Display of discs in car windscreen.....

Claw Hammer

partyguinness wrote: »

Sticking pieces of paper to the inside of your car is a bit primative in this day and age. It's only a matter of time before it is done in Ireland anyway.


As I said it is just a general observation. Harmless enough. Don't get too hung up on it.

There is no need to comment on what is done in England as if everything done in England is so much better. England justified conquering and robbing half the world on the basis that they were converting savages. Obviously that attitude still persists.

Im melting away

You can get a FCN for non display of insurance disc, think it's 80quid, you can appeal and will win, if you hold a policy that allows you to drive other cars.

Claw Hammer

It is arguable that if the insurance disc displayed has the reg of another car but covers the driving of the car in which it is displayed that no offence is being committed.
IMO it would be better to have a disc on display which covers the driving than no disc at all.
The driver should carry the associated insurance cert in the car and should not leave it parked in a public place.

Bikerman2019

Hey folks. I am the OP.


To clarify as a couple of people picked me up wrong. I am legally driving her car, she hasnt got a licence yet. The car has no disc, but my Zurich policy covers me to drive her car even though it is not insured yet in its own right. Her theory test is early may, (unless it's cancelled for the 6th time), once done, she gets a permit, then boxymo insurance is waiting at 1700 euro.



My question pertains to legality of me taking her car out (legally), but not having an insurance disc in the window, and if it would be permitted to copy my valid disc and put it in the window for when I am driving it.


So it appears, so far, it is illegal to have a another cars VALID disc in the window, but also illegal to not have a disc in the window.


I think I will just photocopy my licence,policy cert, and daughters log book, and keep them in the car. Just in case I take it out and get stopped.

Hurrache

You said you're with Zurich? Although their driving other cars extension doesn't require the other car to be insured, they do iterate that it's not for regular usage and if they believe it has been used for such it could impact on your cover or any claims you may make.

Bikerman2019

Hurrache wrote: »

You said you're with Zurich? Although their driving other cars extension doesn't require the other car to be insured, they do iterate that it's not for regular usage and if they believe it has been used for such it could impact on your cover or any claims you may make.

Good to know, thanks. I have my own car and policy. I am also named on the family car. This is a third car in the house, and I intend to take it out just to keep it running ok. Hopefully her theory test will go well and she will be mobile soon. Boxymo is 1700 but policy cannot be taken out until she gets the learner permit. She has had awfully bad luck due to cancellations over the lockdown.

coylemj

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is arguable that if the insurance disc displayed has the reg of another car but covers the driving of the car in which it is displayed that no offence is being committed.

The disc alone doesn't cover anybody to drive, it's simply visual evidence that there is a policy in force for the car with that reg. So if you drive car B with the disc from car A on the windscreen, it has no value whatsover and proves nothing.

And it's not 'arguable', it's illegal .....

6. No person shall, either by writing, drawing or in any other matter alter, deface, mutilate or add anything to any insurance disc for any vehicle, nor shall any person exhibit upon any vehicle any insurance disc which has been altered, defaced, mutilated or added to as aforesaid, or upon which the figures or particulars have become illegible or the colour has become altered by fading or otherwise, not shall any person exhibit any colourable imitation of any insurance disc or any insurance disc which has been issued in respect of another vehicle .....

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1984/si/355/made/en/print

Claw Hammer

coylemj wrote: »

A disc doesn't cover anybody to drive, it's simply visual evidence that there is a policy in force for the car with that reg. So if you drive car B with the disc from car A on the windscreen, it has no value whatsover and proves nothing.

And it's illegal .....

6. No person shall, either by writing, drawing or in any other matter alter, deface, mutilate or add anything to any insurance disc for any vehicle, nor shall any person exhibit upon any vehicle any insurance disc which has been altered, defaced, mutilated or added to as aforesaid, or upon which the figures or particulars have become illegible or the colour has become altered by fading or otherwise, not shall any person exhibit any colourable imitation of any insurance disc or any insurance disc which has been issued in respect of another vehicle .....

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1984/si/355/made/en/print

It is arguable that an insurance disc for an open drive vehicle covers the driving of every car of the class insured and can thus can't be construed as an insurance disc ofor another vehicle.

coylemj

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is arguable that an insurance disc for an open drive vehicle covers the driving of every car of the class insured ....

Open driving allows other people to drive that car, it does not permit the owner to bring the disc to another car.

But as you're clearly referring to 'driving other cars', there is nothing on the disc to show who is covered so putting it up on the windscreen of a borrowed car achieves nothing and the cops will rightly give you an earful if you're caught.

GM228

Im melting away wrote: »

You can get a FCN for non display of insurance disc, think it's 80quid, you can appeal and will win, if you hold a policy that allows you to drive other cars.

Don't be so certain of that.

You can be prosecuted for not displaying an insurance disc (after 10 days of the policy coming into force), even if you later show you were fully insured to drive the vehicle.

Has happened several times and there was a very recent attempt (unsuccessful) at judicial review on this very point three months ago.

jimmycrackcorm

Bikerman2019 wrote:

I think I will just photocopy my licence,policy cert, and daughters log book, and keep them in the car. Just in case I take it out and get stopped.

I like a gambling man. Who needs originals when photocopies suffice.

Your going to add a fine for not having a license with you on top of no insurance disc and still be required to produce.

Marcusm

MacDanger wrote: »

Would a black & white copy of the insurance disc be okay?

“Colourable” in this context has nothing to do with colour per se but refers to something which could be perceived to be the genuine article when it isn’t. A copy of an insurance cert is not a genuine very but might be perceived to be one.

rock22

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

Good to know, thanks. I have my own car and policy. I am also named on the family car. This is a third car in the house, and I intend to take it out just to keep it running ok. Hopefully her theory test will go well and she will be mobile soon. Boxymo is 1700 but policy cannot be taken out until she gets the learner permit. She has had awfully bad luck due to cancellations over the lockdown.

Surely your policy excludes a car owned by another family member?

Bikerman2019

rock22 wrote: »

Surely your policy excludes a car owned by another family member?

Not according to the broker and the policy booklet.


H. Driving of other cars included
No. 1 “Indemnity to the Insured” of Section 1: “Liability to Third Parties” is extended to include indemnity to the Insured while personally driving any private motor car provided such vehicle:(i) Does not belong to the Insured.(ii) Is not hired or leased to the Insured under a Hire Purchase or Leasing Agreement.(iii) Is not the property of or in the custody of any Company or Firm of which the Insured is a Member, Director or Employee.(iv) Is not the property of or in the custody or control of a Motor Trade Business of which the Insured is a Member, Director or Employee


I gather from this thread that I cannot copy the disk and put it in the window. If I take the car out, just to keep it running smooth and battery charged, I need to have all original documents in the car in case I am stopped. Not having an insurance disc in the window will attract the gardai, but having a copy in the window is illegal. Maybe just take it out once a week until my daughter gets legal.

Caranica

Can you not just take it on very short runs, stay very local, maybe even on your own property depending on where you live?

Bikerman2019

Caranica wrote: »

Can you not just take it on very short runs, stay very local, maybe even on your own property depending on where you live?

Yep, short runs intended.

Peregrinus

Bikerman2019 wrote: »

. . . Not having an insurance disc in the window will attract the gardai, but having a copy in the window is illegal. Maybe just take it out once a week until my daughter gets legal.

Both options are illegal. The insurance company can insure you to drive a car for which there is no insurance disc to display, but it cannot make driving a car without displaying an appropriate insurance disc legal.

Either way, carry all the relevant insurance documentation with you. You'll be reliant on the forbearance and good sense of the guards not to prosecute; this is a better bet if you display no disc and explain why than if you transfer a disc or photocopy a disc, which might be interpreted as an attempt to mislead. Obviously, don't do anything else to piss off the guards, like speeding, driving carelessly or venting about how silly the law is.

sham58107

To OP
I have been driving a loan car from Garage for 2 months ( waiting for new car) no disc as fleet policy and insurer would not issue temp. disc , was stopped a few times during lockdown and had copy of insurance policy although I never was asked for this , as one guard said their handheld device pick up everything these days.
So just have copy of your insurance cert with you ( do not make copy of disc) if car is properly insured you wont have any problems, BTW you always have to carry DL with you.

ELM327

sham58107 wrote: »

To OP
I have been driving a loan car from Garage for 2 months ( waiting for new car) no disc as fleet policy and insurer would not issue temp. disc , was stopped a few times during lockdown and had copy of insurance policy although I never was asked for this , as one guard said their handheld device pick up everything these days.
So just have copy of your insurance cert with you ( do not make copy of disc) if car is properly insured you wont have any problems, BTW you always have to carry DL with you.

This is false as they don't have a data source for insurance. They use the motor tax website but on private cars this is unchecked

Im melting away

GM228 wrote: »

Don't be so certain of that.

You can be prosecuted for not displaying an insurance disc (after 10 days of the policy coming into force), even if you later show you were fully insured to drive the vehicle.

Has happened several times and there was a very recent attempt (unsuccessful) at judicial review on this very point three months ago.

What's this than?

https://www.garda.ie/en/roads-policing/fixed-charge-notices/cancelling-fixed-charge-notices.html

In relation to an FCN for non-display of motor tax or insurance disc, motor tax had been taken out or applied for, or in the case of the non display of an insurance disc motor insurance was in place, at the time of the alleged offence.

Claw Hammer

coylemj wrote: »

Open driving allows other people to drive that car, it does not permit the owner to bring the disc to another car.

But as you're clearly referring to 'driving other cars', there is nothing on the disc to show who is covered so putting it up on the windscreen of a borrowed car achieves nothing and the cops will rightly give you an earful if you're caught.

The purpose of the disc is to give an indication of whther the person driving the car is insured or not. In the vast majority of cases of non display, if there actually is insurance, there is no prosecution and in any case where there is a prosecution it is normally dismissed where there is was actual insurance cover for the driving in question.

Eggs For Dinner

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The purpose of the disc is to give an indication of whther the person driving the car is insured or not. In the vast majority of cases of non display, if there actually is insurance, there is no prosecution and in any case where there is a prosecution it is normally dismissed where there is was actual insurance cover for the driving in question.

The insurance disc gives no indication on whether the driver is insured or not. It merely confirms that a policy for the vehicle is in force

coylemj

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

The insurance disc gives no indication on whether the driver is insured or not. It merely confirms that a policy for the vehicle is in force

+1 I pointed this out to Claw Hammer in post #38 in a direct response to a post of his.....

coylemj wrote: »

The disc alone doesn't cover anybody to drive, it's simply visual evidence that there is a policy in force for the car with that reg. So if you drive car B with the disc from car A on the windscreen, it has no value whatsover and proves nothing.

But he still doesn't get it. He persists in the delusion that the disc is some kind of personal insurance cert. Which you can carry from car to car, like your driving licence.

Claw Hammer

coylemj wrote: »

+1 I pointed this out to Claw Hammer in post #38 in a direct response to a post of his.....



But he still doesn't get it. He persists in the delusion that the disc is some kind of personal insurance cert. Which you can carry from car to car, like your driving licence.

No I don't. If you are insured to drive a car which does not have its own insurance disc the choice is between having driving with some disc and driving with no disc. It is a question of the lesser of two evils. I think that since criminal statutes should be strictly construed with the benefit of doubt going to the defendant, it is better to drive with a disc from a policy which allows the driving of the car.

robinph

ELM327 wrote: »

This is false as they don't have a data source for insurance. They use the motor tax website but on private cars this is unchecked

I got pulled over on a 50cc over a decade ago riding around Lucan as the Garda bike following me had checked the tax/ insurance status. The renewals of the two were out of sync so showed on their system that I had no insurance. He knew the expiry date of the insurance when he stopped me, I also just happened to have the paperwork on me that day which saved me a trip to the station to show them there.

Marcusm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

No I don't. If you are insured to drive a car which does not have its own insurance disc the choice is between having driving with some disc and driving with no disc. It is a question of the lesser of two evils. I think that since criminal statutes should be strictly construed with the benefit of doubt going to the defendant, it is better to drive with a disc from a policy which allows the driving of the car.

A strict construction of the statute would not assist one whit as it would merely confirm that the display of a disc relating to another car is an offence in its own right, separate to failure to display one related to the particular vehicle which is being driven. What you are looking for is not a strict construction but discretion. Whether the guard exercises discretion and whether it is influenced but he absence of a disc or the presence of a disc for another car is not a matter of law, it’s a matter of personal judgement (by the guard).

Claw Hammer

Marcusm wrote: »

A strict construction of the statute would not assist one whit as it would merely confirm that the display of a disc relating to another car is an offence in its own right, separate to failure to display one related to the particular vehicle which is being driven. What you are looking for is not a strict construction but discretion. Whether the guard exercises discretion and whether it is influenced but he absence of a disc or the presence of a disc for another car is not a matter of law, it’s a matter of personal judgement (by the guard).

It is not discretion when it gets to court. It would be for the court to decide whether a disc which relates to a policy which covers the driving of the vehicle in question meets the requirement of the statute.
On a purposive construction of the statute which is to detect uninsured driving and not have offences for the fun of it, it may be that a court would not convict.
What a guard does at the side of the road is his own business.
The o/p has 3 choices.
1. Drive without displaying any disc.
2. Drive with his own disc.
3. Don't drive the vehicle at all.
If 3 is not an option then he has 2 choices.
Since it is 100% an offence not to display a disc and it is arguable that a disc from a policy which covers the driving is sufficient, I prefer Option 2.

newirishman

The "driving other cars" cover requires the other car to be insured.
As pointed out by many posters, it is an offence to drive an uninsured vehicle.
the discussion around "copying discs" or bringing a copy of the cert is irrelevant.

OP mentioned his current insurer is Zurich - here from the booklet:

1 Third party cover:
"(j) is insured under a current policy of insurance in the name of another person who is not your spouse/partner"

2 comprehensive cover:
"(k) is insured under a current policy of motor insurance in the name of another person who is not your spouse/partner"

It is the same for all other private car insurances.

So your "driving other vehicles" cover is not a substitute for having a valid car insurance in place for the vehicle you are driving.

Hurrache

newirishman wrote: »

The "driving other cars" cover requires the other car to be insured.

Not always. But there's provisions to ensure that taking out a policy on one car but your main driver is uninsured is not abused.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It is not discretion when it gets to court. It would be for the court to decide whether a disc which relates to a policy which covers the driving of the vehicle in question meets the requirement of the statute.
On a purposive construction of the statute which is to detect uninsured driving and not have offences for the fun of it, it may be that a court would not convict.
What a guard does at the side of the road is his own business.
The o/p has 3 choices.
1. Drive without displaying any disc.
2. Drive with his own disc.
3. Don't drive the vehicle at all.
If 3 is not an option then he has 2 choices.
Since it is 100% an offence not to display a disc and it is arguable that a disc from a policy which covers the driving is sufficient, I prefer Option 2.

is it really that arguable?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1984/si/355/made/en/print

6. No person shall, either by writing, drawing or in any other matter alter, deface, mutilate or add anything to any insurance disc for any vehicle, nor shall any person exhibit upon any vehicle any insurance disc which has been altered, defaced, mutilated or added to as aforesaid, or upon which the figures or particulars have become illegible or the colour has become altered by fading or otherwise, not shall any person exhibit any colourable imitation of any insurance disc or any insurance disc which has been issued in respect of another vehicle or any insurance disc which has become void nor shall any figures or letters, design or ornamentation be placed near to an insurance disc in such a manner as to render it more difficult to read nor shall anything be exhibited at or near the insurance disc, in such a manner as to render it more difficult to observe an insurance disc on a vehicle when in motion.