This will continue until the penalty for driving without insurance is harsher.
I have to pay over £1000 a year to legally drive my car on the road. I do it, becuase it's the law and I am a law abiding person. However, the penalty for driving without insurance is typically around a £150 fine. Is it any wonder the less honest motorists choose not to insure their car? Add that to the rareness of getting caught - I have never in my 3 years of driving been pulled over for a check by the police, for example - and it becomes even more tempting to the scum.
The penalty for willingly driving without insurance should be 3x the average insurance premium that person would have to pay, IMHO.
|
"The penalty for willingly driving without insurance should be 3x the average insurance premium that person would have to pay, IMHO. "
If you couldn't afford the insurance in the first place then you wouldn't be able to afford the fine and as was discussed in a past thread, if one cannot afford to pay a fine then they should not receive such a fine...or something to that effect.
|
|
People who think that requireing fuel outlets to verify a vehicle's VED status before dispensing are tackling a symptom, not the cause. The cause is the burgeoning underclass of criminal scum, if you stop them hetting fuel from a garage, they will simply steel it from your tank or worse, stab you while you're filling your car up. Needs must.
|
Surely the most obvious thing to do is keep the register of insured drivers at the DVLA? So they know if you have insurance or not, like with the tax disc.
Then all you need are some of Ken Livingstone's number plate reading cameras, and should you spy an uninsured car driving around you just stick a fine in the post. If the fine isn't paid, the police turn up and have the car crushed.
Simple, no?
|
David Horn wrote:
Surely the most obvious thing to do is keep the register of insured drivers at the DVLA? So they know if you have insurance or not, like with the tax disc.
Then all you need are some of Ken Livingstone's number plate reading cameras, and should you spy an uninsured car driving around you just stick a fine in the post. If the fine isn't paid, the police turn up and have the car crushed.
Simple, no?
No, not that simple. First, not all cars have to be insured. You can own the car, but someone else might be driving it. The driver may have commercial insurance, or simply use DOC extension to his policy. Company cars often have any driver policies, or special clause policies. It's not possible to bind car to insurance policy or driver to car, and I hope noone will ever try or attempt to do so either.
Second, you would be surprised how many people don't update their details at DVLA. Especially those that don't want to receive their road tax reminders. :). But normal, honest, decent people too. They move flats, houses, cars change hands within family. Even more so with the new DVLA money making scheme - up until April, when you bought a car, and previous owner never sent V5 to DVLA, or the envelope got lost in transit you would just fill up form at Post Office and DVLA would send you replacement. Nowadays it costs £19 to get new V5 to your name. So people just don't bother with replacements when they loose or misplace V5...
|
|
|
|
Whatever measures you bring in to combat any criminal offence you will get a small percentage who will take the risk and accept the punishment. People still stole bread when it was a capital offence.
It is the ninety percent who weigh up the risks and decide whether it is worth doing the crime that need to be targeted. Having to stab somebody every time you needed to fill your tank would be considered a bit high profile for most, I would think.
|
|
|
|
If you couldn't afford the insurance in the first place then you wouldn't be able to afford the fine and as was discussed in a past thread, if one cannot afford to pay a fine then they should not receive such a fine...or something to that effect.
My heart bleeds for them. If you can't afford to run a car properly, you should not be on the road. I don't care if they can't afford the fine - if they make a concious decision to drive without paying for insurance, they should receive a hefty fine. If they cannot pay this fine, they should be jailed, like other non-payers are.
Their income is irrelevent. You cannot excuse driving without insurance with a low income. If you can't afford insurance, you don't drive a car.
|
Shouldn't uninsured drivers be made to pay the value of the insurance that you didn't pay as well as a fine?
|
The simple answer if you know of an untaxed vehicle is to contact the DVLA on 0800 0325 202 or e-mail it at:
vehicles.dvla@gtnet.gov.uk
giving details of the vehicle involved, where it is based if known and approximately what times it can be viewed in the imediate area.
This can be done anonymously which was not the case until quite recently.
If you reported an untaxed vehicle previously using the official form you had to provide your name and address - the person who owned the vehicle knew who had reported the offence.
|
The simple answer if you know of an untaxed vehicle is to contact the DVLA...
There was an untaxed Clio in my road a couple of days ago. It had a wheelclamp and some official looking notices stuck to the windscreen with the DVLA logo all over them. Presumably the clamping only happened because someone reported it, so it's safe to assume that they do act on tip-offs. I don't think the car is there now.
|
>"There was an untaxed Clio in my road a couple of days ago.."
Two things. Your local council has the powers to remove abandoned or untaxed vehicles off the roads or to make contact with the DVLA or police as required; just contact the council and report the vehicle(s).
>"..so it's safe to assume that they do act on tip-offs"
Not only safe to assume, it's a fact that the DVLA follows up tip-offs about untaxed vehicles, including those off-road which should have SORN status.
Just use the telephone number, or even easier, the e-mail link provided above. I can assure you it works, as my next door neighbour would confirm if he knew the reason behind the out of the blue need to tax, insure and MOT his van for the first time for some time...:-)
Much of the reason for the improved clampdown on untaxed vehicles is the DVLA's more stringent approach to the subject (partially caused by New Labour's desire to rake in even more money from the electorate) from the beginning of this year.
|
|
Making it an offence to sell fuel to untaxed vehicles won't catch those drivers of uninsured, untaxed diesels who run on red diesel. Or Extra Virgin Olive.
|
|
Why should garages bear this administrative burden and expense? They are already unpaid tax collectors, why should they be unpaid policemen too? It is also a very impractical solution, is each station going to hire an employee to man each pump and check tax discs?
|
Tax disc with a hologram on it containing the nescessary information re insurance and Mot, hand held scanner on the pump. No valid reading, pump won't work.
Who would bear the cost of this? Well, we would, but we are already bearing the cost of untaxed & insured drivers and that comes to far more than a simple electronic device using readily available technology.
|
|
Part of the problem for the less well off is that running a car uninsured is cheaper than than using public transport in a lot of areas. In some places running a car fully paid up is still cheaper than using public transport. People in rural areas don't often have a choice as to transport methods and as house prices rise beyond a lot of people's means it is making things worse. Obviously there are a subset of the uninsured that fit into the scumbag category and they're the ones that need their cars crushed and their undercarriage rearranged.
I don't know how much of a deterrant it would be if an uninsured person that had an accident was made totally liable for all the costs of that accident. It would probably put them in debt for life, but it put any of them off? Being able to catch people involved in accidents that just drive off (most likely to be uninsured) would help deter some.
Insurance disks visible on all cars would also be a good idea. Perhaps it is time that all vehicles were linked to an insurance policy and if not there was a note kept with the dvla or whoever saying what sort of policy was in force on a particular vehicle eg trade plates. This would annoy traders and garages but I think the disbenefit to them is outweighed by the benefit to the population at large.
teabelly
|
When police stop motorists and check out the vehicle details via their control centre from the PNC (Police National Computer) they can now also be informed if insurance is in force and who has taken out the cover.
There have been disturbing stories in the national press in recent weeks of immigrants and illegal asylum seekers buying up old bangers (cheaper to sell than pay for disposal) and using them without tax or insurance.
That adds to a problem which has always been with us - my next door neighbour used to get away with it on two or three vehicles until I took the appropriate action.
His reaction - to slash one of my car tyres late one night.
Fortunately my better half saw him do it and not many minutes later he was being bundled into a police car and given a free ride to the local nick.
|
"When police stop motorists and check out the vehicle details via their control centre from the PNC (Police National Computer) they can now also be informed if insurance is in force..."
Since so many people get nabbed by speed cameras now, why not ask for the insurance certificate when prosecuting? This would surely catch many more offenders.
|
|
|
|
>>I don't know how much of a deterrant it would be if an uninsured person that had an accident was made totally liable for all the costs of that accident.
That is already the case but, as you say, it doesn't work.
|
|
|
Part of the problem for the less well off is that running a car uninsured is cheaper than than using public transport in a lot of areas. In some places running a car fully paid up is still cheaper than using public transport.
Ah, but if any government legislated and put in place the technical methods to ensure people without tax/insurance couldn;t get fuel at the pumps, there would be a lot of people who suddenly couldn't afford to run a car.
These people would then choose to vote for the party which could actually provide a decent, cheap, public transport network.
therefore i bet no government would ever go down the technical route, as they would get themselves voted out. better to have uninsured and untaxed vehicles than for a politician to be without a job,
|
the party which could actually provide a decent, cheap, public transport network.
Wow - you mean there is one? Where???
|
"Wow - you mean there is one? Where???"
Abroad.
|
|
|
|
These people would then choose to vote for the party which could actually provide a decent, cheap, public transport network.
Sadly, I suspect that many car drivers would be quite unhappy about the big changes which would flow from closing off all the possibilties of driving illegally. The result would be huge swathes of the population who could no longer aspire to vehicle onwnership, which mnay of them know can currently be manged by cutting corners.
I fully agree that it's an important thing to do, but I'm not sure that the drivers who advocate it have thought through where it would lead.
Hugely-increased public support for public transport, would not just mean an increased demand for more buses etc -- it would also tilt the balance of public opinion towards measures such as bus lanes, car-free streets, speed restrictions and enforcement, traffic calming etc.
|
Hugely-increased public support for public transport, would not just mean an increased demand for more buses etc -- it would also tilt the balance of public opinion towards measures such as
bus lanes, yes
car-free streets, yes,
speed restrictions, sorry don't follow you here
speed enforcement, eh? how does that flow from public transport support?
traffic calming pardon?
I'd love there to be a viable and useful public transport system. For one thing, it would make my train/tube journeys into London more pleasant and perhaps give me an alternative for other journeys. For another, it would take people off the road, so that when I do drive it is less congested.
But I really can't see how more buses mean they need to be forced through chicanes and over speed humps?
|
Chicanes and speed bumps are rarely installed on bus routes -- they are usually reserved for back streets.
All those measures impede car drivers, and make life much easier for those not using cars. Remember bus users don't get carried door-to-door by bus: they have to walk to and from the bus, which is usually only available for longer journeys.
For a significant proportion of their travelling time, bus users are actually pedestrians. Their immediate interests are best served by prioritising pedestrian mobility.
So putting speed bumps and chicanes on the back streets increases the mobility of the non-car-user, by making it easier and safer to walk to and from public transport. Enforcing speed limits makes it safer and more relaxing to walk and cycle everywhere.
Once people have no possibility of using a car, they have a greatly reduced interest in facilitating car use, and a hugely increased interst in severely restricting it. Restrictions such as speed bumps will help them in more ways, and won't impede them at all.
If you and your family try a week of going about your usual business without using any cars (no taxis, no lifts accepted), you'll see what I mean!
|
Oh, I see. Thanks.
I'd still support this provided that once you reached a proper through route you could make progress.
If you and your family try a week of going about your usual business without using any cars (no taxis, no lifts accepted), you'll see what I mean!
No chance. There is no public transport route from my home to my work. I'd lose my job, lose the house, etc etc....
I'd actually like to use public transport for my commute. I used to, when it was possible (1992 to 1997) but was eventually forced off by a combination of high fares, poor service, and downright rude staff.
|
Once people have no possibility of using a car, they have a greatly reduced interest in facilitating car use, and a hugely increased interst in severely restricting it.
So the prime motivator amongst non car users for restricting car use is in fact envy? They're annoyed because they can't afford to have a car so they think everyone else should have their freedom curtailed?
I am sure I read somewhere that people without a car in fact travel more miles by car than public transport as they cadge lifts off people. Seems rather hypocritical of them to restrict other's car use when they don't even use public transport themselves! ( I am of course severely twisting things :-) )
teabelly
|
"I am sure I read somewhere that people without a car in fact travel more miles by car than public transport as they cadge lifts off people. Seems rather hypocritical of them to restrict other's car use when they don't even use public transport themselves!"
I am sure that a lot of the loudest critics of motoring do not consider to what extent they are "passive motorists" and depend on lifts from friends and relatives, lorry deliveries to shops, home deliveries, visits by carers, shop and public service workers who travel to work by car (how does the bus driver get to work?)etc..
If their professed aim of forcing everyone else to walk, cycle or use only public transport were to be realised then their own quality of life would deteriorate pretty quickly.
|
>> Once people have no possibility of using a car, they have >> a greatly reduced interest in facilitating car use, and a hugely >> increased interst in severely restricting it. So the prime motivator amongst non car users for restricting car use is in fact envy? They're annoyed because they can't afford to have a car so they think everyone else should have their freedom curtailed?
Teabelly, how on earth is trying to create greater safety for oneself anything to do with envy?
You don't normally reduce yourself to misrepresentation or to personal attacks, so it's pity that you should stoop to attributing malign motives :(
Read it again: what I wrote is nothing to do with envy.
"putting speed bumps and chicanes on the back streets increases the mobility of the non-car-user, by making it easier and safer to walk to and from public transport"
That's why I suggest a non-car user would have a greater interest in restricting traffic: to increase their own safety and mobility.
|
I walk to work a lot, which used to involve crossing a nsl road (it's now a 40). I managed that perfectly on numerous occasions without feeling that I was going to be mown down at any moment. I feel no need to curtail the use of cars by others in that sense. Why do others feel the need? That is the point I was trying to make. The personal safety issue is a misnomer in some ways as it is perfectly possible to cross fast roads safely if you just watch the traffic! I have walked all round Bristol (whilst lost I may add) and not felt in any danger from traffic even though I was somewhere strange. Cars don't knock down pedestrians on pavements in the majority of cases, the pedestrians get knocked down in the road and the pedestrians themselves are often to blame as they failed to observe the approaching vehicle properly.
The malign motive was in fact followed by a :-) to denote I realise I am twisting things (possibly stooping too!) and maybe attributing motives that aren't there to others that wish to restrict car use and it wasn't directed at yourself. But my point stands in that I think the safety reason is over stated as I and many others can cross roads, busy roads without problem. I think there is an element of envy in the restriction of car use by some people and that it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between the person who wishes to benefit others and one who wants to curtail car use because of some kind of envy. Those who wish to reduce car transport and road transport often fail to realise the extent upon which they depend on it even if they don't directly use cars. I think that is also a valid point.
teabelly
|
I walk to work a lot, which used to involve crossing a nsl road (it's now a 40). I managed that perfectly on numerous occasions without feeling that I was going to be mown down at any moment. I feel no need to curtail the use of cars by others in that sense. Why do others feel the need?
I can't square that with your support for Home Zones.
That is the point I was trying to make. The personal safety issue is a misnomer in some ways as it is perfectly possible to cross fast roads safely if you just watch the traffic!
If you watch the traffic, and visibility is good, and it's in daylight, and traffic densities are low enough (or so high that trafic is stopped!), and you are alert, and you are prepared to risk being stranded standing on the white line with cars travelling at 30mph either side of you. Take any of those factors out of the equation and it can take five minutes to cross safely.
I have walked all round Bristol (whilst lost I may add) and not felt in any danger from traffic even though I was somewhere strange. Cars don't knock down pedestrians on pavements in the majority of cases, the pedestrians get knocked down in the road and the pedestrians themselves are often to blame as they failed to observe the approaching vehicle properly.
Precisely. The responsibility for safety in an everyday manouevre like crossing the road to a neighbour's house or stepoing into the road to get around an obstruction is cast onto the vulnerable party, the pedestrian ... whose freedom is severly constrained by the lack of restraint on car use.
Restraining the speed and volume of vehicle traffic rebalances the risks, which have been moving steadily in favour of the car user for several decades.
Those who wish to reduce car transport and road transport often fail to realise the extent upon which they depend on it even if they don't directly use cars. I think that is also a valid point.
Valid up to a point, but only if you avoid looking at the bigger picture.
For example, I use taxis and also cadge lifts, though only for a minority of journeys. But that's partly because the growth of car usage has squeezed out other forms of transport, by making cycling dangerous, walking a sufficiently rare pasttime to be dangerous in many places, and public transport unviable.
e.g. fifty years ago my village had a tram service to the city centre, plus a regular train service both the city and to two neighbouring town. All now gone, and even the replacement bus service has gone too -- so reaching one of those neighbouring towns is now possible only by car or by a 90-minte, two stage bus journey. So my friend who used to travel by bus from that town to work here now has to get her partner to drive her.
It has also led to the displacement of services to suit car users: forty years ago, my village had two butchers, three grocers, two hardware stores, several fruit+veg shops, three bakers etc, but now it has two corner stores, one convenience store and a bookie. The village swimming baths has been closed, to be replaced with a larger one accessible in 10 minutes by car or 60-90 minutes by bus.
You arer right, the non-car user has to depend on occasional access to a car to use services ... because those services have been displaced by car usage.
Is it any wonder that some people take huge risks to ensure that they can run a car?
|
two corner stores, one convenience store and a bookie
Useful if you want to place a bet on whether you make it to the other side of the road, perhaps?
|
>> two corner stores, one convenience store and a bookie Useful if you want to place a bet on whether you make it to the other side of the road, perhaps?
I suspect they would only take the bet if I was crossing the road on a horse ;-)
|
You can't lose, in that case.
Make it across and the bookie pays out. Fail to do so and the corner stores will be taking an interest in the equine remains with a view to restocking the meat counter.
Sorry - bad taste.....*
*but not as bad as the meat counter.....
|
Sorry - bad taste.....* *but not as bad as the meat counter.....
be careful, all those backroomers busy packing their bags into their cars to drive off* to live in France will soon be acquiring a taste for horsemeat. They might not take kindly to you disparaging their new national dish
* obligatory motoring reference
|
|
Swap black pudding for horsemeat? Never....
|
Yes, sometimes it does take a few minutes to cross the road when it is busy but if I were a car driver complaining about traffic lights that didn't turn in my favour the instant I appeared you would rightly say that I was being selfish. So it should be the same for pedestrians, they can wait to find a safe gap in the traffic. Us car drivers have to wait for lights to change, to get across junctions, turn into other roads in a safe gap etc so it is the same for us all. We're all impeded by each other in some ways. Roads are never going to be empty like they used to, neither are pavements so we are largely in the same boat.
I heard somewhere that cyclists were going to be allowed to cycle on the pavement so maybe that will encourage more cycling.
My support for home zones is a lesser of two evils kind of thing. I would rather have the dutch way of doing things which improves the urban environment for all than the UK slap some humps and stick a 20 mph limit on it way of doing things. At least if you use engineering features, eg big flower pots and trees in the middle of the road then you have something pretty to look at while your way to work is impeded :-)
Beeching shut down the lesser used rail stations, so I assume they weren't being used enough. People have chosen to use the car over other forms of transport, maybe rightly or wrongly. The rot set in before Beeching did this, otherwise those small stations would have been viable.
Out of town shopping centres have grown mainly because of greedy councils charging high rents and business rates in the centre of town. Add to that the cost of parking in town when out of town is free then you see why few peole shop in towns any more. Encouraging car use to the edge of towns, with free parking and easy ways to get in is a much more sensible way to go. Corner stores don't have the space and choice that people have come to expect either. Perhaps having local stores with large inventory which can be pre-ordered and delivered to the store would give people the opportunity to shop locally.
The world is changing all the time and I don't expect any old ways of life to remain the same. 10 years time and who knows, virtual reality may be so good we don't need to leave the sofa.
teabelly
|
Add to that the cost of parking in town when out of town is free then you see why few peole shop in towns any more
Bicester, Oxon - little parking, high charges, limited to 2 hours so that workers can't use them. Few nice shops, town centre generally sad and grey.
Witney, Oxon - plenty of free parking, no time limit. Lots of shops, bright clean town centre. Nice place to go.
Both have similar demographics.
|
|
And Bicester has an out-of-town retail village which further serves to depress the town centre.
|
|
Only sells clothes, though (by and large). Not much used by the locals, who generally travel to Kidlington, Banbury and Aylesbury for food or general shopping.
|
'Chicanes and speed bumps are rarely installed on bus routes -- they are usually reserved for back streets.'
You've not been to Northampton then...
|
'Chicanes and speed bumps are rarely installed on bus routes -
>>- they are usually reserved for back streets.'
>
>You've not been to Northampton then...
or Reading.
|
Or Cambridge
Or Oxford
Or London
Or... [insert any town/village/city in England]
|
Or... [insert any town/village/city in England]
Curious -- I can't think of any chicanes on bus routes in any of the cities I frequent, though I can think of some speed bumps on bus routes, albeit all of the narrow-hump variety rather than full-width. There are also the sort of raised crossing areas in urban streets, usually with a brick-paving surface, which I weouldn't classify as speed bumps -- is that what people are thinking of?
Maybe we are thinking of difft definitions of chicane? The sort of narrowed entrance to a street isn't my idea of a chicane -- I think of a chicane as being an extension of the pavement into the roadway on alternate sides of the road, usually at intervals of a hundred yards or so. I seem to recall encountering one of them on a small local bus in London, but that's all.
|
|
Sadly, I suspect that many car drivers would be quite unhappy about the big changes which would flow from closing off all the possibilties of driving illegally. The result would be huge swathes of the population who could no longer aspire to vehicle onwnership, which mnay of them know can currently be manged by cutting corners.
mine was a tongue in cheek post, pointing out that it is perhaps in the interest of the govt to allow people to continue driving illegally.
|
No one who runs a car is unable to afford to tax and insure it. They don't tax or insure because they choose instead to spend their money on other things; satalite tv, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, video games etc.
And they will continue to do so while none of the above are free but tax and insurance is easy to evade.
|
No one who runs a car is unable to afford to tax and insure it.
You should take a closer look at the economics of some people's lives.
A friend was looking recently at getting a car, and it would have cost her a few hundred to buy through a pal in the trade, and the the running costs would have been well under a thousand a year excluding insurance
She's in her 40s, has had a clean licence for twenty-five years, but coudn't get a quote under (I think) £1000 a year for an old VW Golf (that seems to be because she lives in a high-risk area and has no NCB). There's just no way she could afford that sort of money -- and no she doesn't smoke, drink, or gamble.
My friend wouldn't drive uninsured, so abandoned the idea of buying a car. It's a real nuisance being carless in her work situation: a 25-minute drive is replaced by a 90-minute trip on public transport.
However, she can (just) manage without. For others, no car means no job.
Where public transport is poor (i.e. most of the country outside London) and it's so expensive to go legal, I can understand why so many people are tempted to take a risk.
The crackdown is long overdue, but it will throw a lot of people off the road.
|
No Wheels,
I sympathise with your friend and on reflection my blanket assertion that no one who runs a car cannot afford to tax and insure should have read "almost no one."
I still believe that the vast majority of evaders do so because they can get away with it, and if they could not they would find the money at the expense of whatever entertainments they are into.
I live in the country myself and understand what you say about the almost total lack of public transport, but I can still remember housing estates in London, where public transport is freely available, and seeing almost half the cars with no tax disc on display.
The police don't bother with them because of the time and expense involved in finding the owners, getting them to court and then enforcing their fine payments. Performance targets from above mean that targeting normally law abiding people for minor offences bring in better looking results, statiscally speaking, than going after the real P-takers.
|
|
When will people realise that owning a car is a priveledge not a right? There are lots of things I cannot afford, so I prioritise. Getting to work is more important than having sky so I choose to insure and tax my car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
