Guys Get Ready For The Police State.

[foreigner 0]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/Ownin...rance/DG_186696 Edited December 12, 2010 by foreigner

[welshpug 1,657]

nothing new there whatsoever, they're just clamping down harder on what was already implemented.

[swordfish210 20]

How is this a bad thing. I pay my road tax and insurance and i expect everyone else to do the same

[muddatrucker 125]

You can't even murder someone these days without police interference!

[Atari Boy 11]

How is this a bad thing. I pay my road tax and insurance and i expect everyone else to do the same

 

Agreed.

[foreigner 0]

ok if you think.

 

So you are driving your mates car which is moted and taxed, you are insured by your own policy. Suddenly you are stopped by police and told it's going to be taken away and crashed.

 

Until now you could drive vehicle which was not insured as long as you are insured.

 

You can't see it as you never lived in country which restricted every possible freedom ideas.

 

It's another step towards too much control with no logic applied.

[muddatrucker 125]

ok if you think.

 

So you are driving your mates car which is moted and taxed, you are insured by your own policy. Suddenly you are stopped by police and told it's going to be taken away and crashed.

 

Until now you could drive vehicle which was not insured as long as you are insured.

 

You can't see it as you never lived in country which restricted every possible freedom ideas.

 

It's another step towards too much control with no logic applied.

I thought the car always needed a valid insurance policy actually on it anyway? if you're aware of the law and you break it, you're the one to blame.

[foreigner 0]

How is this a bad thing. I pay my road tax and insurance and i expect everyone else to do the same

 

Me too mate, obviously you haven't got the same experience as me.

[foreigner 0]

I thought the car always needed a valid insurance policy actually on it anyway? if you're aware of the law and you break it, you're the one to blame.

 

than my friend you were wrong at it used to be that you have to be insured, it's not the same as insuring the car.

[foreigner 0]

Agreed.

 

agreed too. but what they trying to fight is uninsured drivers, they fighting uninsured cars. Two different things. Think about it - you need car because of your family, if both of you are working than you need 2 cars 24/7, also you need car because of your job.

Imagine one of them broke down, you need car straight away, you can borrow one from your mate but there is no tax, you have to tax take some time, by that time you already lost your job and bailiffs knocking on the door.

So if you mate had one with tax on it but not insured you could drive until now but not after new year.

 

I know what you going to say , if you can't afford don't drive but we are in the age of no car - no job, no social life, no life, no family.

 

So think about it again.

 

I am not promoting uninsured driving, I have never driven without insurance and don't want to be caught doing it.

 

Mark my words, your mods will illegal soon. - just like everywhere else in europe.

Edited December 12, 2010 by foreigner

[Veero 1]

Yes that's usually the stipulation, you CAN drive another car 3rd party on your own policy IF the other car is taxed, MOTd AND insured. It's not a get out clause allowing you to drive whatever you fancy, it's designed to allow extra flexibility, such as incapacity of someone else not being able to drive for example.

 

I agree though, about damn time they stopped all the cnuts without insurance and fined them even more. It's those feckers' faults our premiums are so high.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Veero

[Anthony 1,003]

Whilst I want uninsured drivers off the road the same as everyone, this rule doesn't seem to do anything to achieve that, and not only that, seems flawed - after all, there are occasions when it is completely legal for a car without a valid insurance policy on it to be driven, and more to the point, it relies on the car being registered to the owner and wearing its correct numberplates.

 

The second point in particular is already widely exploited to get around congestion charging, speed camera fines, ANPR and insurance/tax. Without traffic cops on the ground, this will just get more commonplace.

[Alan_M 66 1 Cars]

Yes that's usually the stipulation, you CAN drive another car 3rd party on your own policy IF the other car is taxed, MOTd AND insured. It's not a get out clause allowing you to drive whatever you fancy, it's designed to allow extra flexibility, such as incapacity of someone else not being able to drive for example.

 

I agree though, about damn time they stopped all the cnuts without insurance and fined them even more. It's those feckers' faults our premiums are so high.

 

I tend to watch a lot of those Police programs on the tele at work, and that's how all the officers have stipulated that law. A lot appear to get caught thinking they can drive any car whether insured or not. It's how I've always understood it too, got it on the 205 policy even.

[foreigner 0]

Yes that's usually the stipulation, you CAN drive another car 3rd party on your own policy IF the other car is taxed, MOTd AND insured. It's not a get out clause allowing you to drive whatever you fancy, it's designed to allow extra flexibility, such as incapacity of someone else not being able to drive for example.

 

I agree though, about damn time they stopped all the cnuts without insurance and fined them even more. It's those feckers' faults our premiums are so high.

 

 

Please find the legal paper where it says the car needs to be insured. I couldn't find any.

[foreigner 0]

Whilst I want uninsured drivers off the road the same as everyone, this rule doesn't seem to do anything to achieve that, and not only that, seems flawed - after all, there are occasions when it is completely legal for a car without a valid insurance policy on it to be driven, and more to the point, it relies on the car being registered to the owner and wearing its correct numberplates.

 

The second point in particular is already widely exploited to get around congestion charging, speed camera fines, ANPR and insurance/tax. Without traffic cops on the ground, this will just get more commonplace.

 

thanx

[Veero 1]

Whenever I've had a policy saying I can drive other cars third party, it's always listed what the other car must be, MOT'd, taxed and insured in the small print, in one case the large print on the first page. I'm not sure what the beef is here?

[foreigner 0]

You can't even murder someone these days without police interference!

 

I can tell you that copers in Dalston don't even arrest someone clearly assaulting another person and all caught on cctv.

 

So I beg to differ. You can murder without police intereference.

 

Feel lucky if you have positive experience with police and not in the middle of violence and coppers wouldn't do anything to protect you or arrest, charge and punish the criminal

[foreigner 0]

Whenever I've had a policy saying I can drive other cars third party, it's always listed what the other car must be, MOT'd, taxed and insured in the small print, in one case the large print on the first page. I'm not sure what the beef is here?

 

Read it again I am sure it doesn't say anything about the mot, tax and insurance.

 

What i meant about legal paper is the law or regulation not what insurance gives you in their terms and conditions as they vary from company to company.

Edited December 12, 2010 by foreigner

[Flozman 4]

I dont mean to cause offence, but I find it funny how people can be so righteous.

 

Do you really think it will make any diffrence to the insurance premiums? These are companies with profit margins.

[swordfish210 20]

I can tell you that copers in Dalston don't even arrest someone clearly assaulting another person and all caught on cctv.

 

So I beg to differ. You can murder without police intereference.

 

Feel lucky if you have positive experience with police and not in the middle of violence and coppers wouldn't do anything to protect you or arrest, charge and punish the criminal

 

I think you should maybe take a vicodin and relax a bit, you wouldn't want to have a coronary.

[foreigner 0]

I dont mean to cause offence, but I find it funny how people can be so righteous.

 

Do you really think it will make any diffrence to the insurance premiums? These are companies with profit margins.

 

It wont make any difference to the premiums bacuase they do not reflect real world, premium are the tools of making companies rich by law as everyone has to be insured by law.

 

I can see that DVLA will make 400 out of me straight away.

[muddatrucker 125]

Dude, wrap yourself in tin foil and sit in the corner rocking, they're out to get you.

[Obey_R 23]

As far as I've been made aware/read, if your insurance lets you drive another vehicle 3rd party, it does need to have MOT, Tax and be insured under it's own policy (by anyone, not yourself) for it to be valid.

 

EDIT: Why would they automatically make £400 out of you? If you're thinking because you have 4 cars uninsured, it said they give you a letter asking you to take action so all you'd do it SORN the vehicles...

Edited December 12, 2010 by Obey_R

[foreigner 0]

I think you should maybe take a vicodin and relax a bit, you wouldn't want to have a coronary.

 

mate I gave up on met police long time and I am relaxed it's just I am not a sheep who follows orders as easily as most of you do, just because some in higher position tells to do so.

 

I know I wont make any difference. I am just having a rant.

 

Or is it illegal now as well?

 

As far as I've been made aware/read, if your insurance lets you drive another vehicle 3rd party, it does need to have MOT, Tax and be insured under it's own policy (by anyone, not yourself) for it to be valid.

 

EDIT: Why would they automatically make £400 out of you? If you're thinking because you have 4 cars uninsured, it said they give you a letter asking you to take action so all you'd do it SORN the vehicles...

 

I giving up

[Anthony 1,003]

MOST typical policies with third party on other vehicles do stipulate that the other car must be otherwise insured, but not all. Many/most trade policies give you the ability to drive any other car regardless of its insurance state.

 

Also, this law sounds like it is reliant on the MID (motor insurance database) being accurate and upto date, which it frequently isn't and this is frequently acknowledged by the police themselves - believe me, I've had no end of problems from it over the years! Automated fining based on frequently flawed information, and no doubt as frustrating to challenge as your typical DVLA "computer says no" nonsense, seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

 

I will put money on the table and bet that this law will achieve two only things:

 

1) Fine normal generally law-abiding people who either forget to SORN or who are victims of insurance company errors

2) Increase the number of unregistered or cloned vehicles on the road