UNINSURED DRIVERS

[Miller Jambo 60]

There are 1.8 million of these clowns on Britains roads.

250000 were caught last year.

There must be stiffer penalties for these selfish people like instant seizure of there car and a years ban.

At the moment its 6 points, what a joke.

Discuss Jambos.

 

Doug.

[trotter]

Spot on Doug mate,

 

As it is, when caught (and with widespread ANPR checks and mandatory checks whilst pulled over for other things) the amount of people getting caught is going up.

 

A lot is said about the police giving motorists a hard time - but for checks like this I have not a problem.

 

The problem is, the 'crime' (unless they cause injury / damage in an accident) isn't seen as that serious in the grand scheme of things. Also, for the most part, 6 points on a licence would take the vast majority of people close to the 12 point limit - thus giving many a pause for thought like "i really need to behave now".

 

Personally I think the points penalty is fine, but i'd have a minimum fine of ?1000 or so. Deter people that way - then maybe more people won't risk it.

[BlackJAC?]

Doug, you seem to have major beef with car owners this week - did one **** in your coffee at the weekend?

[Guest]

Spot on Doug mate,

 

As it is, when caught (and with widespread ANPR checks and mandatory checks whilst pulled over for other things) the amount of people getting caught is going up.

 

A lot is said about the police giving motorists a hard time - but for checks like this I have not a problem.

 

The problem is, the 'crime' (unless they cause injury / damage in an accident) isn't seen as that serious in the grand scheme of things. Also, for the most part, 6 points on a licence would take the vast majority of people close to the 12 point limit - thus giving many a pause for thought like "i really need to behave now".

 

Personally I think the points penalty is fine, but i'd have a minimum fine of ?1000 or so. Deter people that way - then maybe more people won't risk it.

 

The fine needs to be higher than ?1000. Thats less than a lot of people (those who go without insurance) would be paying for their premium.

[I P Knightley]

There are 1.8 million of these clowns on Britains roads.

250000 were caught last year.

There must be stiffer penalties for these selfish people like instant seizure of there car and a years ban.

At the moment its 6 points, what a joke.

Discuss Jambos.

 

Doug.

 

Spot on, Doug.

 

The fact that they are prepared to ignore the bit of the law requiring them to have insurance would suggest to me that they wouldn't be too concerned about driving with points on their licence or no licence at all.

 

The uninsured car should be put in a pound for a year or donated to a worthy cause, such as drivers at demolition derbies

[Cigaro]

I agree with this, but I have to say, the cost of car insurance is ridiculous.

 

No excuse though.

 

I'm currently browsing for a renewal and my premium seems to have gone up!

[frankblack]

Spot on, Doug.

 

The fact that they are prepared to ignore the bit of the law requiring them to have insurance would suggest to me that they wouldn't be too concerned about driving with points on their licence or no licence at all.

 

The uninsured car should be put in a pound for a year or donated to a worthy cause, such as drivers at demolition derbies

 

A lot of these pond **** just get another banger as soon as one is taken off them. All the decent people are paying a premium for the police not doing their jobs properly and catching these people.

 

It can't be difficult to go through computer records of who owns a vehicle and who doesn't have insurance. In addition, couldn't speed cameras be used to check if any cars registered as being off-road (SORN) are being driven? If so, police should be dispatched to arrest the owners.

 

There previous owner of the car must also be held responsible if they sold the car to an uninsured driver (assuming that cars sold to second-hand garages are then registered as being with the garage).

[BlackJAC?]

If the cost for car insurance is absurd, then surely it's a case of you just don't buy a car if you can't afford the costs that go with having a car, no?

 

People that rely on having a car have put themselves in that position, no one else. After all, I and many others have managed all our adult lives to get to and from everywhere without having ever owned a car.

 

Unless your job relies on you having a mode of transportation i.e. a taxi driver et al, then it can be easily deemed as a luxury. If you want a luxury, then be prepared to pay for it.

 

Edit: that was aimed at Cigaro.

[Cigaro]

If the cost for car insurance is absurd, then surely it's a case of you just don't buy a car if you can't afford the costs that go with having a car, no?

 

People that rely on having a car have put themselves in that position, no one else. After all, I and many others have managed all our adult lives to get to and from everywhere without having ever owned a car.

 

Unless your job relies on you having a mode of transportation i.e. a taxi driver et al, then it can be easily deemed as a luxury. If you want a luxury, then be prepared to pay for it.

 

Edit: that was aimed at Cigaro.

I agree. And because of that, my cloth is cut accordingly. I wouldnt say I need a car, but it sure as hell makes life easier. It may be different if I lived in town though.

 

TBH my car is central to all my other outgoings. Can I afford to go out? No, I need petrol etc etc.

 

The reason I didnt have my own car for my first two years of driving was because I couldnt afford the insurance. I shared with my mum until I was older and my premium came down. I'm paying for that now though, with a lower NCB, but I couldnt afford it before, so I didnt.

 

Driving without insurance would never even come into my thinking.

[dale8809]

A lot of these pond **** just get another banger as soon as one is taken off them. All the decent people are paying a premium for the police not doing their jobs properly and catching these people.

 

It can't be difficult to go through computer records of who owns a vehicle and who doesn't have insurance. In addition, couldn't speed cameras be used to check if any cars registered as being off-road (SORN) are being driven? If so, police should be dispatched to arrest the owners.

 

There previous owner of the car must also be held responsible if they sold the car to an uninsured driver (assuming that cars sold to second-hand garages are then registered as being with the garage).[/QUOTE]

 

You can't punish someone for sellinga car too someone that is uninsured because if they hold a provisinal licence it would cost so much too insure a car that you can't drive.Maybe if someone is caught driving uninsured they should get a 5k fine and community service.That way the risk is too much because they might loose there job and on top of that paying 5k from dole money would leave you skint.

[The People's Chimp]

A lot of these pond **** just get another banger as soon as one is taken off them. All the decent people are paying a premium for the police not doing their jobs properly and catching these people.

 

It can't be difficult to go through computer records of who owns a vehicle and who doesn't have insurance. In addition, couldn't speed cameras be used to check if any cars registered as being off-road (SORN) are being driven? If so, police should be dispatched to arrest the owners.

 

There previous owner of the car must also be held responsible if they sold the car to an uninsured driver (assuming that cars sold to second-hand garages are then registered as being with the garage).

 

 

So you would put the onus on someone selling a car to make sure the purchaser insures it? How are you going to do that?

 

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the seller and for so many reasons, that I'm not even going to start reeling them off.

[Miller Jambo 60]

Doug, you seem to have major beef with car owners this week - did one **** in your coffee at the weekend?

 

HaHa like it BJ,put it this way if someone pashed in my coffee it would be life assurance he would be needing:2thumbsup:

[The People's Chimp]

If the cost for car insurance is absurd, then surely it's a case of you just don't buy a car if you can't afford the costs that go with having a car, no?

 

People that rely on having a car have put themselves in that position, no one else. After all, I and many others have managed all our adult lives to get to and from everywhere without having ever owned a car.

 

Unless your job relies on you having a mode of transportation i.e. a taxi driver et al, then it can be easily deemed as a luxury. If you want a luxury, then be prepared to pay for it.

 

Edit: that was aimed at Cigaro.

 

I don't think it really follows; not when a major factor in the increased cost of motor insurance arise out of uninsured drivers involved in crashes or little neds smashing up cars, windows and keying cars. [edit: and the greed of the insurance companies as well...]

 

Who is at fault for that? You can hardly blame a car owner for giving the uninsured driver a target to crash into or a ned a target to vandalise.

 

Perhaps if one lives in a city, has all of one's family in the same city, works in that city and spends the majority of one's time in the city then stating a car is a luxury is valid.

 

However, as someone who travels to visit my parents, lives in a city where I didn't grow up, a different city to the one I watch the football in, a diiferent city to where my bird stays, a different city to the rest of my family and a different city from where my brother stays, who travels to get involved in sports, who travels to watch football etc ad nauseum, then to be honest, my car is not a luxury, it is essential.

 

Unless what you are really saying is that choosing to live where I do, and live the life that I do, is of itself a luxury, I don't think your point stands.

 

And in any event if I relied on public transport I'd have paid ?20.80 to get to the game last night, ?3 on buses and ?17.80 for the train but paid just under a tenner for diesel...

[BlackJAC?]

Dress it up any which way you want to, but having a car is a luxury. There are people out there that do use public transport for those examples you have just given. For example my brother stays in Pencaitland (sp) and he states he needs a car to get to and from work, yet there are many that use the bus service, so straight away I know he?s talking bull. Like my brother, your main argument seems to hinge around time saving rather than necessity. If something isn?t a necessity, then it?s a luxury.

 

Lets assume the residents of Pencaitland do indeed need a car for essential travel, then that surely backs up my other point ? people choose to put themselves in a position where they come to rely on a car as to get from a to b, then back to a?

 

How do all us public transport users manage to hold down jobs, go to football matches, have relationships if it all hinges on having a car? It?s easy; nothing relies on anyone having a car unless you yourself put yourself in a position that you have no choice but to rely on a car.

 

A car is a luxury.

[I P Knightley]

A lot of these pond **** just get another banger as soon as one is taken off them. All the decent people are paying a premium for the police not doing their jobs properly and catching these people.

 

It can't be difficult to go through computer records of who owns a vehicle and who doesn't have insurance. In addition, couldn't speed cameras be used to check if any cars registered as being off-road (SORN) are being driven? If so, police should be dispatched to arrest the owners.

 

I've removed the last paragraph as I couldn't see it holding water but otherwise, I fully agree.

 

Removal of the car would be an additional deterrent; I'm not saying that it should be the only penalty. Yes, they'd have to find another banger but, coupled with a systematic (and it can't be that hard, surely?) approach to identifying uninsured cars on the road you'd have a much better system than anything happening just now.

 

I'm sure that it would also help bring down Cigaro's insurance premiums. Logic suggests that (a) fewer cars on the road means fewer accidents, meaning fewer payouts and ( a greater proportion of drivers being insured would mean more responsible driving. However, I'm certain the insurance companies would find a way to maintain the premiums.

 

Failing that, Darling would increase insurance tax.

 

We're all doomed.

[The People's Chimp]

Dress it up any which way you want to, but having a car is a luxury. There are people out there that do use public transport for those examples you have just given. For example my brother stays in Pencaitland (sp) and he states he needs a car to get to and from work, yet there are many that use the bus service, so straight away I know he?s talking bull. Like my brother, your main argument seems to hinge around time saving rather than necessity. If something isn?t a necessity, then it?s a luxury.

 

Lets assume the residents of Pencaitland do indeed need a car for essential travel, then that surely backs up my other point ? people choose to put themselves in a position where they come to rely on a car as to get from a to b, then back to a?

 

How do all us public transport users manage to hold down jobs, go to football matches, have relationships if it all hinges on having a car? It?s easy; nothing relies on anyone having a car unless you yourself put yourself in a position that you have no choice but to rely on a car.

 

A car is a luxury.

 

It depends on the circumstances. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse in your comparison with "public transport users" but you've not really taken on the point about the role my car - as an example - has in my life. Nowhere did I say that I could not have a relationship or go to football matches without my car. In fact I do use public transport quite a lot, but there are times when it simply is not possible and, is prohibitively expensive and there are other occasions when I'd simply have to rely on others far too much for lifts...

 

And if you're suggesting that one's choice of where to live i.e. not in a city well served by public transport, is itself a luxury then that's just ridiculous. We'd have no one living anywhere other than in the city!

 

Oh and if working 50-60 hours a week, time is pretty important...

[BlackJAC?]

It depends on the circumstances. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse in your comparison with "public transport users" but you've not really taken on the point about the role my car - as an example - has in my life. Nowhere did I say that I could not have a relationship or go to football matches without my car. In fact I do use public transport quite a lot, but there are times when it simply is not possible and, is prohibitively expensive and there are other occasions when I'd simply have to rely on others far too much for lifts...

 

And if you're suggesting that one's choice of where to live i.e. not in a city well served by public transport, is itself a luxury then that's just ridiculous. We'd have no one living anywhere other than in the city!

 

Oh and if working 50-60 hours a week, time is pretty important...

 

The key word here is choice. It's all about choice and the choices we make.

 

If you want to move to Greenlaw whilst working in Edinburgh, then yes, that is your choice to move to Greenlaw and common sense tells you that to do so you will become heavily reliant on a car.

 

The last I checked the likes of Fife, Prestonpans, Tranent, West Lothian etc aren?t located in close proximity to the city centre, but 1000?s still manage to commute on a daily basis using public transport, so why would I even insinuate that you had to live in a city as to commute without using a car?

 

It's amazing how many people have conditioned themselves into thinking a car is a necessity when in fact it?s not. I can almost guarantee you there will be someone that travels the distances you travel and s/he will only use public transport.

[The People's Chimp]

The key word here is choice. It's all about choice and the choices we make.

 

If you want to move to Greenlaw whilst working in Edinburgh, then yes, that is your choice to move to Greenlaw and common sense tells you that to do so you will become heavily reliant on a car.

 

The last I checked the likes of Fife, Prestonpans, Tranent, West Lothian etc aren?t located in close proximity to the city centre, but 1000?s still manage to commute on a daily basis using public transport, so why would I even insinuate that you had to live in a city as to commute without using a car?

 

It's amazing how many people have conditioned themselves into thinking a car is a necessity when in fact it?s not. I can almost guarantee you there will be someone that travels the distances you travel and s/he will only use public transport.

 

I'm not really one to get too much into personal examples - i.e. revealing the boring minutiae of my life to an uninterested JKB readership and so beyond what I've said above I'm not going to go into it any futher, but safe to say i'd have to change jobs and probably move house if I didn't have a car.

 

Now I think that, to an extent, you're confusing choice with luxury. A luxury, is "something expensive which is pleasant to have but is not necessary" which I would say we can agree on. But where we wont agree is perhaps your interpretation of where choice and necessity meet. My life choices have perhaps left me in a position where a car is necessary, whereas I could equally have made choices which would have left my having a car redundant.

 

You can talk about being conditioned to think a car is a necessity, but as an example my work often entails being in the office till 8 or even 9 o'clock. For example, I play fives on a monday, about a 20 mile round trip from my flat. It would take 2 buses, and an hour (possibly even an hour and a half), to get to where I play fives. I'd need to then take a night bus at ten pm and get home for half 11, not having had time for dinner if I did not have a car - i'd have to choose not to play fives. Is playing football a luxury? Or is not wasting 2 hours (minimum) on a monday night, on public transport, a luxury?

 

It depends on your viewpoint, I suppose, but then if playing a sport, and not spending hours of your free time travelling are luxuries then fair enough.

 

Perhaps you could say, yes, compared with some people's lives they are luxuries, but everything is relative. Is spending an hour of your week with your mates playing football important? Well when you look at quality of life, yes it is, it's very important.

 

The difficulty with the word 'luxury' is that it brings in a sense of moral judgement; is someone who lives in Pencaitland and has done all of their lives, who doesn't want to spend hours, every day, on a bus, indulging themselves in a luxury because they choose to drive? And if they don't want to be criticised for indluging in luxuries they should move closer to their work? Or someone who moves to Greenlaw and becomes heavily reliant on a car? In saying 'heavily reliant' above, you've answered your own question.

 

reliance: dependence on another person or on something such as a service or a device, and the need for something that he, she, or it provides.

 

[blondejamtart]

You don't always have to live out in the middle of nowhere for a car to be, perhaps not strictly speaking "essential", but for life to be pretty damned awkward without one.

For instance, Gorebridge and Bonnyrigg are maybe three miles apart, but to get from one to the other by bus isn't as simple as it seems. There is one direct service, but it's very frequent and stops at a ridiculously early time.

On a practical level, there is no way I could get my son to his twice-weekly football practice in Loanhead without a car - the time involved for him to get there and back using public transport would make it completely impractical.

[Sharpie]

Do you still have to just carry the Certificate of Insurance with no indication on the vehicle to indicate that a current insurance is in existence. Of course our system is different I know, but when we relicence our vehicle, it includes our insurance, which is run by the Province, we keep the same plates but get a tag every year which we affix to the plate indicating date of expiry of licence and insurance. The old practise of new plates every year is now long gone.

 

If you so desire you can take out additions to the insurance through a private company, I find my Provincial coverage satisfactory.

[BlackJAC?]

who doesn't want to spend hours, every day, on a bus = Can't be arsed sitting on a bus, like many others have to do on a daily basis- That's exactly my point. There's a huge difference between something being a nessesity and simply can not be arsed sitting on a bus. The choice is still there irrespective of ones personal feelings. Take 1 of 2 choices away and suddenly you're left with a nessesity.

 

If I'm going to split hairs, though, I'd say a necessity is something like food, water, sanitation, access to medical care etc. You?ve admitted to can make it to and from work without a car, so because your survival isn?t dependant on it, then yes, yes it is a luxury.

 

As for your football, that's akin to saying a TV is a nessesity which i think almost everyone would agree is a luxury.

[Cigaro]

Do you still have to just carry the Certificate of Insurance with no indication on the vehicle to indicate that a current insurance is in existence. Of course our system is different I know, but when we relicence our vehicle, it includes our insurance, which is run by the Province, we keep the same plates but get a tag every year which we affix to the plate indicating date of expiry of licence and insurance. The old practise of new plates every year is now long gone.

 

If you so desire you can take out additions to the insurance through a private company, I find my Provincial coverage satisfactory.

My insurance certificate has never been in the car with me. I dont think you need to have proof as the police can check up on it on their system.

[milky_26]

My insurance certificate has never been in the car with me. I dont think you need to have proof as the police can check up on it on their system.

 

yeah, but if they cant for whatever reason, all you have to do is produce it at your nearest police station within 7 days. (i could be wrong and it might be a longer time)

[The People's Chimp]

You don't always have to live out in the middle of nowhere for a car to be, perhaps not strictly speaking "essential", but for life to be pretty damned awkward without one.

For instance, Gorebridge and Bonnyrigg are maybe three miles apart, but to get from one to the other by bus isn't as simple as it seems. There is one direct service, but it's very frequent and stops at a ridiculously early time.

On a practical level, there is no way I could get my son to his twice-weekly football practice in Loanhead without a car - the time involved for him to get there and back using public transport would make it completely impractical.

 

Your son's football is a luxury, apparently. You better tell him that's why he can't go anymore!

[Therapist]

There must be stiffer penalties for these selfish people like instant seizure of there car and a years ban.

 

Agree with the principle but I'd suggest...

 

Seizure/crushing of their car

 

Automatic 3 year ban

 

Extended re-test when the ban is up

[Cigaro]

yeah, but if they cant for whatever reason, all you have to do is produce it at your nearest police station within 7 days. (i could be wrong and it might be a longer time)

Yeah I think thats right.

 

Maybe if it was compulsory to carry the documentation and they did random stop and searches it would deter uninsured drivers.

[BlackJAC?]

Hahaha. Love when people do that, try to make out i have issues where there are no issues. I think my initial point was if you?re going to have a car and have issues with the expenses, then do what others do ? get the f?n bus. Becasue believe it or not, for every daily journey there's almost always a mode of public transport to get you there.

[Therapist]

On a practical level, there is no way I could get my son to his twice-weekly football practice in Loanhead without a car - the time involved for him to get there and back using public transport would make it completely impractical.

 

Make him run there and back as part of his training. Kids are mollycoddled these days.

[Sharpie]

My insurance certificate has never been in the car with me. I dont think you need to have proof as the police can check up on it on their system.

 

Yes I go back to the days when the police didn,t have a system, radios, or hand cuffs, so I am pretty sure in those days you had to produce. The only people that were exempt were Royal Mail, they didn't need anything because you couldn't sue the Queen. That just shows how long its been since I was in the polis there.

[Fat Bob]

I like my car, I use my car, and I pay for the privilege, its taxed, serviced, MOT'd, and insured. Which all costs me money, which I'm quite happy to pay for the privilege of going where I want when I want. So the extra cost of having to pay for uninsured drivers really grinds my gears. One of my old cars was damaged by an uninsured driver bout six years ago, its only been in the last couple of years that I've got my full no claims bonus back.

So for me its dead easy, no insurance, no car. Confiscate it, crush it, and give the owner a years ban.

 

[Miller Jambo 60]

Make him run there and back as part of his training. Kids are mollycoddled these days.

 

Aye hes going to do that right enough.

Kids want lifts everywhere now, in my day i got on my bike:smiley2:

[Therapist]

Aye hes going to do that right enough.

 

If he doesn't want to do it, then take a belt to his backside. He'll be glad to pound the road rather than suffer that.

[I P Knightley]

Do you still have to just carry the Certificate of Insurance with no indication on the vehicle to indicate that a current insurance is in existence.

 

It's all moved on now, Bob.

 

We apply for the tax disc online and simply put in the registration of the car. The 'system' checks whether the car has a valid MOT and insurance and, if not, chucks you out of the application pages straight away.

[Miller Jambo 60]

If he doesn't want to do it, then take a belt to his backside. He'll be glad to pound the road rather than suffer that.

 

Ha Ha yer a cruel man.

[Therapist]

Ha Ha yer a cruel man.

 

It never did me any harm Doug.

[blondejamtart]

If he doesn't want to do it, then take a belt to his backside. He'll be glad to pound the road rather than suffer that.

 

Yes - I'd like to see me try that one. He's about 10 inches taller than me and a damned sight stronger!

[Therapist]

Yes - I'd like to see me try that one. He's about 10 inches taller than me and a damned sight stronger!

 

Get your husband/partner to sort him out. Anyway, I'm sure you could give him a leathering anyway. Any laddie that would hit his mother is either a psycho and/or been brought up without a moral compass.

[The People's Chimp]

Hahaha. Love when people do that, try to make out i have issues where there are no issues. I think my initial point was if you?re going to have a car and have issues with the expenses, then do what others do ? get the f?n bus. Becasue believe it or not, for every daily journey there's almost always a mode of public transport to get you there.

 

I was just in the mood for a wee debate.

 

Anyway, better go and finish up so I can get in my car and drive home.

[mulleted_jambo]

Slightly off topic but are there any special circumstances where you would get away with driving withou insurace??

 

The reason I ask is I was playig football earlier in the week and my mate pulled his hamstring and could't drive home. He was going to get his dad to get a taxi to come and pick him up. I cosidered driving it but didn't want to take the risk. In the end another guy(who was't insured) drove it home.

 

What do you think would happen in that situation if he got pulled over by the police??? It would probably depend on the cop that pulled you over and if they thought you were genuine. It seems stupid to have to pay for a taxi to come and pick him up but technically thats what he should have done.

 

Thoughts???

[Miller Jambo 60]

Slightly off topic but are there any special circumstances where you would get away with driving withou insurace??

 

The reason I ask is I was playig football earlier in the week and my mate pulled his hamstring and could't drive home. He was going to get his dad to get a taxi to come and pick him up. I cosidered driving it but didn't want to take the risk. In the end another guy(who was't insured) drove it home.

 

What do you think would happen in that situation if he got pulled over by the police??? It would probably depend on the cop that pulled you over and if they thought you were genuine. It seems stupid to have to pay for a taxi to come and pick him up but technically thats what he should have done.

 

Thoughts???

 

Maybe if said person was dying and you were taking him to Hospital.

[mulleted_jambo]

Maybe if said person was dying and you were taking him to Hospital.

 

Nah just not able to drive. No harm done though they didn't get stopped:2thumbsup:

[The People's Chimp]

Nah just not able to drive. No harm done though they didn't get stopped:2thumbsup:

 

It's not about getting stopped though, it's about what happens if he was involved in a crash...

[frankblack]

 

So you would put the onus on someone selling a car to make sure the purchaser insures it? How are you going to do that?

 

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the seller and for so many reasons, that I'm not even going to start reeling them off.

 

You have just made an arse of yourself.

 

If the owner sells the car on the side but doesn't send the red slip back to the DVLA naming the new owner, the uninsured driver gets away with it, and is not traceable say they give false details at the scene of an accident.

[jambopompey]

If the cost for car insurance is absurd, then surely it's a case of you just don't buy a car if you can't afford the costs that go with having a car, no?

 

People that rely on having a car have put themselves in that position, no one else. After all, I and many others have managed all our adult lives to get to and from everywhere without having ever owned a car.

 

Unless your job relies on you having a mode of transportation i.e. a taxi driver et al, then it can be easily deemed as a luxury. If you want a luxury, then be prepared to pay for it.

 

Edit: that was aimed at Cigaro.

 

Dress it up any which way you want to, but having a car is a luxury. There are people out there that do use public transport for those examples you have just given. For example my brother stays in Pencaitland (sp) and he states he needs a car to get to and from work, yet there are many that use the bus service, so straight away I know he?s talking bull. Like my brother, your main argument seems to hinge around time saving rather than necessity. If something isn?t a necessity, then it?s a luxury.

 

Lets assume the residents of Pencaitland do indeed need a car for essential travel, then that surely backs up my other point ? people choose to put themselves in a position where they come to rely on a car as to get from a to b, then back to a?

 

How do all us public transport users manage to hold down jobs, go to football matches, have relationships if it all hinges on having a car? It?s easy; nothing relies on anyone having a car unless you yourself put yourself in a position that you have no choice but to rely on a car.

 

A car is a luxury.

 

i have just started to read this thread and picked out your first 2 posts, not everyone has the luxury of a public transport system that can get them to work in time, i know from my own personal work, that the car is the only way i can get to work in time, also part of my job is to be on-call over the weekends where my car is essential, yes for the on-call part i do get reimburse for use of my own car at the agreed level.

Now if i stayed in the city and worked close to a transport line that got me to work on time then i would give my car up, but until then i have to have a car, either that or i could just go on the dole and scrounge of the tax payers

[frankblack]

i have just started to read this thread and picked out your first 2 posts, not everyone has the luxury of a public transport system that can get them to work in time, i know from my own personal work, that the car is the only way i can get to work in time, also part of my job is to be on-call over the weekends where my car is essential, yes for the on-call part i do get reimburse for use of my own car at the agreed level.

Now if i stayed in the city and worked close to a transport line that got me to work on time then i would give my car up, but until then i have to have a car, either that or i could just go on the dole and scrounge of the tax payers

 

Agree.

 

I stay within the city limits but the bus service is crap unless you want to go right into the city centre.

 

To get to work, I have a choice of a 10 minute walk to a bus stop for a 21 bus then a 50 minute bus journey once it arrives. It can take 25 minutes in the car, depending on traffic.

[Tazio]

I choose to have a car as it means I can actually do things with my day off. Otherwise fitting things like shopping, a round of golf and a visit to my Mums house is impossible to fit into one day. The rest of the week I rarely use it. However I pay for the privilege. And don't mind.

 

The only time I have driven uninsured was a week ago when my insurance and Mot ran out at the same time. Obviously I didn't want to insure it for a year if it was going to fail it's Mot heavily and cost hundreds to make roadworthy.

 

The 200 yard drive to the garage was the most nervous I have ever been driving on the road. And I wouldn't do it again.

[Dave Spacey]

Not living in the city, and living in a town with not very much to do, not having a car in my household is annoying. I only stay a mile from my work so walk that which i don't mind. Most of my mates stay out of town, but thankfully on the bus route which is probably the only one still running at midnight. If we wan't to do anything that doesn't involve going to the pub it gets annoying. If we want to go to the cinema (get the direct bus, about half hour for me, hour for them). but if we're there after 7pm Which you generally would be through the week) there is no direct buses, and it takes them the best part of 2 hours to get home, when it takes 25 mins in the car. So realisticly we have to plan well in advance and can only generally do things at the weekend.

 

If you don't live in the city and don't have a car, your very much limited to whats around you. If you do commute to the city each each day, i would personally use public transport, but depending on when you work thats not always the case. I have missed out on a lot of jobs that i really wanted because i needed a car to get to them.

 

If driving without insurance is illegal, why don't they set up something like the road tax when they know it runs out.

[The People's Chimp]

You have just made an arse of yourself.

 

If the owner sells the car on the side but doesn't send the red slip back to the DVLA naming the new owner, the uninsured driver gets away with it, and is not traceable say they give false details at the scene of an accident.

 

Mate, You're buzzing.

 

Strangely enough, the police are pretty good at getting the correct details from someone after an accident.

 

But the reality is - someone can be insured, and have all the certificates, for a month. Then simply stop paying....

 

What you suggest is dangerous nanny statism and any political plan which encourages people to lie, or to grasss up their neighbour, friend or family member, is very, very dangerous.

 

If you'd like to illustrate how I made an arse of myself, then please oblige...

[mattyw_1874]

I actually have a lot of time for the police in this aspect. Tonight i was pulled over as i am 18 and was driving the new Fiesta Zetec with the turbo 1.6 its amazing. It is rented as my regular punto is in to garage the now. So the police seen this (i am guessing as i was doing nout wrong going 40 in a 40 nobody else about) and just checked my details asked me to provide my insurance details within 7 days.

 

From a personal point of view i am ****ed off because now I need to look out the insurance details and take them up the the police station tomorrow but i understand why they done it and i wasn't exactly surprised. The biggest problem is the number of people on the roads, they cant check everyone so people will get away with it.

[frankblack]

Mate, You're buzzing.

 

You are a patronising, arrogant, self-obsessed loser, and need to get a life and some friends. Before you report this to the mods like the girl you are, remember you started and repeated the abuse.

 

Strangely enough, the police are pretty good at getting the correct details from someone after an accident.

 

Not if its a minor bump and the drivers exchange details without police involvement.

 

I'm talking particularly about banned drivers who cannot get insurance because they are banned so try and drive other peoples cars (girfriend, etc), buy cars second hand without registering themselves as the owner (or get someone else to buy the car for them), etc.

 

Once someone is already banned for driving uninsured, banning them again isn't a deterrent.

 

But the reality is - someone can be insured, and have all the certificates, for a month. Then simply stop paying....

 

Then the car should be taken off road and declared as SORN. The TV Licensing authorities are quick enough to send reminders and chase up people with no TV license, so I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to cars that have expired insurance.

 

If you have nothing to hide you would declare your vehicle as SORN when it is off road. The technology should be there already to detect when cars without insurance or declared as SORN go through a speed camera, so the Police should be following up all those incidents.

 

It is pretty difficult to drive around the city nowadays without crossing a speed camera at some point.

 

What you suggest is dangerous nanny statism and any political plan which encourages people to lie, or to grasss up their neighbour, friend or family member, is very, very dangerous.

 

If you'd like to illustrate how I made an arse of myself, then please oblige...

 

See above.