More than 1 in 8 cars in Greater London are being driven uninsured

[JumboBeef]

Is car insurance really that much more nowadays than it used to be?

My first car in 1983 (when I was 17 and had just started driving) was an Austin 1300. Top speed of maybe 80....? (I was never brave enough to find out )

My insurance was £160 tpft, and I took home £33 per week so it cost around five weeks pay to insure it.

Min pay for a 17 year old today gives £140 per week so x 5 gives around £700.

Could a 17 year old insure a like for like car today for £700 tpft? Maybe something like a Corsa 1.0?

 

[219]

My first car in 1983 (when I was 17 and had just started driving) was an Austin 1300. Top speed of maybe 80....? (I was never brave enough to find out )

Maybe just as well , after Basil Fawlty had flogged it to death

 

[Dryce]

I never understood SORN. It's daft - if a car is not taxed, it's not taxed. It shouldn't be driven. There's no need to notify ANYONE of the purpose, if a check is done, it will show no tax.

It's quite sensible - if rather annoying.

One of the biggest problems with these sorts of databases is that they don't record exits/suspensions. Only new registrations, renewals, transfers, and possibly scrappages.

The obligation to provide a SORN makes sure that transfers, scrapping, and off road states are properly updated.

 

[Gasump]

spot on!!

Notwithstanding the fact that uninsured drivers are a menace, I suspect you're almost on the right lines.

My guess is that we'll be subjected to an increasing barrage of "news items" about uninsured drivers over the coming weeks and months as plans for Continuous Enforcement of Motor Insurance take shape. The UK motor insurance industry has been pushing for this for years (it's a great revenue opportunity for them) and the whole notion panders to the "if we don't give you permission, you can't do it and we'll fine you" culture of our lawmakers.

A further revenue opportunity (after all, they've all got to start being honest with their expenses now haven't they?!!) and a further step in the 'mass criminalisation' of the population in furtherance of control.

 

[Gasump]

Hardly!

It's quite sensible - if rather annoying.

One of the biggest problems with these sorts of databases is that they don't record exits/suspensions. Only new registrations, renewals, transfers, and possibly scrappages.

The obligation to provide a SORN makes sure that transfers, scrapping, and off road states are properly updated.

Not at all sensible; the whole scheme is pointless and full of holes.

 

[Dryce]

Not at all sensible; the whole scheme is pointless and full of holes.

To make any sort of system rock solid requires that you implement it forcefully.

The UK tends (despite the damage done to our liberties in the last few years) to be not to hot on the forceful side of things.

Combine that with an attitude to national database management that runs on a scale from incompetent at the left only as far along as half hearted on the right - and you get a mess.

So SORN isn't perfect but it's rather more along the scale towards the half heated end rather than at the incompetent end.

 

[Sorry Pete]

Come on guys. Is Sorn-ing a vehicle really such a chore? You get a reminder in the post, then you can click through the SORN process on the DVLA website in a matter of minutes.

Taking responsibility for your vehicle on the road requires paperwork, and always has. Isn't this just another example of a minority (a large minority) of people stuffing-it-up for the rest of the law-abiding public? Insurance is, in addition to being a requirement, something that for many, protects their largest financial investment other than property purchase. It creates understandable anger therefore, when someone firstly drives uninsured, and is basically treated as if it's a minor misdemeanor, and secondly, has an accident with an insured driver, and walks away with it.

I'm sorry, I might be a bit dim here, but I can't think of a cogent argument against active enforcement. How much of a deterrent would a static anpr checkpoint be, pulling-over every flagged driver? Look, I'm not up for a police state or anything, I've never had an accident with an uninsured party, but I sure as heck don't intend to.

Oh God. I sound like my dad.

 

[Sorry Pete]

A further revenue opportunity (after all, they've all got to start being honest with their expenses now haven't they?!!) and a further step in the 'mass criminalisation' of the population in furtherance of control.

A bit dramatic I reckon! The Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) Part VI provides for the liabilities to third parties, and the few exceptions. As with any Act, someone who acts in contravention of the Act, commits an offence. So, by the figures given in the thread title, 12.5% of the motorists in London, are committing an offence, ergo, criminals. They had the choice whether or not to purchase insurance, and chose not to, and then chose to drive. I reckon that 12.5% of a populace contravening the law makes it crime en masse, and doubt their prosecution has anything to do with furthering [the state's] control.

Driving a vehicle, is an activity that puts you at a higher likleyhood of a run-in with the police, probably because it requires more ability, responsibility and common sense than walking down the street. Would you let someone drive without a licence? Then why let someone drive without insurance?

 

[vijilants]

Considering the recent horrendous quotes I've had to insure my son on his first car, I'm really not surprised that there are a lot of youngsters out there driving around without insurance.

The have simply priced motoring out of their reach. If you don't have someone to financially help you where on earth are you going to find £1600 to insure a vehicle ???

As you turn 17 nearly all kids especially boys want to drive and have their first car and that hasn't changed over the generations. What has changed is the cost......it has become totally ridiculous.

 

[stevesey]

I'm sorry, I might be a bit dim here, but I can't think of a cogent argument against active enforcement. How much of a deterrent would a static anpr checkpoint be, pulling-over every flagged driver?

A good point was made earlier, ANPR only tells if the vehicle is insured, not that the driver is insured to drive that vehicle.

However I do agree ANPR checks do seem a far better approach than the proposed scheme in that they directly target the offender, with very little impact on everybody else (as long as the insurance databse is kept up to date correctly of course). Also statistically ANPR checks should hit the worst offenders, i.e those driving an uninsured car for the most miles, hardest.

 

[219]

A good point was made earlier, ANPR only tells if the vehicle is insured, not that the driver is insured to drive that vehicle.

Exactly what happened when my partner's car was written off outside our front door by a young girl driving daddy's newish BMW - the car was perfectly legal , but she wasn't insured to drive it ! After the crash she initially told us and the police she thought she was insured with Tesco . Telephoning Tesco revealed this not to be true as they had never heard of her or the car . We subsequently found out she was uninsured after the father gave his insurance details and the company stated they 'had no interest' in the claim due to the driver being uninsured . I wrote back that , in as much as the father had not reported the car stolen , the daughter MUST have been using the car with his permission , and therefore was liable . A few days later the father paid for the damage rather than have his daughter charged .

This happened only a week after my own W124 was written off in the drive by another uninsured driver who left the road and crashed through our wall ! Because I was somewhet upset by this I had set up a video camcorder and captured the second crash on video - as below