Safe Speed Forums

I have seen a lot of posts about uninsured drivers, and as i spend a great deal of my time at work suing uninsured drivers, i thought i would share my opinions.

1. Uninsured drivers are extremely dangerous. I regularly encounter uninsured drivers who already have 5 or 6 court judgments against them following previous accidents.
2. The scale of uninsured driving is drastically underplayed by the Police and government. The police invariably tell the victims of uninsured driver's just to leave it in the hands of their insurers. They wont turn out to an accident where a driver is uninsured, unless someone is injured.
3. Police regularly ignore uninsured drivers. Even if they turn up at an accident where a driver is uninsured, about half the time they will take no action.
4. Uninsured drivers are effectively untouchable. If they are on benefits, they cannot be forced to pay compensation. In fact, they will be provided with the 'help at court scheme', where our taxes will fund solicitors to write to anyone claiming, advising that their clients are too poor to pay.
My conclusion is that the only solution to uninsured driving is to automatically crush any uninsured car immediately, and to deduct fines and compensation from benefits.

Many here share your concerns, including myself.

But the solution you are proposing seems impossible.

A careful read of official estimates put the numbers uninsured at about 2.1m and rising at at least 100,000 pa.

The Police do not seem able to prosecute more than about 250,000 pa nor crush more than about 100,000 cars pa.

This is not even keeping up with the growth, and the nastier types are back on the road in two weeks in another throw-away vehicle.

I think it is now so big that we must ensure that everyone is insured by placing a 3rd party insurance premium levy on motor fuel. No more uninsured drivers. Sorted.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Another solution would be to regulate the sale and purchase of cars. Private sales could be outlawed. The only sales channels allowed could be via auction houses, dealer part exchange, or approved seller schemes for low volume traders. All buyers must show a full and valid driving licence when purchasing and proof of address which the seller needs to verify and keep a copy of. The car could only then be registered to the person whose bank account bought the car. The car would then have to be taxed, insured etc only in the name of that person until a change of owner via this process. Fake id will of course be a problem as usual.

Having insurance added to the cost of fuel doesn't stop the unlicenced from buying cars. Those with driving convictions shouldn't be able to own a car either. If they wanted to keep it while they served a ban then there should be some car prison they could take their car to or some other immobilisation method provided so they could not drive any car they already owned.

I'd also change the regs so that a 12 point speeding fine only tot up lead to something like community punishment instead which would discharge the person in 12 months and let them run up another 12 points over 3 years providing they had a reasonable accident free driving record.

Your first scheme is not practical as being able to drive is not a qualification for owning a car. Then there is the issue of company purchases - companies don't drive.

It's not being unlicensed that's at issue - it's no insurance.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Ouch, Teabelly, I don't like the sound of that.

No more casual traders? Some people make a good fair living that way.

What about the blind person who buys a car to be driven around by a carer? (for example... also old folk, disabled folk, non-driving folk etc)

Mr Scroat shows his licence for the purchase of a car for the unlicenced junior Scroat (1,000 times a day perhaps?).

What about company ownership? Companies don't have driving licences. If I want to cheat the system I just buy an off-the-shelf company to buy my car.

And that's just the start - isn't it?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

At the moment car purchase is a free for all with few checks on those buying cars. Either car buying needs to be more closely regulated or there needs to be some way of drying up the supply of throwaway vehicles. Once cheap bangers disappear (bad news for the less well off I know) then the possibility for Mr Scrote to buy a banger and drive around not worrying about it being crushed for being uninsured becomes less likely as it will involve a substantial cost if he has to cough up £1k + for every single car that is crushed.

What other choices are there? There are never going to be enough traffic police to deal with 2 million + uninsured/unlicensed drivers often enough to put them off doing it.

In some areas driving off without paying is already at epidemic proportions Paying before filling has become the norm after dark in a lot of places.

More seriously what about a system like Germany? Where the plate belongs to the driver not the car? And which also acts as car tax and confirmation of insurance etc. The Germans are very possessive about their plates - I'm guessing because the law comes down hard on them if it gets misused.

As for outlawing private sales

And I'm sorry but it just isn't good enough that people who are on benefits avoid payments. For a work project I once spent half a day in a magistrates and I can't think of a more depressing and frustrating place. Most of them more than deserved to go hungry for a few days but invariably they fecundity comes into play and our hands are tied.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

Well, we can nick anyone who deliberately drives off without paying for fuel for uninsured driving too then. Sounds good to me.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

It's all about risk; Risk of getting caught and the risk of consequences of being caught, it is this balance that is out with regard to uninsured driving

Lets look at the problem; insurance cost is out of the reach of most young drivers and to be fair many more mature as well. A young kid who has passed his test and may well have a reasonable attitude to driving may well need to find several times the value of the car to pay for insurance, my nephew was quoted £2500 for a 1985 fiesta TPFT. This gives rise to the risks thoughts

What is the risk of being caught? Well it has been pretty low recently, the lack of police on the streets has created a lack of expectation of being caught, the risk has increased slightly with the expansion of ANPR but then comes the second risk

Rsk of punishment typically a fiost time offender will get a maximium of £250 and 3 points, how is that going to be a deterrent when compared with a £2500 premium, especially when the court fine can be paid over a number of months .

I disagree with third party insurance on fuel, but I do think that there should be a cap on the premiums that can be charged against drivers for TP insurance, lets say that this was 200 per year. OK this will do nothing against the TWOCKERS etc but then again the deterrent against that needs to be higher, and the risk of getting caught greater, it all comes back to having an effective system of policing and justice.

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

So the whole family suffers? Why can't perfectly lawfully taxed/insured car be driven by other members of the family?

I have seen people keep their jobs (and company cars) after being banned by getting their wife to chauffeur them for their job.

Your incredibly punitive scheme would stop this

The problem is that in the UK we insure the driver in the first instance; in Germany, they insure the vehicle.

If we adopted any other system it would be a huge upheaval. And would doubtless cost the law abiding more. But just how bad are we prepared to let this get? As has been mentioned we're not only now having to cope with that section of society who just don't give a damned and will avoid paying for anything. We're also putting mighty temptation in the way of loads more who would pay if the cost was 'reasonable'.

There will be ways and means of tackling those who are tempted but as for those who never contemplated paying in the first place; for the car, driving lessons, insurance etc etc I really don't know what to do. Prison isn't a great solution but it's clearly the only way of stopping a significant minority for driving. Watch any traffic cop show to witness the regularity with which they catch those who will not stop unless physically prevented. A mate suggested we cut off their hands - he had had a beer or two - but then the we'd have to pay for the State to wipe their a*ses. The only way of stopping these people is Draconian measures - prison being the only socially acceptable one so it seems. I just don't know that we have a solution because there is a class in our society for whom lawlessness is endemic, and driving cars illegally is just one of the problems they create.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

I think the idea of a fuel levy is a red herring. You only need to buy 1 gallon to drive your car through a bus queue-here's absolutely no relation between risk and payment. This would just encourage idiots to drive recklessly, because they wouldnt even risk a financial penalty when they bought their next car and their next gallon.

Incidentally, they have this system in South Africa, and for exactly that reason, it doesnt work-their road accident fund regularly runs out of money to pay claims.

secondly, everyone makes the assumption that everyone who is uninsured is too poor to pay a fine, and that just isnt true. A great many of them have made a financial decision to risk driving without insurance, because the benefit outweighs the penalty that is risked. Many of the people i sue own their own house and are in work. However, even if it was true, should that be a factor? If a fine causes hardship, thats the risk you take when you break the law.

Finally, because driving without insurance is a risk/benefit decision, it will decline of its own accord as soon as the Police and government begin to impose severe penalties.

Once it declines, our premiums will fall, accident rates will fall, congestion will fall, and crime generally will fall, because most crimes are dependent on having an untraceable vehicle.

Of course, this is real time footage and not selected/edited for the car chases...? I would actually say that the opposite might be true - judging by the number of times the same clip is replayed on the program.

Showing people pulling over at the first flash of the lights/blip of the siren probably wouldn't be seen as good TV.

The reason that it isn't a red herring is that the authorities aren't even capable of allocating sufficient resources to uninsured driving. It's out of control. It's far too late to fix with a conventional approach.

Severe penalties aren't a bad idea, but the enforcement means has to exist to make the threat credible - and the means of enforcement doesn't exist.

I've been looking at this on and off for years now and I am quite sure that the battle against uninsured driving has been comprehensively lost. The only answer is to give up and move on to something that we CAN control. (bad driving / drunk driving / etc).

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

My Approach is to include a 3rd party insurance levy on fuel, but for it to remain an offence not to have your own, that way victims are paid out regardless (and hopefully the levy remains a small fraction of fuel costs) but the scrote driver keeps their responsibilities.

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

Good idea.

Perhaps some more effect might be had by hitting the source of the throways on the road - those fixing them up . Suspect the police have good intelligence on back street/on the road cowboys. Perhaps target them as they did the booze and fag importers with DSS/Tax/ Dvla etc - and make the work unprofitable. Add to that , enforce the address stipulations on SORN ---we get told of the many PCSO's roaming the neighbourhoods - let them check out cars stored in gardens etc against the database .If not registered SORN at that address , a visit from a squad aof the above.

2p worth.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

That's just a different way of paying for the Motor Insurance Bureau.

The problem of 2m+ drivers working outside the system remains. I think we need to get many of them back into the system any way we can.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

These are exactly the types that can perhaps be persuaded to drive legally. But as well as stiffer penalties from the 'can do but won't dos' we do need to consider that demanding £2500 from a teen to insure a 1.3 Eurobox is going to result in uninsured driving.



I wasn't so much thinking of the drivers stopped after a chase but the ones pulled over on a hunch, who habitually lie about their name, or having insurance or a full licence. The Traffic Cops series on BBC and Road Wars on Sky have been somewhat less sensational than the endless repeats of Police Camera Action, which I'll agree was all about the chases. It is hard to say how many are thus in a day but the cops stop the ones that that ping their radars so it's probably pretty much as bad as it looks, if not worse, they can't stop everyone. Some will be in the 'can do but won't dos' catagory but a significant number just don't care if they're banned etc and will drive unless physically prevented. It's those that I can't see a solution for.



If they come knocking on my door they be leaving with a flea in their ear. I have a Mk1 GTi Golf in the backyard, not SORNed and doesn't need to be.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

I'd be very very worried about increasing the 'stop and tow' powers that rely currently on a dodgy computer system.

TBH I'm actually getting worried about putting my custom bike back on the road just in case they try to take it for not being insured (which of course it will be...)

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.