What the frick is the Road Traffic (Compulsory Motor Insurance) Bill?

the_syco

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/we-dont-want-to-rush-things-like-trump-healyrae-reacts-to-planned-automatic-ban-for-drink-drivers-35433192.html

The Road Traffic (Master Licence Record) Bill 2017 will also link vehicles to drivers for the first time and the introduction of the Road Traffic (Compulsory Motor Insurance ) Bill will improve existing motor insurance legislation.

What the frick is the Road Traffic (Compulsory Motor Insurance) Bill?

Also, it's great that they're linking cars to people, but have they linked the car to (or the lack of) insurance, tax, and NCT yet in an automatic system like the brits have yet?

Special Circumstances

http://www.patrona.ie/Insurance_Update/

This judgement clarified that motor insurance policies must cover accidents on private land. This effectively means that insurance policies which differentiate between private property and land to which the public has access are out of date.
...
Ireland must comply with this ruling and so motor insurance should be in place for motor vehicles irrespective of whether an accident occurs in a public or private place.

frozenfrozen

is this the one that means race bikes / track cars need insurance?

flutered

i remember a time when one had to provide proof of insurance before a gaarage release a car to a buyer, times have changed, the last couple that i got from a main steeler did not have that proviso

jimmycrackcorm

Special Circumstances wrote:

motor insurance should be in place for motor vehicles irrespective of whether an accident occurs in a public or private place.

I wonder does this mean the guards can prosecute for no insurance on a vehicle while it is on private property?

Isambard

I don't think it can mean that all vehicles on private land have to have Insurance...that's quite unworkable. Surely it means vehicles used on private land, such as farm vehicles contractors or airside vehicles?

I can see it being like in the UK where if your vehicle isn't declared off the road it must be taxed/tested/insured and if it isn't, a fine arrives in the post.

It's possibly also intended to sort out the "driving other vehicles" and fronting situation.

grogi

Isambard wrote: »

I don't think it can mean that all vehicles on private land have to have Insurance...that's quite unworkable. Surely it means vehicles used on private land, such as farm vehicles contractors or airside vehicles?

Why unworkable? If it means a compulsory vehicle insurance, regardless if you are using it or not, I am all for it.

The premium might be much lower for vehicles off the road (yeaah, we'll see that happen), but one should still have an insurance.

grogi

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I wonder does this mean the guards can prosecute for no insurance on a vehicle while it is on private property?

No, it rather means that the TPL policy needs to cover the insured regardless where the accident happens. Currently they can limit the liability and exclude private property.

IMHO TPL policy should be standard and same among all insurers. If the law requires it, the law might explicitly state how it looks

Isambard

grogi wrote: »

Why unworkable? If it means a compulsory vehicle insurance, regardless if you are using it or not, I am all for it.

The premium might be much lower for vehicles off the road (yeaah, we'll see that happen), but one should still have an insurance.

why would you need insurance for a car sat in the corner of your garden rotting into the ground?

grogi

Isambard wrote: »

why would you need insurance for a car sat in the corner of your garden rotting into the ground?

So that it is much easier to enforce the insurance evaders and encourage people to properly scrap cars instead of dumping them.

Can you honestly show an example when a car parked in the yard was repaired and legally brought back to the road? It ends up in the scrap, just 20 years later when the house is sold... With all the oils and liquids already enriching the emerald soil. Once the car goes to the yards, it will stay there - if the public is pushed to scrap it properly, it is only for the good.

BorneTobyWilde

http://www.independent.ie/life/motoring/car-news/it-makes-more-sense-for-me-to-rent-a-car-than-pay-skyhigh-irish-insurance-premiums-35431512.html

Cheaper to rent?

Cheensbo

grogi wrote: »

So that it is much easier to enforce the insurance evaders and encourage people to properly scrap cars instead of dumping them.

Can you honestly show an example when a car parked in the yard was repaired and legally brought back to the road? It ends up in the scrap, just 20 years later when the house is sold... With all the oils and liquids already enriching the emerald soil.

Ahaa, so a double whammy for insurance companies then, extra free money from forcing people to insure stuff that doesn't need it, and increased compliance to boot.

Sounds stupid and unworkable, much like the current system. Let's hope they get it in place post haste.

grogi

Cheensbo wrote: »

Ahaa, so a double whammy for insurance companies then, extra free money from forcing people to insure stuff that doesn't need it, and increased compliance to boot.

Sounds stupid and unworkable, much like the current system. Let's hope they get it in place post haste.

Works in different places just fine...

Cheensbo

grogi wrote: »

Works in different places just fine...

And what about when I can't get a quote for the compulsory insurance for the performance jap import that I have parked up with no intention of using? Do I just sell it?

And no, there's no other system like ours out there.

Cheensbo

grogi wrote: »

Can you honestly show an example when a car parked in the yard was repaired and legally brought back to the road? It ends up in the scrap, just 20 years later when the house is sold... With all the oils and liquids already enriching the emerald soil. Once the car goes to the yards, it will stay there - if the public is pushed to scrap it properly, it is only for the good.

what about the ones in lock ups/sheds / long term restorations? Collections?

Can't tar them all with the one brush

Isambard

grogi wrote: »

Works in different places just fine...

What places? can you give an example of a Country that insists that all vehicles without exception have compulsory third party insurance? Just so we van research it to see how it works.

Isambard

grogi wrote: »

So that it is much easier to enforce the insurance evaders and encourage people to properly scrap cars instead of dumping them.

Can you honestly show an example when a car parked in the yard was repaired and legally brought back to the road? It ends up in the scrap, just 20 years later when the house is sold... With all the oils and liquids already enriching the emerald soil. Once the car goes to the yards, it will stay there - if the public is pushed to scrap it properly, it is only for the good.

there are hundreds of examples of cars being restored and returned to the road...

Special Circumstances

Isambard wrote: »

What places? can you give an example of a Country that insists that all vehicles without exception have compulsory third party insurance? Just so we van research it to see how it works.

We'll need insurance for our insurance at this rate!



Insure the driver (or the business operating the vehicle on private land). Stop the madness.

millington

grogi wrote: »

So that it is much easier to enforce the insurance evaders and encourage people to properly scrap cars instead of dumping them.

Can you honestly show an example when a car parked in the yard was repaired and legally brought back to the road? It ends up in the scrap, just 20 years later when the house is sold... With all the oils and liquids already enriching the emerald soil. Once the car goes to the yards, it will stay there - if the public is pushed to scrap it properly, it is only for the good.

20 years lying in a yard and will be back on the road in the next year or so

grogi

Isambard wrote: »

What places? can you give an example of a Country that insists that all vehicles without exception have compulsory third party insurance? Just so we van research it to see how it works.

You don't need to reseach - I'll tell you exactly how it works

a) It is cars that are insured, not the drivers.
b) From the moment the owner registers a vehicle (a car, trailer or anything that carries registration number), he needs insurance.
c) When sold, the insurance is transferred to the new owner. He needs to contact the issuer to get a recalculated quote for the remaining period (but if he doesn't, it does not void the policy). If the quote is not good enough, the policy might get cancelled without any penalty and remaining premium is returned (and that's the point that always buffets me - to the person who sold the car)
d) Insurers report all policies to central IT system
e) Any gaps between insured periods are automatically tracked and penalties are severe - for passenger:
* less than 4 days - ~ €200
* 4-14 days - ~€500
* 15 or more - €1000.

IIRC the penalty can be issued for any non-insurance period up-to five years back. It is the Poland... Works like a charm, only 0.7% of cars are uninsured, majority because the policy lapsed and was not renewed (because it was forgotten in most cases).

grogi

Cheensbo wrote: »

what about the ones in lock ups/sheds / long term restorations? Collections?

Can't tar them all with the one brush

There is a simple solution to that as well - suspending a policy. For the DECLARED off-the-road period the policy is required, but will be extended for exactly same number of days that the car was declared off-the-road.

You'll get into trouble only if your policy ends on a car that is not off the road.

grogi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

We'll need insurance for our insurance at this rate!

The word you'll looking for is reinsurance...

Cheensbo

grogi wrote: »

There is a simple solution to that as well - suspending a policy. For the DECLARED off-the-road period the policy is required, but will be extended for exactly same number of days that the car was declared off-the-road.

You'll get into trouble only if your policy ends on a car that is not off the road.

Grogi - you're not wrong, but the hypothetical situation you describe is not what's proposed in that bill.

What you propose would require a full re-work and overhaul of the system that we have in place, this bill is in addition to the current system. Not a reworking of it.

I'm all for insurance by the car, or by the driver, but what we have right now is a mixture of both and neither at the same time.

millington

grogi wrote: »

You don't need to reseach - I'll tell you exactly how it works

a) It is cars that are insured, not the drivers.
b) From the moment the owner registers a vehicle (a car, trailer or anything that carries registration number), he needs insurance.
c) When sold, the insurance is transferred to the new owner. He needs to contact the issuer to get a recalculated quote for the remaining period (but if he doesn't, it does not void the policy). If the quote is not good enough, the policy might get cancelled without any penalty and remaining premium is returned (and that's the point that always buffets me - to the person who sold the car)
d) Insurers report all policies to central IT system
e) Any gaps between insured periods are automatically tracked and penalties are severe - for passenger:
* less than 4 days - ~ €200
* 4-14 days - ~€500
* 15 or more - €1000.

IIRC the penalty can be issued for any non-insurance period up-to five years back. It is the Poland... Works like a charm, only 0.7% of cars are uninsured, majority because the policy lapsed and was not renewed (because it was forgotten in most cases).

A Polish guy told me before that insurance is only €2-300 over there so if that is true, it's not a very fair comparison

grogi

millington wrote: »

A Polish guy told me before that insurance is only €2-300 over there so if that is true, it's not a very fair comparison

And the median salary would be like €600... Does it put it in perspective?

joujoujou

millington wrote: »

A Polish guy told me before that insurance is only €2-300 over there so if that is true, it's not a very fair comparison

Not anymore.

Now premiums are going higher and higher, just like here.

Special Circumstances

grogi wrote: »

The word you'll looking for is reinsurance...

No dawg. You'll wrong.

Isambard

grogi wrote: »

There is a simple solution to that as well - suspending a policy. For the DECLARED off-the-road period the policy is required, but will be extended for exactly same number of days that the car was declared off-the-road.

You'll get into trouble only if your policy ends on a car that is not off the road.

you've moved the goalposts now. Before you were saying all cars would need cover even if not on the road.

Marcusm

Isambard wrote: »

What places? can you give an example of a Country that insists that all vehicles without exception have compulsory third party insurance? Just so we van research it to see how it works.

The UK system was effectively changed to this (maybe 5 years ago) to make sure that the ANPR system worked. A registered car which has not been declared off the road needs to have a policy of insurance on it; not simply good enough for it to be on the road under a driving other cars extension.

Isambard

Marcusm wrote: »

The UK system was effectively changed to this (maybe 5 years ago) to make sure that the ANPR system worked. A registered car which has not been declared off the road needs to have a policy of insurance on it; not simply good enough for it to be on the road under a driving other cars extension.

That's exactly what I was saying, except the guy was saying it applies to all cars irrespective of whether they are in use or not.

Marcusm

Isambard wrote: »

That's exactly what I was saying, except the guy was saying it applies to all cars irrespective of whether they are in use or not.

It's sometimes good to go to the source. There can sometimes be errors but generally giv.uk is very well edited, fact checked and verified.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

Cee-Jay-Cee

Can someone point out where it says you need insurance on a car that your not using???? The bill provides for insurance cover on a vehicle regardless if the car is on private or public property. It simply means if you had an accident in a car on private property that the insurance companies cannot say your not covered. It doesn't mean every vehicle in the country has to be insured whether it's being used or not, that's just plain ridiculous, impossible to police and would mean mass infringements as people have trouble enough paying extortionate rates for cars they're using without having to try and insure cars they're not using. The courts would be clogged up forever more and a day, the Gardai would have thousands upon thousands of offences to prosecute.

grogi

Isambard wrote: »

you've moved the goalposts now. Before you were saying all cars would need cover even if not on the road.

No, I have not. There is a substantial difference between the two.

Anyway, unless I become the Transport Minister, it does not really matter