The combination of the ‘libertarian’ (?) Lib-Dems and the ‘rolling back the State’ (?) Conservatives are bulldozing their way to ever more impressive authoritarian heights.

If your car is uninsured it is liable to be crushed (and shipped to China as scrap, no doubt!)

Not merely if you are driving whilst uninsured, which has been the case since 2005 – the police chew up around 500 cars a day under this power – but now for owning a car which is uninsured.

Mike Penning, the Road Safety Minister is, in short, about to use his delegated powers to change the law for motorists and make it an offence to ‘be equipped to commit a crime’ – ie. To own a car which you could potentially drive on the road uninsured. The regulation, Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE), is expected to get the go-ahead within weeks.

There are many reasons why you might own an uninsured car – apart from the obvious examples of classic car owners who only drive them in the summer, to cars currently undergoing reconstruction in some suburban garage, to the District Nurse who realises that her insurance has inconveniently run out before pay day and who nobly takes the bus to work – only to find that her car has been crushed by our State Police on her return.

Now before you all jump up and down and tell me of the horrors of someone you know who was paralysed for life following a road traffic accident with an uninsured driver, I am aware that uninsured and untraced drivers kill 160 people and injure 23,000 every year.

I am also aware that according to the Motor Insurers Bureau, uninsured drivers are FIVE times more likely to be engaged in other criminal activity. The Motor Insurers Bureau claim that 40% of cars seized by police whilst being driven by an uninsured driver are never reclaimed. From which I deduce that uninsured drivers are far more likely to be people who couldn’t give a monkey’s about the change in the law, possibly do not even have permission to drive the car they have just been stopped in and couldn’t care less if it is crushed or not. They will merely steal another one, change the number plates and continue as before. Recent research shows one in five uninsured drivers fail to stop at the scene of an accident they have been involved in – this proposal will do nothing to help that situation.

Those like the classic car enthusiasts do not need a SORN declaration, and the long time restorers will have dutifully filled in their SORN paperwork and be in the clear.

The only people the new law will actually impact on and forfeit vehicles from, will be a few hard up individuals like my District Nurse example, or a student waiting for his grant money to come through, who have been ‘caught short’, even though not driving the vehicle.

There is also the small problem that it is actually the driver, not the car, which is insured. If I insure my car with myself as the sole driver – and then lend it to you, who are insured to drive any vehicle – will the car be considered to be insured or not? If you hit someone whilst driving my car, my insurance is irrelevant – it makes no difference whether I am insured or not – it is your policy that will be called on.

It is said that one reason for this change is the estimated £30 a year premium on all insurance policies to cover the costs incurred by uninsured motorists – if that was really a concern, then a premium on fuel, which HAS to be used by all drivers regardless of their insurance situation, would have cured that ill more effectively than a tax based on number plates and registration with the Motor Insurance Bureau. In addition to solving the problem of insurance dodging, it would collect the most revenue from those who use the road most, and/or those who drive the thirstiest vehicles. Even the criminal fraternity would be contributing!

No need for Parking Meter attendants to peer at the windscreen to see if you are taxed, no need for a central database, no need for the Police CCTV cameras to monitor the movements of all vehicles……

Can anybody come up with a better solution?

Rilla January 18, 2011 at 18:48

Whats that sir, no insurance, that will be 2 years prison………oh wait sir,
you say your in the process of claiming asylum?, that will be
deportation………..

Really is it that hard?, rather than going after the motorist (YEY AGAIN)
why dont the bloody government tackle the real problems blighting the UK. Most
uninsured, unlicenced, uncaring drivers are either foreign, not born here or
not even meant to be here.

I am well and truly pissed off with the way the government goes about
‘looking after our best interests’. Country is flooded with people who
shouldnt even be here, sponging their way through life at our expense and
making no contribution to society at all other than to keep insurance firms
going through crimes.

white, born here and actually meant to be here?………………that will be taxable
sir……….

Anonymous January 11, 2011 at 18:51

Cynical maybe, but under the last government ministers queued up to
announce public safety legislation/regulation that was unlikely to have any
significant public benefit, whilst imposing further restrictions on the law
abiding majority. Bad laws were never repealed, merely added to by the next
minister in the relevant department.

Seems that Mr Price has learned the same trick as his predecessors.

bnzss January 11, 2011 at 05:06

This is surely a reminder that those who commit criminal acts (with
victims) don’t give a monkey’s about the law. So making up a new law is like
pissing in the wind.

DaveK January 10, 2011 at 21:12

Have read several posts on this topic today and it seems there is a huge
amount of paranoia.

At the moment it seems the offence is driving without insurance, so you
have to catch the culprits red handed.

This rule appears to provide the ability to check if a car is insured and
if not the owner is to be given a set time to pay for insurance and if not
done a fine will be levied, this can escalate and the vehicle may be seized
and destroyed.

Like any idea there always seems to be unintended consequences, in this
case the person saving to pay for their insurance whilst parking the car on
the public highway (however the set time should hopefully cover this).

However in this scenario if the vehicle was stolen then you have lost
everything. The best thing to do would be move it off road and SORN it till
you can pay your insurance.

In my experience although you are the one insured it is linked to a vehicle
registered on the policy which can be checked on the Motor Insurance Database.
If you are comprehensively covered then you are allowed to drive a friends
vehicle as long as it is insured by them, and you will only be covered to 3rd
party level.

As for the renovation/classic car or bike aspect, I insure mine
3PF&T.

Dave

SadButMadLad January 11, 2011 at 10:02

“However in this scenario if the vehicle was stolen then you have lost
everything. The best thing to do would be move it off road and SORN it till
you can pay your insurance.”

Everyone takes a risk for everything and balances accordingly. The chance
of your car being stolen during the few days it’s uninsured whilst you save
up having paid for a high electricity bill is pretty low unless you live in
a high crime area where you will probably not pay your electricity bill to
ensure that your car is insured. You balance the paying of the leccy bill
against the insurance bill.

Also, not everyone can take their car off the road. Many people do not to
have any off road storage of any sort and can only park on the road. They
are disadvantaged by this rule (and that of SORN) through no fault of their
own.

Chalcedon January 10, 2011 at 15:10

If you fill in the SORN declaration where you keep the car off road and
untaxed then you don’t have to insure it. At first sight these stories do seem
rather authoritarian, but on inestigation aren’t quite as stupid as you at
first think they are.

SadButMadLad January 11, 2011 at 09:58

Actually they are quite stupid. Life is not a simple case of black and
white – it’s grey. There are times when a fully law abiding person could
have an uninsured vehicle on the road and taxed. On holiday, ill, visiting
friends/relatives, working away from home, etc. Life is full of surprises
and unknowns.

If they are busy, distracted, just don’t know (ignorance of the law is no
defence as the authotarians will say – great when there are hundreds of laws
that you might break every day), they might not have bothered to change the
tax disc from a fully paid one to a free SORN one and then be prepared to
pay for the new tax disc when they have sorted out their little excursion.
More hassle for not much benefit other than the authorities having more law
abiding people forced to insure their car for no real reason.

The law avoiding people who don’t bother with insurance or registering
their car or paying tax will still get away with it. The new law doesn’t
catch any more of these sort of people as they are already covered by
existing laws.

If you have police catching and fining someone because the “computer says
no” due to some cock-up by the DVLA (how many times have they appeared on
Watchdog?) but not going into areas where untaxed cars abound then the law
is an ass.

Andrew Duffin
January 10, 2011 at 10:16

@Richard B: “I wonder how much the insurance industry paid, and to whom, to
get this one on the books?”

That’s the point.

Most of these sorts of “laws”, and especially EU regulations, are a result
of lobbying by the big businesses involved. See under incandescent lamp ban,
regulation of herbal “medicine”, and many many other examples.

This one will be no exception.

Ian R Thorpe January 9, 2011 at 19:47

The nudger is turning out to be more of a threat than Room 101 was for The
Thought Police or the wagging finger of Nanny State and her assistant Fi
Vaday.

wassname January 9, 2011 at 18:51

David Cameron on regulation: one in, one out. Which reg is Mike Penning
going to scrap, when and how, and btw who’s keeping a tally on that?

Glebealyth January 9, 2011 at 17:28

Yes, I can come up with a better idea:

Add insurance to the cost of petrol so that only the drivers pay AND all
drivers pay. No such thing, then, as an uninsured driver.

Unlicensed drivers, when caught, should have their hands and feet and
benefit entitlements removed.

davidb January 9, 2011 at 17:17

Its not just insurance companies who benefit. There is a tax on insurance
premiums – and its real easy for them to collect as it comes from only a
handful of giant ( rich ) companies. The jacked it up to 6% in their first
budget.

Maybe its because we’re all in it together
.

woodsy42 January 9, 2011 at 15:54

I notice in the MSM it does say SORN will still be valid, but that’s not
much comfort as that is often used as a trick to catch the unwary – like the
fact it’s automaticaly cancelled on change of owner.
But surely we could
have fun with the idea:
“an offence to ‘be equipped to commit a crime’ –
”
Well, I have a workshop with knives, saws, large hammers, chainsaw etc,
and while I seem to have mislaid the bath and acid I think I’m equipped to
commit a bit of mayhem should I be that way inclined.
How long until we are
allowed one rubber hammer and a plastic screwdriver per household?

guthrum January 9, 2011 at 15:20

Yay. More ill thought regulation. Keep the public sector going at all
costs

Cheapest solutionn no road tax. Annual number plate when you renew you
insurance

Silly me that would cut public sector empployment

Gaylord
Blunderbus January 9, 2011 at 14:37

Whilst agreeing with the general sentiment here am I right in understanding
that your alternative solution would be third party insurance on all vehicles
funded by a premium on fuel?

This would of course end the problem of uninsured drivers but would also
create the problem of newly qualified drivers being able to jump straight into
a Subaru Impreza or Mitsubishi Evo without the problem of paying thousands for
insurance. The thought of all those inexperienced drivers jumping from their
1.1 Saxos and into something with several hundred BHP is more than a little
worrying.

JohnM de Melle
January 9, 2011 at 13:33

You write, “Not merely if you are driving whilst uninsured, which has been
the case since 2005 – the police chew up around 500 cars a day under this
power – but now for OWNING a car which is uninsured.”

As I understand it, you are the KEEPER of the vehicle: BUT, then who is the
OWNER ?

SadButMadLad
January 9, 2011 at 13:23

Damn, you beat me to it Anna. I was going to write something about this
twonk’s latest brain storm.

Basically he is saying that if you don’t use your car but still have it
taxed you must have insurance. If you don’t use your car and don’t want to pay
insurance you must have a SORN. So in effect forcing people to either take
insurance or switch from paying for a tax disc to applying for a SORN.

More bureaucracy for no benefit as it won’t make any difference to those
who currently ignore insurance and tax. It only penalises the generally law
abiding general public who might fall foul of this new law (if it gets
implemented) through no fault of their own and who probably most likely won’t
even know of it’s existence – ignorance is no get out clause when it comes to
the law, you are expected to know the thousands of laws that affect your day
to day life by the state.

It all smells of insurance company lobbying and a department desperate to
be seen to be doing lots of work so that they can keep their budgets and high
salaries. I also suspect that Mike Penning’s brain must have fallen out of his
head when he entered Westminster as he seems to have lacked any common sense
and got hooked line and sinker by the lies from his civil servants.

Joe Public January 9, 2011 at 12:12

“Mike Penning, the Road Safety Minister is, in short, about to use his
delegated powers to change the law …and make it an offence to ‘be equipped to
commit a crime’ ”

As a prick, he’s got one, so could be a potential rapist?

Michael January 9, 2011 at 11:56

Yet another crime of omission, rather than commission. Very depressing
indeed.

Richard B January
9, 2011 at 11:55

Another fine example of a law that will inconvenience the law-abiding,
while being completely ignored by the criminal fraternity. Handgun ban?

Actually, in practical terms, this isn’t as bad as all that. Long-term
restoration projects (like the Series 2 Landy sitting outside my window) are
on SORN, which is free; you just have to remember to do it. And classic
vehicles that do small mileages, for example to summer shows and rallies, can
be insured very cheaply on a classic, limited-mileage policy – and we are
talking about a sub-£100 premium in many cases. A lot of the classic nuts will
insure their cars year-round anyway, for the fire and theft part.

Having said that, I was in the position you describe just last month, when
the car insurance ran out and I had to wait to pay it until the pay-cheque
went in before I could renew. I was good as gold and borrowed Anna’s car for
those couple of weeks (-10 is not good motorbike weather), leaving my own car
safely on the drive. I would have been highly miffed if anyone had said that I
was committing an offence by doing so.

I wonder how much the insurance industry paid, and to whom, to get this one
on the books? It’ll be like Christmas for them.

Smoking
Hot January 9, 2011 at 11:23

The reason they give for this ridiculous new regulation is to stop
uninsured drivers which this regulation will have virtually no effect at all.
As you point out , it’s the driver who’s insured and not specifically the car
so anyone who ‘borrows’ your car can be uninsured and nobody would be the
wiser unless an accident etc happens.

Police ANPR already flag who the registered insured driver is already.
Which seems to work perfectly well (unless it’s just been insured and not on
the system yet) until said driver is a Mohammed or Boris who drive on ‘valid’
international driving licences who have just ‘borrowed’ the other
Mohammed/Boris’s car …. although the police have to assume this as
Mohammed/Boris is speaking in their native tongue as they can’t speak
English.

There’s an area of my city that you can go into and find untaxed vehicles
and presumably uninsured vehicles any day of the week. The police simply don’t
go there because it could spark an incident in that community. This isn’t just
the migrants, it’s a multi-cultural area but a deprived one and known as such.
Drugs and prostitution are rife and if you want anything cheap but not legal,
the local pubs are like an Argos … place your order and you’ll get it.

Got a speeding ticket and can’t afford the penalty points? No prob, for a
fee someone will take the speeding fine for you. This is primarily a migrant
business as police do not follow up these foreign names and addresses because
it’s not worth the effort … or indeed economically viable.

A lot of the vehicles in this area have a value far less than the cost of
the insurance so even if the car is taken by the police it makes no
difference. Another is bought for around 100 pound. This is the real world
which stupid government ministers know nothing about … or ignore it.

So, here we go again … regulations being implemented simply because it
looks as though the gov are doing something. Bah!

Spartan January 9, 2011 at 12:04

Do the cars have mot’s and the drivers have driving licences? Could they
insure them even if they wanted to?

Smoking Hot January 9, 2011 at 12:37

Simple answer … No

Zaphod January 9, 2011 at 11:18

I can’t disagree with any of this. Anyone else want to try?

JuliaM January
9, 2011 at 12:12

Not me!

PT January 9, 2011 at 13:17

Nor me.

Old Slaughter
January 9, 2011 at 10:51

Tougher sentaces for the uninsured (whilst driving).

Although, I sometimes feel it is harsh. My friend for example, when she
insured her car (by phone)the insurance company wrote down the wrong
registration number (1 digit out, it is assumed a typo).
When pulled over
randomly sometime later she was endorsed for 6 points for being uninsured, the
insurance company kept the six months of insurance payment they had so far
charged and accepted no responsibility.

woodsy42 January 9, 2011 at 10:43

I had not heard of this, but it’s very worrying. Apart from the usual
nonsenses – a minister making new ‘law’ with no discussion whatsoever and the
ongoing assumption that everyone is guilty we have a camper van, which like
many is only used part of the year. Also I have two classic cars which are
only made street legal and used very intermittently.

gladiolys January 9, 2011 at 10:42

If one were paranoid… who, me?… one might say “No need for Parking Meter
attendants to peer at the windscreen to see if you are taxed, no need for a
central database, no need for the Police CCTV cameras to monitor the movements
of all vehicles……” is the reason why this new measure is being introduced…
Nothing justifies surveillance so much as the opportunity to prevent one
breaking the law.