tinyurl.com/dgedp
09:30 - 03 November 2005
Police have been given new powers to confiscate vehicles of drivers who don't have a licence or insurance.
The move aims to rid the streets of dangerous vehicles and stop people driving illegally.
POLICE today vowed to tow cars away if drivers are stopped and found to have no valid licence or insurance.
It comes after new legislation was introduced to seize vehicles from the drivers on the road if they admitted not having insurance or a licence.
The first (only?) comment at the bottom sums the problem up I guess
If you can't afford car insurance then you should still be able to drive, because what if you need to pick up the kids, do your shopping etc? Also, if you couldn't pass your test but can't afford to get taxis/buses everywhere you should be allowed as long as you know what you're doing.
*** help us.
|
>>Also, if you couldn't pass your test but can't afford to get taxis/buses everywhere you should be allowed as long as you know what you're doing.>>
I'm confused? You agree with this???? or does [*** help us] imply that you disagree? {*** = god?}
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
I'm confused? You agree with this???? No Way!
|
Surely the posted comment is a wind-up, no logic evident whatsoever, sounds like something Vicky Pollard might come out with.
Ed.
|
Yeah but no but...
Unfortunately the posted comment reflects the attitude of many motorists. Replace driving without insurance with say, driving 5mph over the speed limit, or driving after 3 pints of beer, or driving around with a missing light and you'll find the same attitude.
|
|
|
And there lies the problem.
There's a hell of a lot of Vicky Pollards out there.
|
|
|
Some months ago, there was a poster in the BR who came across as rational, intelligent and articulate. He was quite open about the fact that when he was younger, if money was tight, he would regularly drive the family car without tax and/or insurance for a few months until he could afford to pay for these. He was also entirely horrified when other posters didn't agree with his apparently genuine belief that these were luxury payments but that to run a car was an essential right.
|
When I was having driving lessons, my instructor told me he had pupils who were completely unembarrassed about driving illegally. He even had some who ended a lesson by jumping into their own cars to collect their children from school. At least these people (presumably) aimed to drive legally at some point in the future. I'm sure there are plenty who don't even bother with the lessons.
The comment on that news article may be a wind-up but it doesn't alter the fact that there are people who take that view, and that there are circles in which having insurance and a licence is considered an optional luxury.
|
Yeah but no but anyway if you see a diamond ring in a shop but can't buy it the police ought to find you a brick so you could break the window and snatch it.
And if you are late to get the kids you ought to be allowed to go thriugh red lights....etc.
We need snipers on high buildings I tell you
|
Hope I don't get a chance to be one of those snipers.... there'd by few people standing by the time I finished :-)
The reason partly for the have to drive idea is that cars are a necessity for most people as PT is so poor. I do know someone that used to drive untaxed and uninsured and his justification was that he was going to work to earn money to pay for them. Without a car he'd have been on the dole taking more money rather than earning it.
It would be so much simpler to abolish road tax, put third party insurance on fuel and then do nasty things to those that are unlicenced or un MOT'd. Driving without insurance is a technical offence and really only actually causes harm if you cause an accident and don't pay up. Trouble is the kind of people that drive without insurance are often the same kind that take part in other criminal activity .
Perhaps those that are uninsured should be forced to have their earnings taken off them until they have paid for damage or be forced to pay into the MIB as punishment?
teabelly
|
Hope I don't get a chance to be one of those snipers.... there'd by few people standing by the time I finished :-) The reason partly for the have to drive idea is that cars are a necessity for most people as PT is so poor. I do know someone that used to drive untaxed and uninsured and his justification was that he was going to work to earn money to pay for them. Without a car he'd have been on the dole taking more money rather than earning it.
That is not justification
It would be so much simpler to abolish road tax, put third party insurance on fuel and then do nasty things to those that are unlicenced or un MOT'd. Driving without insurance is a technical offence and really only actually causes harm if you cause an accident and don't pay up.
Smashing a bottle on a beach is only a problem when a child steps on it. How can you 'pay up' if you don't have the money and what good is being paid to a kid that is lamed for life by a bottle or a car?
Trouble is the kindof people that drive without insurance are often the same kind that take part in other criminal activity .
They are ALWAYS taking part in some criminal activity.
Perhaps those that are uninsured should be forced to have their earnings taken off them until they have paid for damage or be forced to pay into the MIB as punishment?
So they get evicted from their home and their family starve?
teabelly
Still nice to have your support on the snipers issue
|
>> The reason partly for the have to drive idea is that >> cars are a necessity for most people as PT is so >> poor. That is not justification
I never said I agreed with their justification :-) My attitude is 'tough you can't drive then' but I can understand why people do it and their justifications. Imagine if you found out your insurance had run out the day before and then something happened which meant you absolutely had to drive in an emergency. Would you?
>> It would be so much simpler to abolish road tax, put >> third party insurance on fuel and then do nasty things to >> those that are unlicenced or un MOT'd. Driving without insurance is >> a technical offence and really only actually causes harm if you >> cause an accident and don't pay up. Smashing a bottle on a beach is only a problem when a child steps on it.
Ah the emotive think of the children ;-)
They are ALWAYS taking part in some criminal activity.
Wrong. That's a generalization that is true in a lot of cases but not all. Also insurance brokers can make mistakes so you can end up not insured (happened to a collegue) so it would be grossly unfair to treat them the same as Mr/Ms Scrote so it isn't as straight forward as it seems.
>> Perhaps those that are uninsured should be forced to have their >> earnings taken off them until they have paid for damage or >> be forced to pay into the MIB as punishment? So they get evicted from their home and their family starve?
It wouldn't be all of their earnings/benefits obviously. It would be a reasonable amount for a long time eg 10 years so they would understand the consequences of their actions.
teabelly
|
>> >> That is not justification I never said I agreed with their justification :-) My attitude is 'tough you can't drive then' but I can understand why people do it and their justifications. Imagine if you found out your insurance had run out the day before and then something happened which meant you absolutely had to drive in an emergency. Would you?
How many answers are there to the question - "if you absolutely had to drive would you?"?
OK - Perhaps we agree its not justification then.
>> >> >> It would be so much simpler to abolish road tax, >> put third party insurance on fuel and then do nasty >> >> things to those that are unlicenced or un MOT'd. Driving without insurance is a technical offence and
>> Smashing a bottle on a beach is only a problem when a child steps on it. Ah the emotive think of the children ;-) >>
They are a high risk group therefore I believe this is justified.
Nice world you are describing -
really only actually causes harm if you cause an accident and don't pay up.
so the rich can go round going what they like so long as they pay for it - because the effects of accidents only actually cause harm when nobody pays for them.
>> >> They are ALWAYS taking part in some criminal activity. Wrong. That's a generalization that is true in a lot of cases but not all. Also insurance brokers can make mistakes so you can end up not insured (happened to a collegue) so it would be grossly unfair to treat them the same as Mr/Ms Scrote so it isn't as straight forward as it seems.
Depends if you think driving without TAX/insurance/MOT etc. is a crime. I think it is -perhaps I am wrong.
>> So they get evicted from their home and their family starve?
>>
>>It wouldn't be all of their earnings/benefits obviously. It >>would be a reasonable amount for a long time eg 10 years so >>they would understand the consequences of their actions.
So you would be happy to give a person 10 years to pay for killing someones parents. How much could you spare from benefits each week? - £5? So a life is worth 5 x 52 x 10 = £2,500 - You couldn't even get insurance for that.
|
If the accident involved a death then the normal careless/dangerous driving consequences should apply. A lifetime/long term payment plan which paid into the MIB or criminal compensation board would seem like a sensible long term punishment on top of other usual driving punishments. The amount they pay has to be enough to cause some discomfort and to remind them what they have done. Driving with insurance doesn't ameliorate the consequence of an accident either. A person is still injured, they're still in hospital regardless of whether the person hitting them had insurance or not. The same bad driver is not going to have a different accident rate whether they're insured or not.
You can't get dead people back so the 'they're worth more than that' argument is a non starter. Prevention is much better. Get the people that can't drive safely off the road, staying off the road and no access to vehicles. Perhaps no-one should be able to buy and own a car until they have a full licence and can prove it. Perhaps one should even legislate against the sale of cars through any other means than approved suppliers?
I don't agree with anyone driving uninsured as it is within the rules of engagement of car ownership that you have a licence, have insurance and have an MOT and keep your car roadworthy.
The biggest question is how do you stop those that drive uninsured and unlicenced cars when there are few traffic police, DVLA's records are a mess and there are elements of society that don't believe in following rules (how many politicians and other authority figures also do the same?).
teabelly
|
The biggest question is how do you stop those that drive uninsured and unlicenced cars when there are few traffic police, DVLA's records are a mess and there are elements of society that don't believe in following rules (how many politicians and other authority figures also do the same?). teabelly
We need snipers on high buildings I tell you
|
|
It would be so much simpler to abolish road tax, put third party insurance on fuel and then do nasty things to those that are unlicenced or un MOT'd. Driving without insurance is a technical offence and really only actually causes harm if you cause an accident and don't pay up. Trouble is the kind of people that drive without insurance are often the same kind that take part in other criminal activity .
Put road tax on fuel by all means - those who use the most (gas guzzlers/high mileage etc) pay the most - too sensible, though. If you put third party insurance on fuel, you assume that everyone drives to the same standard. The nitwits would pay the same as me!
|
If you put third party insurance on fuel, you assume that everyone drives to the same standard. The nitwits would pay the same as me!
It would also mean that 17 year old newly qualified drivers could drive any car out there. Instead of paying £1000 for a 1.0 litre fiesta like they do now under the this method it would cost the same for them to insure a fiesta or a ferrari.
|
|
Agreed, but at least third parties would have some recompense in 100% of cases. Driving a more expensive car would be at their own risk...
|
Been in since April 2005.
Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 Section 152.
Bear in mind also that No Excise in force they can clamp and remove also.Understand that Hull have been active on this as well.
Waiting for No test certificate next.
Probably why Full Chat hasn't been posting of late - up tp his eyes in impounded cars...
dvd
|
We're assuming there is a great deal of difference between what good drivers pay and what bad drivers do. I think there is less than we'd like to imagine :-) 17 year olds can drive any car out there, just not legally. Perhaps raising the minimum age for driving might be a sensible compromise or disallowing any young person from driving any car of over a certain insurance rating in law rather than buy cost?
teabelly
|
The problem for many people who try to be legal is the sheer cash-flow problem of buying things like car tax, car insurance, house insurance, etc. They work on weekly budgets, in a way that is hard to imagine if you are on a regular monthly salary and have some savings or a good credit rating to tide over odd blips in expenditure.
May be there is a case for making things like tax/insurance purchasable on a weekly basis. What about Post Offices selling weekly combined stamps a bit like the old National Insurance stamps? You'd stick them in a book each week, and the car would be legal for that week or until the stamps ran out?
It obviously wouln't catch the real fraudsters, but it would remove the "too poor to pay" excuse that encourages many marginal cases to drift into criminality.
|
|
Cliff, you can buy stamps at the post office for this purpose. They used to be specifically for road tax but I think they are more general savings type ones now. We use them and they do help. Monthly direct debit for insurance also helps.
|
Cliff, you can buy stamps at the post office for this purpose. They used to be specifically for road tax but I think they are more general savings type ones now. We use them and they do help. Monthly direct debit for insurance also helps.
I didn't realise that. I wasn't thinking of just a general saving scheme or a way of spreading the cost, more a way of actually buying tax and insurance cover in small bits.
It would also be useful for people who need very short term tax/insurance, such as when recovering a new car from a distance.
There have been a number of threads based around the suggestion of a) driving another car on one's main policy, or b) using the MOT dodge. That's a different topic, I realise.
Coming back to the main point though, I suppose the real problem is people who simply don't accept the need to be legal at all, and who will never pay for tax or insurance however packaged. As the car is often stolen as well, they probably can get away with it indefinitely unless caught red-handed or involved in an accident and apprehended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For most of the people who drive with no licence or insurance this will not be much of a deterrent since they can go out and buy another MOT failure for just a few pounds and be back on the road again imediateley.
|
So pick an insurance company and get them to provide a quote for the individual & car concerned (those without a licence could be treated as provisionals with a 50% surcharge). Fine for driving without insurance then equals this "quote" times two. Licence revoked until fine paid in full.
|
Most of the sanctions suggested by posters (with the exception of by Huw's snipers) only work if we have enough traffic cops on the roads to actually catch them.
Dan
|
Most of the sanctions suggested by posters (with the exception of by Huw's snipers) only work if we have enough traffic cops on the roads to actually catch them. Dan
What was it they used to say about hanging horse thieves?
We don't hang people for stealing horses we hang horse thieves to stop people stealing horses.
Modern equivalent being We don't shoot people for driving with no tax/insurance/MOT...etc.
|
|
|
|
So pick an insurance company and get them to provide a quote for the individual & car concerned (those without a licence could be treated as provisionals with a 50% surcharge). Fine for driving without insurance then equals this "quote" times two. Licence revoked until fine paid in full. But if they are already driving without a licence they won,t be bothered,the police are already overstretched chasing unpaid fines.These are the people who do not have to worry about speed cameras as well.
|
|
|
|
|
