DVLA Rule

[Shude]

some other interesting news/analysis on this thread: http://mbclub.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=5048

 

[scotth_uk]

160 quid to a man who just about affords his 200 quid car to get to work is a lot of money.. as is the 85+ p a litre......

Motoring has an associated cost - regardless of the worth of your vehicle. You still use about the same space on the road, when you are there. If you cannot afford it - don't drive.

I have (iirc) 7 cars at ther mo - and two bikes - (ok only two cars on the road...) - why cant i have a blanket tax disc, like my blanket insurance?

7 cars, is 7 times the problem (if they are all on the road). The idea is to discourage people having loads of cars and being on the road. In my opinion each car after 2 should cost more per car, as I cannot really see any valid reason for having so many. 2 ought to cover most people's requirements in a standard family arrangement.

the theory that the tax disc shows that you have (or had) insurance is a joke - i can walk into a post office with someone elses v5 etc and my insurance (trade) and get tax - without changing the name on the V5

Agreed. This is pathetic. It needs to be tighter. Also penalties for driving without licence, tax, insurance should be real. None of this ban/community service/£100 fine bollocks. Jail. Particularly when in an accident. I am sick and tired of seeing people let off with almost nothing after running over a kid in a car that is not registered/taxed/mot'd.

 

[glojo]

This is pathetic. It needs to be tighter. Also penalties for driving without licence, tax, insurance should be real. None of this ban/community service/£100 fine bollocks. Jail. Particularly when in an accident. I am sick and tired of seeing people let off with almost nothing after running over a kid in a car that is not registered/taxed/mot'd.

Sorry to come back on so quickly, but this has 'lit my fuse'

I totally agree with scotth, I am sick and tired of our legal system being used as a meal ticket for the legal profession. A friend of mine who sadly is no longer around called lawyers 'Prostitutes' (those that specialise in defence) They literally are bought to get the guilty freed

Anyone that is caught driving when not legally entitled to do so, should have to prove their innocence. Any person that kills someone whilst illegally driving a motor vehicle should be charged with murder!!! To me they have NO excuse for being in a vehicle, and it is no good trying to blame anyone other than themselves.

If a four year old child runs into the road without looking and is killed by someone that is driving illegally, then the driver quite clearly should NOT have been on the highway. It is to me irrelevant that the child run out in front of them.

If you want to kill someone, make sure you do it by driving a vehicle at them. If you are unlucky you might get disqualified from driving, but more likely you will get a fine and some penalty points.

Regards,
John

 

[Shude]

penalties for driving without licence, tax, insurance should be real. None of this ban/community service/£100 fine bollocks. Jail. Particularly when in an accident. I am sick and tired of seeing people let off with almost nothing after running over a kid in a car that is not registered/taxed/mot'd.

The average fine for driving without insurance is about £200 or something, and it takes up to a year to go to court/get settled. That makes it cheaper to simply not be insured (assuming you never intend to claim/be claimed against), how does that work? If the fine was more substantial people might think twice. It's like banning a 15-year-old from driving for 3 years because they did some joy-riding. BIG DEAL! They weren't licenced in the first place, banning them from driving, even if it takes effect when they hit 17, is going to make NO DIFFERENCE.

The whole insurance/licence/MOT/road tax thing needs to be tidied up.

The MOT simply states that on the date of the test your car was road-legal, so for the other 364 days in the year it might not be, the presence of a tax disc indicates that on the day of application you had the MOT certificate and also a certificate of insurance, which could subsequently be cancelled.

The new computer system seems to be working though, from what I've heard/read they have stopped a lot of motoring-related crime and other crime as well, if they could tidy up the whole documentation thing then it'd be perfect.

South Yorkshire Police have been on that Traffic Cops show and they seem to have the right idea: catch someone without one or more of the required documents? Impound the car and then after a month if they've not done something about it (provide the documents/pay the fines etc) crush the car. One less banger on the road!

 

[Dieselman]

Anyone that is caught driving when not legally entitled to do so, should have to prove their innocence. Any person that kills someone whilst illegally driving a motor vehicle should be charged with murder!!! To me they have NO excuse for being in a vehicle, and it is no good trying to blame anyone other than themselves.

Although I agree with you in principle this couldn't be enforced so the guilty party would walk away scot free.

The charge of murder means that one has deliberately planned to kill another person and this would be extremly difficult to prove. This would mean that unless the "Chav" in question either admitted to the act or plea bargained man slaughter then the case would collapse and they would be let off as not guilty.

I agree that the penalties should be tougher but specific.

 

[glojo]

The charge of murder means that one has deliberately planned to kill another person and this would be extremly difficult to prove. This would mean that unless the "Chav" in question either admitted to the act or plea bargained man slaughter then the case would collapse and they would be let off as not guilty.

I agree that the penalties should be tougher but specific.

I totally agree with you and I hate it when laws get so complicated. When a disqualified drivers gets into a motor vehicle then he IS an 'accident/incident' waiting to happen. The instant that wheels start rolling is the moment they are guilty. We are leaning far, far to much towards the legal rights of the accused. This person is guilty.


In Devon and Cornwall it is becoming more and more difficult to obtain a conviction of Death by Dangerous Driving, solely on the issue you have correctly highlighted or more like proving the person knew what they were doing was dangerous.... the world is going crazy.

Regards,
John

 

[scotth_uk]

Should be automatic manslaughter.

 

[glojo]

Should be automatic manslaughter.

I accept Manslaughter Providing they serve an absolute minimum 10 year in Prison!!! Not a 10 year sentence and 10 years would be the very minimum.

What a tyrant I am!!

John

 

[scotth_uk]

>What a tyrant I am!!

I think it's perfectly fair when these circumstances are involved. Try driving without the appropriate arrangements in Australia.

Don't bend over to pick up the soap!!!!!!

 

[Will]

the theory that the tax disc shows that you have (or had) insurance is a joke - i can walk into a post office with someone elses v5 etc and my insurance (trade) and get tax - without changing the name on the V5...

Guy - are you 110% sure about this? Just that I know a lot of people with trade insurance/trader's policies, and that was one of the loopholes that was closed (ie, unscrupulous people would tax other people's vehicles for them, thus negating the need for the owner of the vehicle to hold an insurance policy to obtain tax!). From memory, this changed a couple of years ago?

As far as I was aware, unless you have the tax reminder form - the one you receive in the post, (in your name), you need to have either a 'New keeper's supplement (V5/2?)' filled out in your name or the V5/V5C (again, registered to you) form in your possesion, along with a vehicle license application form, insurance docs and an a valid MOT certificate. I thought the only exception to this may have been for new vehicles being registered at a dealership?!?

You could of course register the vehicle in your name, and then re-register back to the original keeper, but this adds more owners to the log book, and is not as straightforward!

Anyone else know for sure?!?

Cheers,

Will

 

[guydewdney]

yes - 110% sure - taxed the exes car a few months ago - in her name - the bod behind the counter started wittering on about change of keeper - i said i was just using / servicing / fixing it (i cant remember which) - and my ins doc states 'in my posession', not 'owned by me'....

for the record, she was insured...

 

[Will]

yes - 110% sure - taxed the exes car a few months ago - in her name - the bod behind the counter started wittering on about change of keeper - i said i was just using / servicing / fixing it (i cant remember which) - and my ins doc states 'in my posession', not 'owned by me'....

for the record, she was insured...

Hmm...may-be a funny post office?!?

On a different note, but the same subject, post offices can vary wildly! For example, one locally to me treats everybody like scum when you approach the counter. They quickly snatch the documents off you, mutter obscenities, and frown at anything not 100% to their liking (whether it is right or wrong!).

As a contrast, there is another post office who would happily tax any vehicle with as little as a tesco's receipt for an MOT and a photocopied log book (ok, I am exaggerating! ). No seriously, I know of someone who went in, by mistake with the previous year's insurance documents, and still got their tax (the did have a valid policy at home). And once, just after changing vehicles, I went in with a policy that had just arrived in the post, and only then noticed that one of the digits in the registration was wrong! Nobody noticed, but they did count the money very carefully!

Just my experience,

Cheers,

Will

 

[Plodd]

yes - 110% sure - taxed the exes car a few months ago - in her name - the bod behind the counter started wittering on about change of keeper - i said i was just using / servicing / fixing it (i cant remember which) - and my ins doc states 'in my posession', not 'owned by me'....

for the record, she was insured...

Will was correct and the bod in the post office screwed up on this occasion. You should have not been allowed to tax the car and leave with the V5 in a different name.

 

[Will]

Will was correct and the bod in the post office screwed up on this occasion. You should have not been allowed to tax the car and leave with the V5 in a different name.

I was sure that this was the case - after all, the annual MOT/insurance check applies only to the registered keeper. Unless your ex was on your insurance policy (eg, as a 'named' driver), your policy would not have shown that the registered keeper had any insurance whatsoever? Ie, why would they bother checking!?! I think this is why they changed the laws.

Cheers,

Will

 

[RichieRuss2000]

Some excellent suggestions particularily about the scrapping the TAX disc in place of extra fuel tax however if this is what you'd do with the illegal drivers in an accident whether their fault or not what would you do with the real murderers?

 

[Dieselman]

Some excellent suggestions particularily about the scrapping the TAX disc in place of extra fuel tax however if this is what you'd do with the illegal drivers in an accident whether their fault or not what would you do with the real murderers?

Ahh..public hangings...another revenue stream.

 

[glojo]

what would you do with the real murderers?

Surprisingly enough I am against capital punishment!! (Mistakes do happen and innocent people do sometimes get convicted).

For 'proper' murders, then life imprisonment would mean just that. However I would make sure there were benefits for excellent behaviour. (only allow cigarettes to those that behave etc.)

I would have a scale of Prisons, so that those people that fall on hard times and are sentenced to a first term of imprisonment get treated differently from habitual prisoners.

I'm afraid my 'last resort' type prisons would be located at Scapa Flow and if visitors could not travel there then 'tough' Visitors would only be allowed to see 'well behaved' prisoners anyway.

I hope that answers your question.

Oh and the first people I would sentence are defence lawyers\barristers??

John

 

[peterchurch]

Hi,

The point is that the deterent needs to be nasty enough to stop stupid, selfish people from deciding its worth the the risk... How many families in gettos like walthamstow (or stamford hill for that matter) would be sharing their car and licence between the whole family if they thought that it would mean that the courts would seize their house (or boot them out of council housing and stop benifits ) in the event that they were caught doing it??

The courts in the UK are a joke and those who are supposed to be detered by them know it!

 

[Shude]

I just realised the other bonus to having the road tax dumped on top of fuel prices...

EVERYONE would be paying it, even foreign truck drivers (Eddie Stobart for example) and all the foreign tourists!

 

[peterchurch]

I just realised the other bonus to having the road tax dumped on top of fuel prices...

EVERYONE would be paying it, even foreign truck drivers (Eddie Stobart for example) and all the foreign tourists!

and its all proportional to the amount of use you have out of the roads
and you can sack a whole department of the DVLA that deal with the road tax disks and the printing of them etc