Well its about time we did something about those bloody drivers that drive with no insurance on their cars.
It says that police stop 400 uninsured drivers a day. 4 bloody hundred of the little shits.
23,000 people are injured by uninsured drivers a year and 160 killed. These people get nothing.
Is this going to work though?
It all fine and dandy crushing other ppl's cars but,
The problem is that if for some reason you can't prove you have insurance or make a genuine error, your car gets crushed. May be your son or your partner borrows your car and thinks it's covered , your car will be crashed.
There is no componsations if it's the police's etc make a mistake. I guess they say sorry but no replacement car!
So yes, it's a good if you catch all those ppl how buy a £500 car with no tax , ins , mot or driving lic. with no intention of sort any of them out because it will cost them £2000 upwards!
So i would agree if the was some discession show and a replacement car provided if the was an error by the police or who ever crushes your car.
Well I for one would not feel better in rehab know the other persons car was crashed neither would i recover more quickly if the other person was insured or not.
For me their is a big difference between someone who goes with no intention of getting insurance and some who makes a mistake. Agreed the is no excuse but the attude they bring to the road is not the same either.
Sure if you could not prove you a valid reason then crush the car.
But what if you took your insurance company to court and the judge over ruled the insurance company decision and said your insurance was valid after all, then what? This does happen as the many reasons why an insurance company might attempt to say your not covered and therefore you are not insured.
In this case your car would most likely have been crashed as the courts are very slow and the case would not be between you and the police/VOSA. Currently all the car crush schema do NOT composate if errors are made neither does the insurance company pay up!
I would be very be very unhappy if say my son took my car without my permission and it got crashed as he did n't have valid insurance. He should be punished not me, surely?
So yes it's a nice idea and yes if you carefully thought out and componsates in the event of error I agree with you, else no thanks.
I dont think the car should be crushed, rather there could be a driving ban or fine. I think its wasteful and very not enviromentally friendly to crush perfectly good cars. It also is an uneven thing - there is a big financial difference between crushing a £500 car and a newer £10000 car. In effect its fineing people different amounts. If you crush a £500 car there is nothing to stop them going out getting another cheap car and still not insuring it - after all this is probably still cheaper than having paid insurance in the first place.
I fully support strong action against uninsured drivers, but i think it needs to be well thought out.
i could not agree more with this statement
this government keeps banging on about the environment and recycling yet it is willing in cases of uninsured or untaxed cars to vandalise perfectly serviceable vehicles
i heard on the radio the other day a local council environment officer who was confiscating music making equipment from anti social people then flattening it with a sledge hammer (and obviously enjoying doing so) as a punishment for making too much noise. Apparently they had a huge stockpile of this stuff and had to get rid of it so they destroyed it all
as an environmental officer i would think he should be ashamed of himself
The policy may be unfair, but if you think about it nothing if not environmentally friendly.
Yes there will be a small proportion of efficient cars it would be better environmentally not to crush, but that will be completely overwhelmed by the benefits of taking off the roads earlier the types of cars much more likely to be uninsured.
Last edited by frodo; 23rd-January-2009 at 12:28 AM.
I completely disagree unless they were to say they would only crush the un efficient cars
These machines havce all taken fuel to manufacture and its just pure waste to vandalise other peoples property as a punishment (there are other punishments available)
Personally i dont believe all the government bs about the ecology anyway its just a great bandwagon (and easy way to raise taxes) to be on at the moment (even though i do agree we need to try to stop burning fossil fuels mainly as there wont be much of it left in a few years time and whats the point in waste ) 20 years ago they were banging on about global cooling. Basicly we are coming out of an ice age unfortunately whatever we do we are unlikely to be able to stop that all we could ever do is slow down the additions we make to the problem but i doubt by much
Then you recycle the crushed cars. But I think driving bans and fines should be first and car crushing only on maybe the 3rd offence - but crush away, even if the car is not that persons car (its the owners responsibilty for who they let drive their car, unless its stolen of course, so they get what is coming to them).
No it isn't. People buy whatever car they can afford and if the law says you get your car crushed for a particular illegal act, its your own personal choice to take that risk and gamble. Tough.It also is an uneven thing - there is a big financial difference between crushing a £500 car and a newer £10000 car. In effect its fineing people different amounts.
If you crush any car, theres nothing to stop them getting another - other than whatever civil/legal safeguards are in place. Cost doesnt enter into it. But if they get caught again, hopefully the punishment will fit the crime.If you crush a £500 car there is nothing to stop them going out getting another cheap car and still not insuring it - after all this is probably still cheaper than having paid insurance in the first place.
I fully support strong action against uninsured drivers, but i think it needs to be well thought out.
I think we should have strong action against insurance companies too (to go hand in hand with new legislation on the uninsured?). Its hard when someone who is in an accident which is 100% the fault of the other driver, and even though both parties are fully insured - the innocent party suffers financially in the short term and has to pay higher premiums in the long term.
Strikes me that this is some sort of knee jerk reaction to say " Hey Look we're doing something about it" which is actually a load of crap.
The fact is the system for dealing with this is far too inadequate and laws need changing but thats unlikely to happen during a recession as that costs money.
It's funny though, as all car insurance policies contain a percentage which funds the uninsured/unknown driver claim board, you would have thought the insurance companies would want to do something to bring down that cost - but ultimately its the insuring public that pays for it anyway. Also, the government earns tax on each premium so if they are on average 5% higher - thats an awful lot of money!
There's no reason for anyone to be uninsured though, as you can simply provide incorrect information to the insurer to bring down the cost of the insurance, should you have an accident the insurer has to cover the 3rd party anyway and they simply back void your insurance so you can't claim for your own damages .
Just makes you wonder !
I think it's a great piece of legislation. I have seen many, many injury and fatal accidents first hand in my carreer as a traffic cop' and in a lot of cases been first there on scene.
The effect on peoples lives is absolutely devastating , even more so when the innocent find out that the offending driver was not insured , that is the final straw for many.
Of couse there will be errors, we don't live in a perfect society. So what if an old banger gets taken off the road !.
This way only feelings get hurt.
Long live automatic number plate recognition systems....Get 'em off the road and make it a safer place.......thats my biased view...
The problem with crushing an uninsured driver's car is that they may not necessarily be the registered keeper of that vehicle (ie the owner). With car tax there is a direct connection between registered keeper and responsibility to tax - it's your responsibility as the registered keeper to get the car taxed and if you don't, then you are chased and could end up with your car being crushed.
What happens if some idiot teenager borrows mum's BMW, but is not covered on the insurance (knowingly or unknowingly). Does that mean if he/she were to be caught, then the parent's car should be crushed? Where does the responsilibity for insurance lie - the driver or the registered keeper? I'd say it should be the former.
As I understand it the crushing is not done at once. There is a period of storage (at the owners cost) so that the owner can present the insurance certificate before the car is released. If this is not done within the time limit only then is the car crushed.
It appears that some people buy very cheap cars, run them without tax or insurance (sometimes mechanically unsafe although it is dangerous for the driver as well as others) and just accept that if they get caught then they have made a profit on the deal. Some young and dangerous drivers are faced with such high insurance costs that they feel this makes financial sense.
As for the difference between the responsibility of the driver or the registerd keeper. It is the drivers responsibility to ensure they are insured to drive the vehicle and that they hold a valid licence to drive the vehicle. If they are an idiot - of any age - then perhaps they shouldn't be allowed in charge of what can be a lethal weapon.
If the registered keeper is allowing someone else (relative or employee) to use their vehicle it is their responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is insured (either by themselves or the driver), taxed, valid MOT, and that the driver has the appropriate valid licence to drive the vehicle.
So if petrolhead teenager drives parents car without correct insurance we have the following situation.
Parent has allowed teenager to drive car in an unisured vehicle. Parent (or registered keeper) has commited an offence. (although the car may be insured for them it is not insured for the teenager). The car may be crushed.
Teenager has taken the car without parents consent. Teenager has commited TWOC and driving while not insured. Teenager is charged with offences and car is returned to owner if they can prove they have insurance themselves to drive it away from the car pound.
There really is no reason to drive (or allow to be driven) an untaxed, uninsured, unsafe car. Ignorance is no excuse. It is your own responsibility to find out and not to drive, or allow the car to be driven until you are sure. The responsibility lies with both the registered keeper AND the driver.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks