Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Display of discs in car windscreen.....

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    GM228 wrote: »
    That is not true, the requirement to display the vehicles disc is not subject to the policy holder actually driving the vehicle.

    This.

    If the car being driven has it's own valid disk and the driver has their own cover, it's all good in the hood.

    As I said in the original thread, if you have your policy with you, it's a very rigid Garda on the world's most boring checkpoint that looks to issue the fine.


  • Options
    #123
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,177 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    This.

    If the car being driven has it's own valid disk and the driver has their own cover, it's all good in the hood.

    As I said in the original thread, if you have your policy with you, it's a very rigid Garda on the world's most boring checkpoint that looks to issue the fine.

    Kirby met a very rigid Garda as seen above.


  • Options
    #124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Kirby met a very rigid Garda as seen above.

    He did not then maybe Kirby was guilty of having a bad attitude in accordance with section 1, give me a excuse to go looking for something act.


  • Options
    #125
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 7,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    I don't know if Kirby did meet a rigid Garda, their was a trade policy in place which came with a disc, the disc was on the drivers person instead of prominently displayed.
    It's no different from a driver being done for failure to display if they keep the disc in the glovebox instead of on the windscreen.

    The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the insurance details are obtainable without requiring assistance from the vehicle driver/owner. In this case I can see why he was convicted.


  • Options
    #126
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,177 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    liamog wrote: »
    I don't know if Kirby did meet a rigid Garda, their was a trade policy in place which came with a disc, the disc was on the drivers person instead of prominently displayed.
    It's no different from a driver being done for failure to display if they keep the disc in the glovebox instead of on the windscreen.

    The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the insurance details are obtainable without requiring assistance from the vehicle driver/owner. In this case I can see why he was convicted.

    It would be unusual to be charged in those circumstances. That is the point being made. There are situations where someone doesn't have a disc but is insured to drive. It makes no difference either way if the driver has a disc but doesn't display or or doesn't have a disc at all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    liamog wrote: »
    The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the insurance details are obtainable without requiring assistance from the vehicle driver/owner. In this case I can see why he was convicted.

    But the display of an insurance disc which is valid for the vehicle and another driver is irrelevant if the car is being driven by someone else on their entirely separate policy. Just means that there is some numbers to write down and then let insurance companies figure things out and whose policy applies to what.

    Doesn't really give you much more information for following a trail of who is responsible for what than you couldn't gain from the car number plate.


  • Options
    #128
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 7,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    It would be unusual to be charged in those circumstances. That is the point being made. There are situations where someone doesn't have a disc but is insured to drive. It makes no difference either way if the driver has a disc but doesn't display or or doesn't have a disc at all.

    I understand the main trust of this thread is the display of a disc when covered by alternative policy, but in the case of that court case, a disc is available that will name the trade policy owner instead of the vehicle on the disc, and as such should be placed on display.


  • Options
    #129
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,288 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The defendant was unlucky in that he was charged at all, that the prosecution went ahead at all, that he got the DJ he did and that the JR went the way it did.
    There must have been other factors in the situation.
    The moral of the story is not to believe everything written on internet fora.

    what information posted here has been incorrect or are you referring a different internet forum?


  • Options
    #130
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    square ball wrote: »
    The one thing is the person had a disc but didn't put it in the window and the motor trade policies are known to be strict. If there was no disc from driving other cars extension it's impossible to display a disc so the certificate is the only option

    The problem is the law does not take account of such situations.


    liamog wrote: »
    I understand the main trust of this thread is the display of a disc when covered by alternative policy, but in the case of that court case, a disc is available that will name the trade policy owner instead of the vehicle on the disc, and as such should be placed on display.

    I think the point to take is that failure to display a disc is an offence simpliciter, yes Kirby type situations can and do happen, but they are rare, very rare.

    The type of policy, the fact you had a disc or not, the fact you had it on you/in the glove box, or indeed the fact you were actually insured or not are irrelevant for the charge, they are not ingredients in the charge and so make no valid defence, however, as CH notes if any of the above are satisfied Gardaí will generally use their discretion and there would be no charge, such charges are rare when it is shown there is valid insurance.


Advertisement