Compulsory car insurance law change

[OllieVR6 0]

Heard about this on the radio this morning.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12614090

 

I'm interested to hear what you all think. I'm on the fence at the moment. On one hand it could be brilliant in that there will be no more uninsured drivers on the road, premiums will go down and the world will be a better place, but in reality I'm expecting no change in premiums, no change to the amount of uninsured drivers on the road and the insurance companies will simply be lining their pockets.

 

I'd imagine there will be a lot of 'projects' up for sale when it's enforced (might be a good time to buy?), unless insurance companies introduce a special zero mile policy for projects or something like that?

[Philuk 0]

hat if your car has no wheels? surely then it CANT go on the road. im more inclined to think we will see alot of wheel-less cars dotted about that are projects- plus its only if the car isnt declared as SORN ;)

[jamiehamy 0]

This one is intersting. The only real change for most people is that you can't leave the car taxed on the road, without insurance. It must be declared SORN and put on a drive.

 

The main impact, in my opinion, is that it will create a lot of papaer work for DVLA, esp if people who have campers and maybe leave it on the road all year with tax, but lapse the insurance, now have to SORN-unSORN-SORN and so on.

 

If the car community collectively played this right, DVLA will get bogged under with a huge increase in tax refund applications, SORN declarations etc...

 

I'd love to see the business case. IF a lot of motorists(or criminals?) will be affected, then the is good support for the change, but will create a administration headache for DVLA. If the numbers are low, then it's a pointless change in the first place.

 

Of course the other option could have been, heaven forbid, a sensible policy which insures the driver, not the car. Or course, no-one will push for that because insurers would lose a fortune in revenue, and the police couldn't just watch a computer screen to detect crime...so in the meantime, they come up with this contrivation ( is that a word - contrive-ation?) to try fix a problem..

 

Oops, two rants in as many days.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

no more uninsured drivers on the road, premiums will go down and the world will be a better place,

 

Changes in the law rarely benefit 'normal' people. Just like the new law where women now pay the same insurance as men. Did men's premium's go down to match women's? Yeah, right, of course they didn't. Insurance companies now use it as a way to rip us off even more by hiking women's premiums up.

 

In 5-10 years time I reckon people will need to earn £100K a year just to survive the way things are going.

[emu 0]

Why people are driving without insurance ?? Because of the price

 

Imagine, if average insurance for typical family car wouldn't excess 300 pounds who will risk to drive without it ??

 

Prices of insurance went to the sky from last year. I was paying 670 pounds for my Allroad and this year they wanted 1150 and cheapest what I could find was 980, so here is the answer why people are driving without insurance.

 

Government should make insurance companies to drop their prices to affordable ones and in my opinion that is the best way to drop the amount of uninsured cars on the road.

[too hot 0]

It will have no effect on normal law abiding citizens.Neds will still go out and buy cheap crap cars never register them and have no need to insure them.

Means nothing to the average man in the street.

[jamiehamy 0]

Why people are driving without insurance ?? Because of the price

 

Imagine, if average insurance for typical family car wouldn't excess 300 pounds who will risk to drive without it ??

 

Prices of insurance went to the sky from last year. I was paying 670 pounds for my Allroad and this year they wanted 1150 and cheapest what I could find was 980, so here is the answer why people are driving without insurance.

 

Government should make insurance companies to drop their prices to affordable ones and in my opinion that is the best way to drop the amount of uninsured cars on the road.

 

Wholeheartedly agree. They say ' You must do this', but it's completely unaffordable to comply.

 

I truly believe it will only cause more fraud to happen - cloning of plates etc...

 

The irony is, people with low value cars who drive uninsured aren't really risking much at all. What's a few points and a fine? The fine will be cheaper than insurance. And the points will only make their insurance go up even more, meaning they will probably just continue until they get caught next time...a ban and higher insurance premium...

 

so they'll do it again, because it's almost impossible to get insurance.

 

So all the while, our legal system ENCOURAGES people to drive uninsured!

 

It's not hard to get a car taxed without a proper insurance policy. And sadly, as discussed on here before, people NEED a car to work ) nuless you press pause, make sugar loads of changes and suddenly people go back to the old way - live where you work).

 

 

Arghh...

[Tempest 0]

If the car community collectively played this right, DVLA will get bogged under with a huge increase in tax refund applications, SORN declarations etc...

 

I fear they will introduce a charge for SORNing and deSORNing a car, simple.

 

Tempest

[Peebee 0]

Why people are driving without insurance ?? Because of the price

 

Imagine, if average insurance for typical family car wouldn't excess 300 pounds who will risk to drive without it ??

 

Prices of insurance went to the sky from last year. I was paying 670 pounds for my Allroad and this year they wanted 1150 and cheapest what I could find was 980, so here is the answer why people are driving without insurance.

 

Government should make insurance companies to drop their prices to affordable ones and in my opinion that is the best way to drop the amount of uninsured cars on the road.

 

Some people don't feel they need to pay insurance, it could be £10 a year and some ****ers wouldn't pay. They believe they're above the law.

[mic_VR 3]

Changes in the law rarely benefit 'normal' people. Just like the new law where women now pay the same insurance as men. Did men's premium's go down to match women's? Yeah, right, of course they didn't. Insurance companies now use it as a way to rip us off even more by hiking women's premiums up.

 

In 5-10 years time I reckon people will need to earn £100K a year just to survive the way things are going.

 

For crying out loud Kev, get out of my head! Lol

 

I'm afraid I agree completely. We won't benefit from this at all. Premiums won't go down, insurance companies will still try their hardest not to pay out, and Joe scumbag will still drive round without insurance and the biggest reason for this is enforcement.

 

If the appropriate authorities had the resources to enforce the current insurance laws then they'd be doing it already, so unless they are also going to create the extra jobs needed to Chase people or collect/crush cars its just a bunch of useless politicians finding ways to justify the wages they are taking out of our taxes by creating something that looks and sounds good but has absolutely no tangible substance behind it.

 

Here's to finding that £100k a year job..... hopefully.

[Banana Man 0]

This scheme is a complete waste of time as far as I can see, the system that they use in Australia works very well and should be something that the government should consider implementing over here. In Australia you pay one annual fee 'rego' this includes road tax, compulsory third party insurance and license plate renewal (effectively mot)

 

The good thing about this system is that it doesn't matter who's driving the car, if it has rego it is insured, as the third party insurance covers the car not the individual.

 

This sytem = Less paperwork, all in one process, less hassle, would lessen chances of people driving without insurance, easier to spot law breakers

 

But seeing as this is rip of britain I doubt we will ever see anything like this implemented in this country

 

My mate in Australia pays $600 ( a shade over £300) a year for his $27000 (£14k) 350z, I'm paying £485 for insurance, £205 for roasd tax and £55 for mot for my 20 year old G60 and then theres the 90% tax or whatever it is now on fuel just to run the frigging thing, makes me boil over just thinking anout it.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Banana Man

[cdem 0]

Just to clear this up a bit. If my car is declared as SORN and in a garage (so off the road) this doesnt really effect me??

[Tempest 0]

Correct.

 

But it would still be wise to leave your Rado insured (like I do with all my 3 cars during the winter) for fear of theft. If your toy get stolen, and is not insured, that´s it then, you pay. OK, I know insurers may find a way out if you claim on them, but there is a better chance compared to not having any insurance in terms of getting some money back if your car were stolen.

 

Tempest

[Album56 0]

Britain would be a much better place if the government just made it easier for people to do the right (legal) thing. This applies to many things including insuring cars etc. A prime example is fly tipping, make it easy for people to take their rubbish to the closest tip & people are more likely to do the right thing. Instead they would rather introduce rules & geographical boundaries & punitive charges for commercial waste & then spend thousands of pounds trying to catch fly tippers & clear up the mess...

[dark.ryder 10]

I see a lot of fines going out for people who havent sent off there v5's correctly to the dvla too. people that just handed over the v5's. there rings must be twitching now. They will get threat of a fine for no insurance or not sorning.

 

perp.. 'Sorry i dont own the car no more'

dvla.. 'you dont? ok forget that non insurance sorn fine'

perp 'phew that was close'

dvla..'heres your £80 fine for not filling in your v5 properly ;)'

[mimjed 0]

crock of ****e.

 

i got my reminder for tax on the rado today and enclosed was a leaflet saying "from early 2011" you will be fined £100 for not insuring, possible court and clamping/disposal.

 

i own a second car and its not insured, but is taxed and mot'd. i will hapily insure it when i need to use it, but have no intention of doing so for it to sit on my drive as the £100 fine is a hell of a lot cheaper.

 

as far as im aware if they come on to my private property to clamp my vehicle they have broken the law, same applies if they remove it. any legal minded people to clarify?

 

where are we supposed to find the spare money from then? its not like you read the newspaper everyday saying how skint people are!

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Nope, they can't clamp vehicles on private property, they have no jurisdiction. You can guarantee that if they did clamp your car on your drive anyway, and you cut it off, YOU would be prosecuted. Such is the way with this stupid country.

 

It's madness isn't it. Car insurance only came about originally because of people running eachother over and the '3rd party' needed some protection. So by law you only need TPFT cover, which is perfectly understandable. So if an unused car is kept on a drive, or even better, tucked up in a garage out of harm's way, why the hell does it need insurance? For your own peace of mind in case your garage collapses onto it, yeah, sure. For 3rd party loss or damage? Erm, is it going to 'sleep drive' itself into a bunch of kids vandalising a bus stop at night? It's just another example of the financial industry Bullies twisting the government's arm behind it's back and forcing it to force us into giving them more money. In a word; chunts. The lot of em.

 

And it won't stop people who continue to drive uninsured anyway.

 

As much as I hate and condemn the idea, I think the only way to 'control' people other than mind control, drugs and cattle prods, is to fit these GPS black boxes into cars, which they've threatened to do a number of occasions. But no, it's cheaper to bully people into paying instead.

 

For crying out loud Kev, get out of my head! Lol

 

I'm afraid I agree completely. We won't benefit from this at all. Premiums won't go down, insurance companies will still try their hardest not to pay out, and Joe scumbag will still drive round without insurance and the biggest reason for this is enforcement.

 

If the appropriate authorities had the resources to enforce the current insurance laws then they'd be doing it already, so unless they are also going to create the extra jobs needed to Chase people or collect/crush cars its just a bunch of useless politicians finding ways to justify the wages they are taking out of our taxes by creating something that looks and sounds good but has absolutely no tangible substance behind it.

 

Here's to finding that £100k a year job..... hopefully.

 

 

:lol:

 

Interestingly, £100K gross is 'only' £5400 take home a month. That sounds like such a low amount from such a huge gross :(

 

Mind you, there's a lot I could do with £5K a month!!! :D

Edited March 9, 2011 by Kevin Bacon

[Portent 0]

I expect this is being done to increase government revenue from insurance tax. Gits.

[ozowen 2]

I have agreed with all the comments on this thread. The Government really needs to re-think this, but will not. People who don't insure their car now will not do later. Insurance needs to be cheaper or if you do not claim go down each month until you are paying a minimal amount. 20 years of driving not claimed once, cheapest insurance 400 dearest 980 so lets average at 600 x 20 = 12000 pounds given in insurance FOR WHAT!!!.

Kid brother and I where talking about insuring the driver. We reckon the best way is in valuation order. So insure is put in catergories 0-10000, 10000-20000 and so on. If I drive my dailies the beast is worth the most; so I would pay to be in the 10000 and below category and am entitled to drive any car full comp valued in that category. All we need is backers, an office, admin staff, knowledge on running a business and we'll get straight on it. I reckon we would have every single person in the UK changeing over to us.

 

To end with an insured driver can only drive 1 car at a time.

[VRGixxer 10]

Agree 100% with above,It's just another idea to empty the pockets of the populace....

 

Why doesn't the government just set up its own insurance company...and bung 3rd party insurance cost onto the road tax?

 

They make more money,to put back into the roads,we don't get scammed by the insurance companies....jobs a good un!

 

Maybe it's just too good an idea and makes sense?......

 

while they at it get push bikes taxed and 3rd party covered,and proficiency tested too...

 

even at say £10.00 a year they would make stacks of cash...

 

who's paying for all the green slippery garbage on the roads?...and if they hit me it's my insurance paying out!!!!...

 

Grumbles into distance...

[swiftkid 1]

Its a totally ridiculous idea, the only thing this is going to cause is uninsured drivers not taxing the car as well. Jo public that doesn't have a driveway will have to foot the bill yet again, these toffee nosed idiots just have no thought to those that don't have 2.4 children, a driveway, a nice house with a picket fence and 2 eco friendly electric powered cars that never ever break down.

 

If my car is taxed I am paying for it to be on the road, if I then drive it on the road uninsured I am committing an offence, how is that difficult to understand? What's next, making people have licenses for kitchen knifes just in case they feel like stabbing people. If someone is going to break the law, it will not bother them to go one step further and declare the car sorn

[Kevin Bacon 5]

What's next, making people have licenses for kitchen knifes just in case they feel like stabbing people.

 

I know, it's completely daft. The other day in B&Q, I was asked for age verification on a sledge hammer and a bottle of glue, and yet I can stroll into Debenhams and walk out with a bunch of knives, no questions asked.