Getting scum off the roads .

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
The courts need to come down hard on the uninsured

Until the fine for no insurance is automatically 5 times the average of the lowest 3 quotes from Moneysupermarket, the scrotes will be laughing.

Our local duffers fined one such oxygen thief the princely sum of £40 for having no MOT.
The fine is less than the cost of compliance!
 
as far as taking an unlicensed/MOT expired car for test - you are not permitted to stop off along the route - you MUST drive directly to the test station and back - if car needs fuel - you should get a can beforehand .

Re compensation culture - this would be no different from having a payment card declined : it happens - tough - no comeback .

Yes but under your idea, you have to take your car into the garage to be allowed the can of fuel . if you walk in, then how can that work. Lawnmovers etc.:crazy:
Also it is different than credit cards. if you can prove the police/goverment etc had failed to keep accurate records, and as such caused stress, emergency etc then they can be sued. Its not the same as your card being refused (as you have another means to pay and you have had the fuel and only a contract for payment is enforce. To restrict the service in the first instance is the problem. This was proven in case-law in america recently. Simply put, a card can be declined for many reasons, but you have other means to pay, resolve or rectify, even through the small claims court if you cant pay. But If as a result of government legislation you have been left stuck as no alternative is avaliable and the system is found to be flawed, then yes you can take legal action. This is case law.

I understand your plight, and yes something needs to be done but you cant defend something that cannot be realistically implemented for the reasons people have given.

Now some of the other ideas on here are good, so it is great that you started the thread, nice one. I would rather look for constructive ways to deal with this problem rather than picking holes in comments. we are all on the same side. :thumb:

Respect :)
 
Why not go the whole hog... no point stopping half way.

Scrap insurance companies (for motor insurance) and put in place a national motor insurance scheme. Scrap VED completely and replace it with an MOT badge... certificate of roadworthiness. This would make SORNS still valid etc.

Now put the price of the insurance and VED on the fuel. That way your insurance premium and VED are directly related to the amount you drive which surely seems the fairest.

The only problem with this and the OP's original suggestion is that it would be our money grabbing government introducing and managing it so you could absolutely guarantee it wouldn't be fair or fairly priced.
So the guy who rights off a car every year pays the same as the guy who has never made a claim??
 
Not to mention a huge increase in fuel theft from parked vehicles....
 
Getting scum off the roads

I recommend this stuff:

phpThumb.php
 
As someone who works in the insurance industry in my opinion the fines imposed by the courts for driving without insurance need to treble or quadruple.

Virtually always the fine for a driving without insurance conviction is a fraction of the cost of the premium that the convicted driver should have paid as required by law.

Until this happens we the number of uninsured drivers will continue to rise year on year.
 
A genuinely interesting idea with merits and drawbacks.

Merits

In certain cases it would deter the uninsured from filling with petrol.

However, a stolen car may well not be on the database. For example, 17 yr old Son steals Daddys Merc, takes it for a spin, tops up with fuel so Daddy none the wiser. Car will for all intensive purposes appear insured.

Cloned cars, cars that are knicked but with plates on them to pass ANPR checks etc will all slip through the net.

However, for a minimal outlay uninsured/taxed cars will go detected.

Cons


There is a privacy issue here, I am not sure I want it recorded and the government have access to how much fuel I buy, where I buy it etc. Its a form of "tagging".

Its easily circumvented.

The car may not be on the database etc and be genuinely insured, a lot of law abiding people again inconvienced by the scum minority.

However, Derek is onto a ringer here, why not have an ANPR camera in a station, and it reports to the police any cars that fill up. It would not be known in the public domain so any cars that dont hit a MID match, get pulled as the police are alerted.
 
It's a very good idea in principle (the OP's idea) what concerns me is the accuracy of the data automatically retrieved, currently the data would be retrieved by a police officer, with, one would hope a certain amount of common sense, transfer that to the fuel station attendant, and issues might arise.
This may be why the police dont want to play ball.


As for the tax to go on fuel, by the time you remove the cost of administering the current data base, running the whole system, and then the costs involved in prosecuting offenders, the acutal rise in fuel cost due to this tax would be tiny, probably less than the average annual hike currently enforced on motorists when they need extra cash.

It would also give insurance companies one less hole to wriggle through, so they wont like it, also the police would complain, because right now it's a way of having a national database containing every drivers details in.
In principle, it's perfect, in reality those with ulterior motives will never let it happen.

There are two big holes in the polices argumant.. 1 its the DVLA's well known to be 100% accurate database.. 2: Do you really think the Pikey / chav element will actually have a car registered at their address given they have no intention of ever taxing the car, or pay an speeding ticket from cameras.. or in all likley hood have a driving licenece. Have look on ebay and the number of cars at the cheap end of the market that are without a V5.. some may be geniuinly lost. others may never have had them (as they gave the seller a fictitious address when the bought it) Maybe I am a cynic, but I suspect its the latter in the majority of the cases

Oh and the insrance companys can't use the lack of tax to wriggle out of a claim.. although they will try. your policy is a legal contract between you and them as such they would have to sitipulate the car must be taxed for cover to be in force.. maybe soem do, but I've never seen one. Same goes for MOT.. although nearly every policy will state that the car must be in a roadworthy condition there is plenty of case law to fall back on which proves that the lack of an MOT does not immediatly mean the car is unroadworthy. Although I am not condoing driving an non mot'd car in any way!!
 
Last edited:
As someone who works in the insurance industry in my opinion the fines imposed by the courts for driving without insurance need to treble or quadruple.

Virtually always the fine for a driving without insurance conviction is a fraction of the cost of the premium that the convicted driver should have paid as required by law.

Until this happens we the number of uninsured drivers will continue to rise year on year.

And as ex-emplyee of the insurance industry they should stop hiking up insrance premiums becuase of a drop in proft (note not actually Loss!), and accept bad years with the good. Actulally my premiums are OK, but when I see what new drivers are being charged I am not surprised at all so many try to get away without.. the industry has brought it on itself, its also not helped by caving in on every and any injury claim, a feature of the last 15 years or so, but thats a rant for a seperate thread
 
Driving without tax - 4 figure financial fine
Driving without insurance - 12 month ban
Driving without licence or whilst disqualified - 3 months inside and permanent ban

It's not draconian - we are talking about machines being operated in the public domain that have the capability to kill.
 
Driving without tax - 4 figure financial fine
Driving without insurance - 12 month ban
Driving without licence or whilst disqualified - 3 months inside and permanent ban

It's not draconian - we are talking about machines being operated in the public domain that have the capability to kill.


great in theory...


however, most of the drivers who are driving uninsured are doing so because of no finances... the cost of a young driver is far too high... therefore they risk it and don't get insured. to levy a 4 figure fine is pointless because if they have half a brain they will have that fine slashed due to poverty and then pay back at a nominal rate (i've seen a £5,000 fine paid back at a rate of 50p per week) and to take a car off them leads to problems, doing so could lead to them losing a job (it's an easy excuse that is used daily in courts) or indeed there is nothing stopping them getting a new "old banger" for next to nowt.

the 12 month ban would be a deterrent to some, but you'll have the limpwristed arguing that the penalty is far too severe for the crime, and more than likely a case arguing that they can't work without a license (again, i've personally used that one and have only recently lost my 18 points, never once lost the use of my vehicle)

as for being banged up there is no chance of that happening as you'll find upon inspection that our prisons are not only overcrowded but are also colleges for crime, you go in for a petty crime and come out schooled in how to commit bigger and better crimes... our magistrates and judges are trying everything they can to NOT put people away.


the simple way of ensuring this isn't a new complex system to monitor your insurance and dispense fuel accordingly (you can't expect the little petrol stations to fork out on new equipment that's just catering for the big companies.. and you'd be screwed at the automated forecourts)
it's a simple idea that i believe was used in a scandinavian country, include BASIC thrid party insurance on your road tax.

yes the tax rate would go up, but young drivers would be able to use a car with the minimum of cost, this would reduce all noninsured accidents to a bare minimum (not many cars out there with no tax... it's easy to spot no insurance is impossible to spot)

this would have a knock on effect of insurance companies having to lower existing rates, cause lets face it.. if you don't NEED them to drive... and they are extortionate then why bother.. they'd lose money hand over fist and prices would tumble.


i'm afraid the OP probably won't be helped with this, the drunk driver in the stolen car would have still stolen the car.. and if the two in the street are anything like round here... they would have driven off!
 
As someone who works in the insurance industry in my opinion the fines imposed by the courts for driving without insurance need to treble or quadruple.

Virtually always the fine for a driving without insurance conviction is a fraction of the cost of the premium that the convicted driver should have paid as required by law.
Until this happens we the number of uninsured drivers will continue to rise year on year.

The fine should be 3 or 4 times the premium that should have been paid (the costs of deducing this figure also added to the uninsured drivers fine) and no more mr nice guy - pay up or take a ban/go to jail. None of this £1 a week ******it
 
The courts need to come down hard on the uninsured

Until the fine for no insurance is automatically 5 times the average of the lowest 3 quotes from Moneysupermarket, the scrotes will be laughing.

Our local duffers fined one such oxygen thief the princely sum of £40 for having no MOT.
The fine is less than the cost of compliance!

Actually thats what I faind distubing.. they actually fine you more for no tax than no insurance or MOT.. so its seems they are more interested in revenue than our saftey..
 
The problem with a number of the penalties being suggested here is that they only affect the honest law abiding citizens - the ones who would probably have insurance and VED to start with as well as an MOT.

Let's face it, if you're prepared and happy to drive without insurance, VED and/or MOT and in many cases without even having a license then the ONLY punishment that will keep you off the roads is prison. As discussed on other threads prison is far from punishment nowadays irrespective of over crowding or the fact no judge would imprison someone for such an offence. There isn't a driving ban in the world other than physical restraint therefore that would keep them off the roads.

What's needed is a complete overhaul of societies attitudes, but I wouldn't suggest holding your breath for it. If you can't afford a car and all associated running costs then you can't have one! End of. I'd even go so far as to say if you don't have off road parking available then you shouldn't be allowed to own one either. Sorry, but in the current environment where everyone seems to believe a car is a right and so every family has to have 3, 4 or even 5 then on street parking is also a major issue. Like I say though, this won't change so it's a non starter.

This is all why the best solution by far is to link ALL motoring costs to the price of fuel.

In order to enforce this, as in many US gas stations, make pre-payment compulsory or dispense fuel only on pay at the pump. Sure, a minority will find their way around it, but it'll be a lot less than are currently happy to stick two fingers up at common sense, common decency and the law. It will also increase the likelihood of fuel theft of course.

There is no perfect solution but there are solutions that would work a lot better than the current systems and not cost any more to implement.

My only real and major concern though with any change, as I said above, is that if it's left to a UK government (any party) to implement such a change it will neither be fair or balanced. It will be implemented in such a way that ensures the motorist suffers more and the government wins all round. A sad state of affairs, but I fear the reality.

Regards,
 
Yes but under your idea, you have to take your car into the garage to be allowed the can of fuel . if you walk in, then how can that work. Lawnmovers etc.:crazy:

That was why I stated in my very first post that up to 5L could be dispensed without ANPR clearance - the idea was that someone who had run out of fuel could walk in either with an emergency can , or buy one in the station , and fill it . That would be for a customer on foot ; on the other hand , if you drive in and the vehicle is recognised as illegal - you leave with nothing , and the police are silently informed - stay around to argue the point with the attendants and , chances are , the police will be there before you leave .

I don't propose that filling station attendants would have access to data , any more than shop assistants have access to people's financial data : all they see is 'transaction not authorised' and , same as in the case of credit/debit cards the shop assistants would have no say in the matter whatsoever .

A lot of people on here seem to have misconstrued that I am only trying to catch out uninsured drivers - remember this system could easily check MOT (VOSA ) and DVLA databases instantly too - arguably vehicles with no MOT and potentially dangerous faults present just as big a danger to the public as uninsured drivers .

The biggest objection everyone seems to have is accuracy of the MID database - some have mentioned figures of up to 30% - is there hard fact to support this contention ? Anytime I have insured a car ( and I buy a fair few older cars - many of which are on SORN at the time of purchase ) and can categorically say that every single one was on the MID database the following day after I insured them - some more or less instantly as I checked just after taking out the policies - I have used a variety of insurers and have yet to find one who drags their heels in this respect .

There is no argument about the MOT(VOSA) or VED(DVLA) databases not being accurate so , really , the only possible objection would be in tightening up the insurance database (possibly) . This should be fairly simple to achieve by requiring ALL insurers to log new business onto the database at the time of granting cover - it may be a cost that the insurance companies will have to incur , but they (along with the rest of us) will save in the long run by eradicating uninsured/MOT'd/taxed vehicles from the roads .

Petrol companies ought also to save from this scheme as I'd hazard a guess that the majority of non-payment drive-offs involve vehicles which have something amiss - so it would cut down on these events too .
 
Last edited:
IMHO a lot is caused by the motorist seen as a cash cow for the government. The car is taxed like luxury goods, when in fact its not, Many of us would have issues with working if it was taken away. We should have the cheapest fuel in europe but somehow have the most expensive in the world I belive. I also belive this is why the governemnt are not ecourageing those who could and should be working at home to do so, and encourageing the employers to allow this to happen, as it would produce a huge hole in the public finanaces. If they had any true thoughts of being green this would be the way to go.
 
Last edited:
Also it is different than credit cards. if you can prove the police/goverment etc had failed to keep accurate records, and as such caused stress, emergency etc then they can be sued. Its not the same as your card being refused (as you have another means to pay and you have had the fuel and only a contract for payment is enforce. To restrict the service in the first instance is the problem. This was proven in case-law in america recently. Simply put, a card can be declined for many reasons, but you have other means to pay, resolve or rectify, even through the small claims court if you cant pay. But If as a result of government legislation you have been left stuck as no alternative is avaliable and the system is found to be flawed, then yes you can take legal action. This is case law.

Well , the MID database ( which is the one in contention - nobody is arguing that VOSA or DVLA databases are inaccurate ) is a private database and nothing to do with the government .

It is easy enough to get round the stress etc claims by stating that the onus is on the driver to ENSURE the car is fully legal and recorded on all appropriate databases BEFORE taking it on the road - otherwise you run the risk of seizure by the police or being unable to obtain fuel .

Not everyone has 'other means to pay' - I generally have a Switch card and perhaps a small amount of cash , but seldom enough to buy a tankful of fuel . I generally avoid that situation by using the 'pay at pump' facility where the transaction is cleared BEFORE I draw fuel . I have , on a couple of occasions , left shopping at the supermarket checkout when my card was declined ( despite knowing there were sufficient funds in the account - both Tesco and Lidl seem sometimes to have 'issues' with Clydesdale bank cards and acknowledge this ) - I certainly don't go bleating for compensation .

What may be case law in the litiginous USA is not neccessarily so here .

The one thing that most people agree on is that the MIB database needs to be 100% accurate - this simply comes down to requiring ALL insurance companies to record ALL transactions online ( in the same way as all MOT stations do when conducting tests and all Post Offices do when issuing tax discs ) so that the database is 'live' - it should only be possible for cover to commence AFTER the details are on the database - not the other way around .

With all three databases 100% accurate , no one could then object to cars flagged up by ANPR not being able to fuel up . In fact the system could even be extended to also check with the PNC and deny fuel to vehicles recorded as being stolen or wanted for some other reason - again as well as informing police .
 
There is no argument about the MOT(VOSA) or VED(DVLA) databases not being accurate so , really , the only possible objection would be in tightening up the insurance database (possibly) .


Err WORNG!!! the DVLA database is shot full of holes, they even admitted it on watchdog a few month ago!!! According to it I still own 2 cars that have long been scrapped and one thats was expoirted 4 years ago.. each year I go thought the same rigmarole telling them no I don't own it and no I am not liable for any fines they say I am, every year they say 'opps', and that the will update their records..(only after pointing out there is no statuatory requirement to chase anything up with them and pointing them at section 7 of the intertations act 1978 yep thats right SORN is totally unenforcable they would rather you did not know that though) As said earlier the typical persiatant offender will not have the car regisered at their address anyway. What would help is a restoration of used car prices as its not helpfull when you can pick up a runner for less than a night out. These types won't care if a car is impounded and crushed.. they will just get another one (half a dole cheques worth).
 
Last edited:
The more I think about it the more I like the Austrialian system.. your road tax IS your insurance, basic third party anyway, any extra cover is upto you to arrange. It seems to work well enough for them, but It woudl work if a proportion of fuel tax was used for this purpose, pay for you fuel.. you are insured (Assuming you are the registerd keeper).. job done, no need for databases, or admin of such
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom