Confiscate uninsured cars

[andsome]

I don't often agree with this government, but on this occasion they have come up with a brilliant idea. One in 20 cars on the road are uninsured. These drivers account for more than their fair share of drink/drive accidents, and cost insured motorists about £30 each per annum extra on their insurance bill. This is to cover the insured driver when an uninsured one causes him/her damage. The plan is to seize and CRUSH the cars of uninsured drivers. This should in my opinion be done WITHOUT exception, with no excuses being accepted. At last, a good idea from this government.

[expertec]

I'm sure you'll still support it when they seize and crush your car by mistake.

[andsome]

I'm sure you'll still support it when they seize and crush your car by mistake.

I can produce an insurance certificate

[-pops-]

Why not seize and sell on the offender's car?

That way it could acquire money to pay at least part of the costs of the investigation work and the costs on payouts of claims made against on non-insured drivers.

[catgate]

This idea is just typical of the ill conceived, harebrained unadultereted crap that this government, and many of its predecessors, have issued as problem solving legislation. It is akin to saying we will get rid of the teenage pregnancy problem by destroying the babies, we will get rid of the shooting problem by destroying the guns, or we will get rid of slums by pulling down the buildings.

The cars themselves have absolutely nothing at all to do with their not being insured. If the aim is that there should be no cars in the country capable of being used which are not insured, then those in the new and second hand showrooms would also have to destroyed. If the aim is to prevent the owner of an uninsured car from driving it then surely he should be put in the crusher. That at least would stop him simply going out and getting another, as happens with babies , guns and slums.

It has always struck me as odd that it is the car that has to be insured and not the driver. The driver is named on the insurance documents, almost as an after thought, but it is still the car which is insured. I suspect this is another subterfuge by the establishment to screw more money out of the public by basing the cost of insurance on the value of the vehicle rather than the ability of its controller. Maybe this is the area which the government should be examining....or won't the establishment like it?

[Sir T Fireball]

I'm in total accord with Catgate on this one :jump:

[AlanHo]

I lived in Bahrain for a number of years, until 5 years ago. It was formerly a British protectorate where the infrastructure and legal system had been bequeathed by us Brits.

There - all cars have to be insured from new. When you buy a car, just like the UK, you first have to take out an insurance policy for the full 12 months. It is the car that is insured - you are merely the named driver(s). If you sell the car the policy cannot be cancelled - it is a legal requirement that it goes with the car and is transferred to the new owner who registers with the insurers and who may have to pay extra on the policy if he has a poor driving or claims record. It is only at the policy renewal date that the new owner can change insurers.

Furthermore - all vehicles must have an MOT at each anniversary from year one - the MOT cannot be carried out without showing that insurance has been taken out for the next full 12 months period. Then the vehicle is taxed and a tax disc provided by the government MOT station.

Hence the anniversary of the MOT, car insurance and tax renewal are all the same date. If a car fails an MOT - the expiry date of the subsequent successfull MOT is still the car's anniversary.

By this means any car displaying a tax disc is insured and has had an MOT - it is almost impossible to get round the system and the penalties for doing so are severe.

The system is simple and works well - why we could not do something similar beats me.

[trackrat]

Alan Ho, that makes a lot of sense.

[andsome]

I like it Alan. At least something is being done. I still think that this governments idea is better than the nothing that has been done until now. I can ill afford to subsidise the uninsured driver as I have had to do up until now. Alan's idea is probably better, but at least let's do something.

[Shirley Crabtree]

Do these uninsured cars need to be on a public road to deserve a crushing or just be registered and uninsured??

I have eight cars in my garden and none of them are insured..But they aren't driven on public roads :S

And Catgate...Comparing crushing vehicles to abortion is absolutely retarded...Are you a car hugger perhaps? :P

Don't give me no lectures about cars having rights...I'm likely to laugh straight in your face tbh.

Shirl.

[djohn]

These new Car tax laws can be very unhelpful too. My last cars tax expired on Feb. 29th. this year. [sunday] I was due to pick up my new car at 8am Monday morning the 1st. March. Showroom is a six minute drive from my home.

I phoned DVLA on the Fri. morning, explained the circumstance and asked for advice. Did I need to tax my car for a six minute drive on the Mon. morning? I don't have to pay for my tax because I'm registered as a disabled person but still have the same paperwork to go through.

"Yes" was the reply, "If you don't tax the car or provide us with a written statement confirming it's off the road and not being used, the computer will automatically send you an £80 fine".

They gave me several options such as drop your car off on the Sunday afternoon and ask a friend or neighbour to come with you, bring you back home, then take you back in the morning! "What if I need my car on the Sunday?" "Tax it then" was the reply. "But it's already taxed until Sunday Midnight" I said, "It's just the six minutes on Monday morning to drop off and pick up new car".

I suggested that I may take the risk for the short drive. Again the reply was "If the car is not taxed for the 1st. March we will require a written statement and or confirmation from the showroom that you dropped it off on the Sunday and it was on their premises or the computer will issue a fine" :wacko:

I taxed the car on the Fri. afternoon but apart from the paperwork and going over to the post office it didn't cost me anything. What if this had happened to those who have to pay for their tax? They would have had to pay for a six month disk just for the short six minute drive then send the disk back for a refund losing a full month of what they had paid. Plus paying for a twelve month disk for the new car!

Even in my case the paperwork involved must have been quite costly and a complete waste of their time, also the money of those of us who pay income tax. :(

[andsome]

Do these uninsured cars need to be on a public road to deserve a crushing or just be registered and uninsured??

I have eight cars in my garden and none of them are insured..But they aren't driven on public roads :S

And Catgate...Comparing crushing vehicles to abortion is absolutely retarded...Are you a car hugger perhaps? :P

Don't give me no lectures about cars having rights...I'm likely to laugh straight in your face tbh.

Shirl.

The idea is that they should not be driven untaxed.

[pwp]

These new Car tax laws can be very unhelpful too. My last cars tax expired on Feb. 29th. this year. [sunday] I was due to pick up my new car at 8am Monday morning the 1st. March. Showroom is a six minute drive from my home.

I phoned DVLA on the Fri. morning, explained the circumstance and asked for advice. Did I need to tax my car for a six minute drive on the Mon. morning?  I don't have to pay for my tax because I'm registered as a disabled person but still have the same paperwork to go through.

"Yes" was the reply, "If you don't tax the car or provide us with a written statement confirming it's off the road and not being used, the computer will automatically send you an £80 fine".

They gave me several options such as drop your car off on the Sunday afternoon and ask a friend or neighbour to come with you, bring you back home, then take you back in the morning! "What if I need my car on the Sunday?" "Tax it then" was the reply. "But it's already taxed until Sunday Midnight" I said, "It's just the six minutes on Monday morning to drop off and pick up new car".

I suggested that I may take the risk for the short drive. Again the reply was "If the car is not taxed for the 1st. March we will require a written statement and or confirmation from the showroom that you dropped it off on the Sunday and it was on their premises or the computer will issue a fine"  :wacko:

I taxed the car on the Fri. afternoon but apart from the paperwork and going over to the post office it didn't cost me anything. What if this had happened to those who have to pay for their tax? They would have had to pay for a six month disk just for the short six minute drive then send the disk back for a refund losing a full month of what they had paid. Plus paying for a twelve month disk for the new car!

Even in my case the paperwork involved must have been quite costly and a complete waste of their time, also the money of those of us who pay income tax. :(

surely you could have arranged collection on trade plates, with the garage.

[djohn]

Yes, that was one of many options offered but 1st March was the first day of new registrations and over 100 cars were leaving the premises that day. If it had been any other day then the garage would have come down and collected me.

When my car is due a service they drop a loan car off, take mine away and bring it back when ready, serviced, cleaned and polished. :)

Don't forget though, if I had not re taxed the car even though it was parked on private secure grounds from midnight the 29th. until going to the garage at 8am Monday morning I would still have had to fill in a form and send to the DVLA explaining the reason for not taxing the car. or the computer would issue an £80 fine automatically. That is the point I was trying to make. :unsure:

[-pops-]

or the computer would issue an £80 fine automatically. That is the point I was trying to make.  :unsure:

Computers, eh? Huh :huh:

[djohn]

Hi -Pops- Yep! That is something I should have explained in my first post. The above situation has occurred every three years for the past fifteen years but on all previous occasions I never needed to tax my car for that short period of time, just phoned the DVLA and let them know the situation, they would mark it up on their computer screens and everything would be OK.

The law changed last year though, I'm sure most people will have seen the advert on TV regarding this. You would think that someone would have the authority to amend the database or attach a note to the cars details but no, they can't do that. I'm dismayed at the waste of money this causes and the loss of one months tax for those who have to pay for their disk. Use the car for a few minutes on one day but pay six months tax and wait for a refund minus one whole month. :(

[catgate]

It's St Tony's "Brave New World". Let us make lots of new silly rules/laws, that enable us to easily catch people, and then we can prove we are catching more criminals.

I think it is a shame that all our MPs are depriving communities all over the country of their traditional village idiots.

[salo35]

I'm 18 years old, I don't drive yet not because I can't afford a car...I can't afford the insurance required to drive it. It would easily cost me $2000 a year just for insurance. If I drove without insurance and get caught I would pay my $200 or $300 fine and be on my way. Where is the justice in that??? So someone that drives without insurance get's off cheaper than someone that has to pay it.

I agree with the confiscation of uninsured vehicles, it is hardly fair that the majority have to pay for a small minorties blunders. Here in Alberta (Canada) it is the young drivers that help pay for the brunt of these irresponsible ingrates.

[andsome]

I'm 18 years old, I don't drive yet not because I can't afford a car...I can't afford the insurance required to drive it.  It would easily cost me $2000 a year just for insurance.  If I drove without insurance and get caught I would pay my $200 or $300 fine and be on my way.  Where is the justice in that???  So someone that drives without insurance get's off cheaper than someone that has to pay it. 

I agree with the confiscation of uninsured vehicles, it is hardly fair that the majority have to pay for a small minorties blunders.  Here in Alberta (Canada) it is the young drivers that help pay for the brunt of these irresponsible ingrates.

Over here you would also get a ban for a period. We have all been young and had to pay over the odds for insurance. You can just blame your peers for the high cost. By far the majority of accidents and deaths are cause by young drivers who think that they know it all, and in fact they know nothing. Many of the idiots who go tearing around built up areas at high speed would not even be capable of driving for a long distance, they couldn't concentrate for that long.

[salo35]

you are right andsome...the majority of cost does not come from uninsured drivers for any age-group, but they certainly do not help.

I'm glad you brought up my peers though, I know they are a cause of many road problems so I won't be naive enough to think otherwise. But how is the insurance to charge me based on age? Between a 20 year old driver that's been driving for 4 years already and a new driver at 25 guess who pays less in insurance? The brand new 25 year old driver, yet I would feel more comfortable driving with the 20 year old who at least has some experience despite the chance he may go on a speeding rampage.

The insurance company is the worst for age discrimination and it really tarnishes my image as a teenager. I am 18 not only is there a chance I'll speed, it is defined. Kind of a sad generalization, especially when I feel a great deal of my friends are actually decent drivers.

Just thought I would get that 2 cents off my chest, it is just frustrating for a young person such as myself to be judged on the actions of my peers.

[moon]

I agree with insuring the driver. What's the point of higher insurance premiums for performance cars when you can't exceed 70mph anyway ? Rip off.

[djohn]

You have my sympathy salo35. Here in the UK young drivers also have to pay a high premium and it is not always justified. Many young drivers while lacking experience are quite good drivers, alas a fair majority of them are poor motorist.

Young ladies are generally more cautious and know their limits, they are prepared to build their skills as they spend more time on the road. It's the young lads that unfortunately feel the need to show off their skills or lack of. We have all had to go through this high premium/age combination But safe driving and accident free years ahead of you will bring the premiums down quickly.

Have a safe and enjoyable motoring future. :)

[andsome]

I fully appreciate how you feel. The problem is that with such things as insurance etc, there has to be generalisations. It would be impossible to take every case on it's merit from the word go. This is where,at least in this country, no claims bonuses apply. I am on 65% no claims bonus, which means that my already lower premium is reduced by another 65%. Maybe the same scheme applies where you come from. If it does, can you not be content with an old, and practically worthless jalopy for three or four years, and insure it for third party risks only. You can certainly do this over here. Obviously it means that any damage to your own car is not covered on your own insurance, only damage to third party's.

[andsome]

Now closing topic.