fire and theft cover they can pay for their own private policy at a fraction of the current cost.

Here's why.
Currently, car insurance premiums are used as a way to prevent people of high risk from driving high powered cars. If someone is a high risk, they are unable to get 'affordable' insurance on high powered cars. This is the theory, however, those who can afford to pay the insurance can drive whatever they like, and many of those who can't afford the insurance, drive uninsured.

This system is not working. It discriminates against responsible drivers who happen to be on low income, and in favour of reckless drivers who can afford the insurance, or don't care if they're uninsured.

The result is loads of people driving around in 15 year old tin foil micras that would get less than 1 star on the euro NCAP who would be much better off driving larger safer cars but are prevented from doing so because they can't get the insurance.

1. If people are licensed to drive a vehicle, then they are deemed competent to drive by the state.

2. If people are engaged in dangerous or reckless driving, then they should be heavily fined or have their license taken from them.

A minus B equals a road network of people that should be competent drivers who should be trusted to drive on the roads


Rather than introduce a whole layer of beurocracy and penalise people for having cars that are off the road and make them to pay crippling unnecessary private insurance premiums, we can have an entirely pay as you use system.

Adding the insurance to the cost of the fuel will penalise those who drive too quick (excessive acelleration and braking eats up fuel) It will penalise those driving more miles and thereby using the roads more and more likely to become inviolved in an accident
It will NOT penalise people for leaving their car at home and taking public transport or car pooling (the current system does, you pay for the insurance whether you drive or not)

dr.fuzzenstein

So we want to add car tax, tolls and now insurance to the price of petrol?
What next?
Ice cream?
The litre of petrol will soon cost E150 instead of E1.50.

Akrasia

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

So we want to add car tax, tolls and now insurance to the price of petrol?
What next?
Ice cream?
The litre of petrol will soon cost E150 instead of E1.50.

There is no 'what next' Ice cream does not come into it. this is a carefully considered argument, there is no need to include random 'slippery slope' objections, thanks,

car tax and insurance yes. why not?

We pay them already, the problem is that the high milage drivers are being subsidised really heavily by those who just drive occasionally,
And insurance premiums should not be the defacto way to decide who gets to drive and who doesn't, the fact that you can afford the insurance does not mean you are fit to drive, but the state is using insurance companies as an easy way for the state to avoid actually policing the roads and penalising drivers for reckless behaviour.


On the other hand, Tolls, while I don't agree with them, at least they're on the basis of you pay for what you use. while insurance and tax are charged as fixed fees regardless of how much driving is done.

just to add at the end. I'm a medium distance driver (about 14k miles per year, I don't stand to benefit from reducing road tax and insurance and adding it to fuel costs. I have no vested interests, I just think it makes a hell of a lot more sense and would be far more equitable

Marcusm

Akrasia wrote: »

There is no 'what next' Ice cream does not come into it. this is a carefully considered argument, there is no need to include random 'slippery slope' objections, thanks,

car tax and insurance yes. why not?

On the other hand, Tolls, while I don't agree with them, at least they're on the basis of you pay for what you use. while insurance and tax are charged as fixed fees regardless of how much driving is done.

just to add at the end. I'm a medium distance driver (about 14k miles per year, I don't stand to benefit from reducing road tax and insurance and adding it to fuel costs. I have no vested interests, I just think it makes a hell of a lot more sense and would be far more equitable

How would this work for someone living in a town straddling the border? Would you have to keep your receipts and show how much fuel you purchased and then matchthis off against your mileage to show that you had insurance cover? Does this penalise folk who have driven safely for a number of years or do you get the cashier to scan your NCB each time you pay for fuel?

I can see the logic in abandoning car tax and subsuming it into fuel pricing more readily than insurance, tbh.

corktina

people who drive more are LESS likely to have accidents...loopy idea...increasing costs to them (generally business users) will increase costs of everything and cost jobs.

Akrasia

Marcusm wrote: »

How would this work for someone living in a town straddling the border? Would you have to keep your receipts and show how much fuel you purchased and then matchthis off against your mileage to show that you had insurance cover? Does this penalise folk who have driven safely for a number of years or do you get the cashier to scan your NCB each time you pay for fuel?

I can see the logic in abandoning car tax and subsuming it into fuel pricing more readily than insurance, tbh.

If people live on the border and regularly cross to the north to buy fuel they would have to purchase their own insurance policy to cover them while they drive on UK roads. given that the difference in fuel prices would only be a few cent per litre, there is unlikely to be a mass exodus of people driving north to get cheaper fuel. Given that the vast majority of people would not travel north to buy petrol, it's not a big enough to overpower the other merits of my proposal

regarding no claims bonuses and accident free motoring. The police would need to step up and enforce the rules of the road. If someone causes an accident, they should get penalty points a fine and or lose their license.

Using higher insurance premiums as a way to deter bad driving simply does not work (especially in the day of 'protected no claims bonus".
However, given that most people would still take out comprehensive cover, the insurance companies could still penalise bad drivers with higher quotes

Akrasia

corktina wrote: »

people who drive more are LESS likely to have accidents..

So why do insurance quotes go up if you say you drive high mileage?

corktina

source?

vetstu

How long do people sit thinking up hair-brained ideas to post on boards. This is the stupidest yet.

Our man in Havana

It is a well intentioned but unworkable scheme for many that only use their vehicles say on weekends.

I know someone that has a vintage bus and only uses it once a week. So he buys day insurance at a cost of £17 a day no problems. He taxes it as he is supposed to. Now under these new rules, every time he is finished each week he has to surrender the tax disc and declare SORN. So every Saturday he is down the post office having to re tax the bus and every Monday he is back down declaring SORN for the following week and claiming a refund on the tax. Repeat each week ad nauseum.

It is unworkable.

dr.fuzzenstein

Akrasia wrote: »

There is no 'what next' Ice cream does not come into it. this is a carefully considered argument, there is no need to include random 'slippery slope' objections, thanks,

car tax and insurance yes. why not?

Car tax, insurance, tolls, eco tax, maybe some kind of tax to cover the cost of road fatalities, etc...
Ice cream because the name of the tax doesn't matter.
The government is strapped for cash and their thinking is "how can we screw more money out of people" and someone says "why don't we call it a levy for social responsibilities to environmental health hazards" and someone will jump up and shout "brilliant!"
So it might as well be an ice cream tax.
Not so far fetched, chewing gum levy anyone?
But if everything does get put onto petrol I'll buy an electric car.

corktina

how is insisting that on- the- road cars be insured going to get the Government more money other than indirectly ? Its the Insurance Compnies who stand to gain , and of course us honest motorists who might have to pay less if weveryone has to pay..