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.....

135

Comments

  • #62
    square ball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 397 ✭✭square ball


    newirishman wrote: »
    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.

    Not the same at all.

    Most policies don't stipulate that the vehicle you are driving under the driving of other cars under your own policy has to be insured at all.

    I very much doubt it's even legal to require the other vehicle to be insured as your own policy covers you while driving another vehicle so the insurance status should be irrelevant but that's an argument for another day, going by the wording provided OP cannot drive another vehicle unless it's insured and owned by someone who is not him or his spouse/common law spouse.

    If you are driving a vehicle legally under Driving of other Cars extension forget copying discs or carrying the disc around. The wording on the insurance certificate states what you are/are not insured to drive and this is sufficient proof of insurance. The certificate of insurance is the document you would be required to produce in court if you ever had to provide proof of insurance so have that with you instead.


  • #63
    Bikerman2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Bikerman2019


    newirishman wrote: »
    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.

    I dont know where you got that from, but is different to mine.

    https://www.zurich.ie/car-insurance/car-insurance-policy/
    Select gone through a broker, car policy booklet, and go to page 26. OR follow this link directly. This was confirmed by chill insurance

    https://www.zurich.ie/-/media/project/zurichie/zurichmainsite/files/private-car-insurance-policy-dmv.pdf?la=en&hash=E27B7EE990B6E1321A29A49EF8ACCEE9C5329C81


  • #64
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,149 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    As has been pointed out to Claw Hammer a number of times. It is an offence to display a disc on a vehicle other than the one to which it is designated. Suggesting it is an option to the OP is opening him up to a criminal prosecution which will have long lasting effects.


  • #65
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Copy your actual policy. Highlight the other car section, fold it and stick it in the holder.

    When stopped, explain and show it. Unless it's the most pedantic Garda in the country and he's on the most boring checkpoint ever, that will be that.

    You may be asked to produce they original policy at a station. Maybe.


  • #66
    square ball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 397 ✭✭square ball


    Bikerman2019 wrote: »
    I dont know where you got that from, but is different to mine.

    https://www.zurich.ie/car-insurance/car-insurance-policy/
    Select gone through a broker, car policy booklet, and go to page 26. OR follow this link directly. This was confirmed by chill insurance

    https://www.zurich.ie/-/media/project/zurichie/zurichmainsite/files/private-car-insurance-policy-dmv.pdf?la=en&hash=E27B7EE990B6E1321A29A49EF8ACCEE9C5329C81

    Then OP you are insured to drive a vehicle registered in your daughter's name provided it is roadworthy. Leave the insurance certificate of your own policy on the dash while driving and that's displaying insurance.

    The information on your certificate of insurance is what is important. Policy booklets are not always up to date either by the way.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,369 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    square ball wrote: »
    Leave the insurance certificate of your own policy on the dash while driving and that's displaying insurance.

    Aw c'mon


  • #68
    flexcon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭flexcon


    newirishman wrote: »
    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.

    Just no. I'm sorry if that is rude but Just no.

    This is the endless circle Jerk of trying to be right without realising someone else actually knows the answer.

    Plenty of us here on this boards have ran this course dry. We are insured to drive other cars even when the other car is not insured. Fact.

    It depends on your policy, and in some instances depends on your broker.

    I even have fully comprehensive insurance on other cars through theAA. It's real.


  • #69
    Marcusm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,818 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    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.

    So now you are moving from a strict construction giving scope to escape a conviction/fine to a purposive construction providing same. You can’t succeed on both arguments. No construction can provide that a disk for a different car meets the strict liability standard of the statute. Generally discretion by the Garda will deal with 90%. Discretion on the part of the court would be to permit a probabtion act diversion via the poor box. The use of a disc for another car is a clear breach of the statute and could not be regarded as meeting the standard. This is not an argument with holes so much as an absence of an argument in the first instance.


  • #70
    rock22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭rock22


    Is there not a requirement for a vehicle to be insured?
    While your policy allows you to drive other vehicles , your daughters car is an uninsured vehicle and should not be on the road.


  • #71
    Bikerman2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Bikerman2019


    rock22 wrote: »
    Is there not a requirement for a vehicle to be insured?
    While your policy allows you to drive other vehicles , your daughters car is an uninsured vehicle and should not be on the road.
    Please read the thread. Not in this case


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    robinph wrote: »
    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.

    When you taxed the bike you would have been asked for insurance details. They have that info. But there's nothing on the motor tax form that actually checks those details. You could have put the policy number as 123456789 and the expiry as 2050 and that's the info he would have had.


  • #73
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,148 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    rock22 wrote: »
    Is there not a requirement for a vehicle to be insured?
    While your policy allows you to drive other vehicles , your daughters car is an uninsured vehicle and should not be on the road.
    False.
    And done to death


  • #74
    rock22
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,799 ✭✭✭rock22


    ELM327 wrote: »
    False.
    And done to death

    Gov.ie say ( or at least imply) that vehicle must have a minimum of third party insurance ("Motor third-party liability insurance is the minimum level of compulsory insurance in Ireland and throughout the European Union for all vehicles.")

    In the case outlined by the OP, there is no insurance on the vehicle, which at least to a layman(me) seems to suggest that it does not meet that minimum set out by the goc.ie website.

    All certificates of insurance I have set out clearly that a vehicle is insured, in fact it is usually the first item in the schedule.

    Perhaps the Op should outline to his insurers what he intends to do and ask is he covered. That answer is obviously the most important one.


  • #75
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,931 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    rock22 wrote: »
    Gov.ie say ( or at least imply) that vehicle must have a minimum of third party insurance ("Motor third-party liability insurance is the minimum level of compulsory insurance in Ireland and throughout the European Union for all vehicles.")

    In the case outlined by the OP, there is no insurance on the vehicle, which at least to a layman(me) seems to suggest that it does not meet that minimum set out by the goc.ie website.

    All certificates of insurance I have set out clearly that a vehicle is insured, in fact it is usually the first item in the schedule.

    Perhaps the Op should outline to his insurers what he intends to do and ask is he covered. That answer is obviously the most important one.

    if the insurance on their own car allows them to drive other vehicles that are not insured then they are insured to drive. the OP confirmed that in the first post.
    Background. A car insurance policy covers a person to drive their own car with comprehensive cover. Broker says the driver is insured to drive any other car as long as it is not owned by this driver. "The second car does not need to be insured." This seems to be confirmed by the policy booklet.


  • #76
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,148 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    I have done that before.
    Vehicle must be insured - this is covered by the fact that OP is insured to drive it.
    Check your policy document. Most do not require the car to have a separate policy.
    I even have fully comp in this instance.


  • #77
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,809 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Marcusm wrote: »
    So now you are moving from a strict construction giving scope to escape a conviction/fine to a purposive construction providing same. You can’t succeed on both arguments. No construction can provide that a disk for a different car meets the strict liability standard of the statute. Generally discretion by the Garda will deal with 90%. Discretion on the part of the court would be to permit a probabtion act diversion via the poor box. The use of a disc for another car is a clear breach of the statute and could not be regarded as meeting the standard. This is not an argument with holes so much as an absence of an argument in the first instance.

    The courts are not supposed to use the poor box any longer. The legal question only arises after the garda has brought a charge.
    If the literal construction rule produces an absurdity, the purposive arises. One can succeed on both rules of construction but it might only be necessary to rely on one. Strictly construing a criminal statute means construing it in such a way as any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the defence.

    The only way the o/p can be sure of avoiding an offence would be to contact his broker, arrange to have his cover transferred from his car to his daughter's car before taking it on the road. If he is stopped, he can use the defence that the cover was only effected within the past 10 days. When he gets home he can transfer the cover back to his own car.


  • #78
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,264 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    My policy document is pretty clear. I am covered for driving the vehicle with the registration mark matching my own, a private car loaned to me for up to 7 days by a garage repairing or servicing my car and
    Any other Private Motor Car being driven by the Insured provided such vehicle:
    (i) does not belong to the Insured or belong to his/her Employer,
    (ii) is not hired or leased to either of the parties described in (i) above under a Hire Purchase or Leasing Agreement,
    (iii) is not the property of or in the custody or control of a Motor Trade Business of which the Insured is a Director, Member or Employee

    Strictly speaking does the law require Allianz to issue me a certificate for every possible other car in order to display a valid disc?
    3. (1) Where a certificate of insurance is issued to a person, the vehicle insurer shall issue to such person one insurance disc for each vehicle to which the certificate relates.


  • #79
    Bikerman2019
    Closed Accounts Posts: 992 ✭✭✭Bikerman2019


    Here is the actual policy, which I think I will keep in the car if I take it out.


  • #80
    square ball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 397 ✭✭square ball


    Claw Hammer wrote: »

    The only way the o/p can be sure of avoiding an offence would be to contact his broker, arrange to have his cover transferred from his car to his daughter's car before taking it on the road. If he is stopped, he can use the defence that the cover was only effected within the past 10 days. When he gets home he can transfer the cover back to his own car.

    That is incorrect. He does not need to contact anyone. He is covered to drive the vehicle provided it is taxed, tested and fit for use on a public road and not owned by himself or his spouse/partner in this case.

    It states this on the insurance certificate.


  • #81
    square ball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 397 ✭✭square ball


    Bikerman2019 wrote: »
    Here is the actual policy, which I think I will keep in the car if I take it out.

    The safest option if you get stopped by a Garda you can prove that you are insured to drive the vehicle on the spot.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,809 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    square ball wrote: »
    That is incorrect. He does not need to contact anyone. He is covered to drive the vehicle provided it is taxed, tested and fit for use on a public road and not owned by himself or his spouse/partner in this case.

    It states this on the insurance certificate.

    He may be covered but he has a problem with the lack of an insurance disc for the vehicle.


  • #83
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,809 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    square ball wrote: »
    The safest option if you get stopped by a Garda you can prove that you are insured to drive the vehicle on the spot.

    That doesn't deal with the display difficulty. The driver is still hoping the garda will decide not to prosecute and in the event of prosecuting that a judge will not convict.


  • #84
    Cheensbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,704 ✭✭✭Cheensbo


    People will write/say anything when it comes to car insurance, whether it's right or not.


    This is the real world, we don't live in a hypothetical situation, OP will be fine, especially if they carry the cert in the car.


  • #85
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,931 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    That doesn't deal with the display difficulty. The driver is still hoping the garda will decide not to prosecute and in the event of prosecuting that a judge will not convict.

    indeed they are. Displaying a disc from a different car would only make garda discretion less likely.


  • #86
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,809 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Cheensbo wrote: »
    People will write/say anything when it comes to car insurance, whether it's right or not.


    This is the real world, we don't live in a hypothetical situation, OP will be fine, especially if they carry the cert in the car.

    People on a charge in court are not on a hypothetical situation.


  • #87
    square ball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 397 ✭✭square ball


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    That doesn't deal with the display difficulty. The driver is still hoping the garda will decide not to prosecute and in the event of prosecuting that a judge will not convict.

    Leaving the certificate on the dash is displaying proof of insurance. Similar to garages using tax plates when driving vehicles.


  • #88
    Shield
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 9,819 CMod ✭✭✭✭Shield


    liamog wrote: »
    Strictly speaking does the law require Allianz to issue me a certificate for every possible other car in order to display a valid disc?
    No. That clause would only apply if the certificate covers multiple vehicles. If you have temporary cover on a vehicle, a new certificate is not required, but you must inform your insurers when you revert back to your own vehicle. A significant minority of people forget this.


  • #89
    Witcher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,319 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    square ball wrote: »
    Leaving the certificate on the dash is displaying proof of insurance. Similar to garages using tax plates when driving vehicles.

    Except that it's not.

    The requirement is for a disc to be displayed.

    Regardless, if the OP has his cert with him it will not be an issue once he explains the lack of a disc when stopped. Putting an A4 sheet on the dash and trying to argue you're in the right will end with you getting a fine to explain to you why you're not.


  • #90
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,149 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Can't believe this is still going around in a loop
    OP is covered to drive his daughter's car, based on the information provided.
    OP is open to prosecution if he displays a disc on his daughter's car which is designated to another vehicle

    These are separate matters


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Shield
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Help & Feedback Category Moderators Posts: 9,819 CMod ✭✭✭✭Shield


    square ball wrote: »
    Leaving the certificate on the dash is displaying proof of insurance. Similar to garages using tax plates when driving vehicles.
    This is simply not true. Section 5 of the Road Traffic (Insurance Disc) Regulations 1984 is clear:

    5. (1) When a vehicle is used in a public place the insurance disc for the vehicle shall be carried on the vehicle at all times after the expiry of 10 days from the date of authentication of the certificate of insurance.

    (2) The insurance disc shall be carried in a conspicuous position on the windscreen of the vehicle in such manner that it shall be both visible and readily accessible for inspection and be so located that it does not obscure the vision of the driver while the vehicle is being driven or in the case of a vehicle not fitted with a windscreen in a conspicuous position on the near side of the vehicle.

    Careful now!


Advertisement