|
What a bunch of sanctimonious idiots.
Fredfree said "my mistake, no excuse, stupid mistake" and still you all jump on the self-righteous bandwagon.
Fredfree, its not going to go well.
If you want the car back, get a friend to add it to his insurance as a temporary vehicle, get a covernote and go and get it for you. If you can, then I'd insure it yourself. It'll show the courts you're putting stuff right.
The licence is not a biggie, and if you had insurance it wouldn't have affected it. Just don't get caught for it twice. How long have you been living here? Have you been out of the coutnry for any substantial period?
No insurance is going to hurt, I hope you have some mitigating circumstances rather than just not doing it on purpose. If you do, make sure you bring them out in court. There is a big difference between the minimum and maximum penalties.
The speeding on its own would not have been particularly severe. But it'll eb worse with the other stuff.
You need to make sure you pass the attitude test in court, and make sure you can show you've corrected stuff now, and don't get caught for the same stuff again.
|
|
Believe it or not the Police are not stupid. As I understand it the owner has to show the car is insurred otherwise who's to say that the owner will not immediately sart using the car after its out the compound when his mates temp insurance has been cancelled. But then again who's to say people don't cancel the new insurance once they have recovered the car anyway.
No FM2R II, we may be sanctimonious idiots but we are law abiding sanctimonious idiots, something the OP is not.
And another thing No FM2R II, driving without a licence is serious.
|
|
>>we are law abiding sanctimonious idiots,
And you feel that one justifies, or at least mitigates, the other? And I assume that you wouldn't ever speed? Or you do speed and you cover your hypocrisy and justify it by virtue of the fact that *you* think its ok.
.>>And another thing No FM2R II, driving without a licence is serious.
No minimum fine, maximum is £1,000, usual is about £100; 3-6 points, no obligatory ban.
Hardly Death Row.
Insurance is 6 - 8 points, up to £5,000 fine
Speeding is 3 - 6 points, up to £1,000 fine
Kind of looks like driving without a licence is no biggie.
In addition driving on an interneational licence for too long is not treated as seriously as no licence, and no where near as seriosuly as driving while disqualified.
Edited by No FM2R II on 25/08/2012 at 18:44
|
(The speeding on its own would not have been particularly severe. But it'll eb worse with the other stuff.
You need to make sure you pass the attitude test in court, and make sure you can show you've corrected stuff now, and don't get caught for the same stuff again.
74 in a 50 not severe ,pass the attitude test in court .
You should act as Fred's solicitor in court ,you would be disbarred and he would be hung .
|
|
>>you would be disbarred and he would be hung
"Hanged" not "hung". [sigh]
|
Just to be pedantic ,you'll know what that means ? It should read ,and he would hang .
Perhaps you should check your spelling before you criticise .
But any way ,get beyond the minor details ,there are far more important issues here .74 in a 50 ,no insurance .
14 days or 200 hours community service would be appropriate ,friend Fred shows a complete disregard for other road users .
Look at the dreadfull injuries that a speeding driver caused in Leeds on Thursday of last week . Then consider trying to help the guy .
|
|
>>dreadfull
Dreadful. Just the one "l".
|
|
Nothing more important to you than this then .
|
|
You omitted the beginning of the sentence so it's difficult for me to know whether or not a question mark would have been more or less appropriate than the fullstop.
|
|
I entirely accept that the OP has a penalty to pay (either in fiscal terms or a driving ban-or probably a combination of the two).
My problem lies with the impounding of the vehicle at exorbitant daily rates and no realistic prospect of release.
Think of the moral hazard problem. if you risk having a car impounded, you may as well drive an unroadworthy £100 auction wreck because if it gets confiscated, you walk away and the state has the problem of disposing of the wreck. You actually create a perverse incentive to drive an unsafe car.
There's no reason to add unsafe vehicles to the uninsured and speeding sins just to massage the ego of a Louise Mensch type politician looking for a PR coup that turns out to be counter productive.
|
|
When I was about 17, which was a looong time ago, the penalty for no insurance was something like £100. Rather than the £500 that shoud be in today's terms, it remains at or around £100.
Makes no sense to me. Anymore than allowing people to pay at 37p every micro-fortnight.
However, impounding and potentially subsequently crushing seems to make emminent sense.
I'd be in favour of an instant crushing. No excuse, don't care the value, if its being driven uninsured, crush it.
None of this, if you can show its insured now, then you can have your car back after £n per day storage, it'd be "if you can't prove it was insured when you were stopped, its gone".
>> if you risk having a car impounded, you may as well drive an unroadworthy £100
And if you have no risk, why bother with insurance? At least its one less £100 quid wreck every time it happens.
I wouldn't be sanctimonious about it though.
|
least its one less £100 quid wreck every time it happens.
There's no shortage of £100 wrecks, Crushing perfectly good cars is a tabloid PR stunt. They could be auctioned to pay fines/contributions to victim support funds etc.
How is Dacre's rag doing these days? Immigrants still causing cancer I suppose.
|
|
Kind of looks like driving without a licence is no biggie.
I cannot believe you kep insisting that driving without insurance is not serious.
Appears from my research (as yours) that its is 3 - 6 points, up to £1000 fine and a possible disqualification. How is that not serious. It also appears it would have been sufficient to have the car siezed.
Also conider that if you don't have a licence you are not insured, whoops, another offence.
So please get real and stop making excuses for what is a very serious matter.
|
|
Not having a licence doesn't make you uninsured - most policies include the wording "holds a licence or has held and isn't disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence".
An unlicenced driver by reason of disqualification or never taking a test is much more serious than this case.
The serious matter is 74mph in a 50 limit.
|
|
They can't 'invalidate' the third part aspect of the cover anyway. Silly urbaan myth perpetuated by those that can't read their policy details.
74 in a 50? It's not that serious. It's a lot of misdemeanours that add up to a big problem, but nothing catastrophic. There's far worse on the roads.
|
74 in a 50? It's not that serious. It's a lot of misdemeanours that add up to a big problem, but nothing catastrophic. There's far worse on the roads.
30mph over the posted limit is an automatic ban and this is close to that - the 74 itself isn't the issue as most do that on motorways, it's doing it in a restricted area - which shows a complete disregard for the law and road safety.
|
|
|
|
|
>> if you don't have a licence you are not insured
That would be as informed and informative as everything else you write - i.e. complete b*******.
You are clearly an unarmed man taking on a world of intelligence.
By the way "conider" is more usually spelled with an "s".
|
>> if you don't have a licence you are not insured
That would be as informed and informative as everything else you write - i.e. complete b*******.
You are clearly an unarmed man taking on a world of intelligence.
By the way "conider" is more usually spelled with an "s".
Mr No FM2R II
The conditions of your insurance require you to answer all questions correctly, if you say you have a licence and do not have one you have broken teh T & C's thus your cover will be cancelled. Of course you will still be covered for any damage you inflict on a 3rd party but that is small compensation for us law abiding citizens.
Any post that relies on personal insults is made immediately worthless, if the best argumement you can post is a tirade of abuse you are clearly an unintelligent person yourself. And before you answer that is not a personal insult, its a proven fact.
|
The conditions of your insurance require you to answer all questions correctly, if you say you have a licence and do not have one you have broken teh T & C's thus your cover will be cancelled. Of course you will still be covered for any damage you inflict on a 3rd party but that is small compensation for us law abiding citizens.
I also think you're wrong but I'm not being rude about it - see my earlier post.
|
The conditions of your insurance require you to answer all questions correctly, if you say you have a licence and do not have one you have broken teh T & C's thus your cover will be cancelled. Of course you will still be covered for any damage you inflict on a 3rd party but that is small compensation for us law abiding citizens.
I also think you're wrong but I'm not being rude about it - see my earlier post.
So its OK to lie when you take out insurance, I do not think so.
|
|
Are skidpan and thunderbird the same person?
Or just equally misguided with the same opinions and the same style?
|
Are skidpan and thunderbird the same person?
Or just equally misguided with the same opinions and the same style?
So its OK to drive without a licence.
Its OK to lie to an insurance company.
Just 2 examples of the wistom on this thread.
God help us with you lot around.
I would love to be in court when this case comes up and the OP uses your advice to help him get off.
|
|
>>wistom.
Wisdom, perhaps?
I'm guessing you're the same person then. If so, why? So that there's always someone else on your side?
|
|
|
"teh"
I think you would have been better to type "the".
"T & C's"
The "T" should be plural, and the "C" plural rather than possessive.
Edited by No FM2R II on 27/08/2012 at 15:19
|
<"teh"
I think you would have been better to type "the".
"T & C's"
The "T" should be plural, and the "C" plural rather than possessive.>
Pointless sniping ,such as the above ,informs or amuses almost no one ,other than the adolescent who writes it . It has all the qualities of graffiti .
So ,come on avant . Return this forum to the quality arena that we've all enjoyed .
Delete all this rubbish ,if the writer persists refuse him access . This type of post only serves to flatter the infantile ego of its writer .Can we move on to subjects that are relevant please.
Tony g
|
|
>>Pointless sniping
Absolutely. And as pointless, irrelevant and puerile as your comments in this thread. Unable or unwilling to answer the original poster's questions and queries, you and your like resort to value-free posting placing yourselves on a self-awarded pedestal of condescending self-righteousness.
Hopefully you have found my contribution as irritating as I have found yours.
Which would mean my work here is done.
|
(Hopefully you have found my contribution as irritating as I have found yours.)
You're contributions not that important.For it to be irritating it has to mean something.
Which would mean (my work here is done.)
Lone ranger 1950s ,delusions of grandeur ? Hi Ho silver and away , comes next .Hopefully .
Edited by tony g on 27/08/2012 at 22:00
|
|
>>You're contributions
Your. [sigh]
|
>>You're contributions
Your. [sigh]
We all know what Tony means by his contributions, unlike yours
|
|
Since my last post 2 days ago this thread has gone even further dowhill thanks to one "contributor".
Moderators, surely its time it was locked, totally pointless now.
|
|
I agree. I think Fredfree has had all the advice he's going to get from here, sadly not all of it as constructive as it might have been. He admitted he was the author of his own misfortune, but it seems peculiarly pointless to kick a man when he's down.
Thread locked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
