Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat May 02, 2026 20:11

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
Here
Quote:
ONE IN FIVE DRIVING WITHOUT INSURANCE
About 250,000 young people already breaking the law
As many as 250,000 young people between the ages of 17 and 20 are estimated to be driving without insurance, according to figures released today by the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB). This group is four times over-represented in claims to the MIB and highlights the significant proportion of young people with a driving licence (about 1.25 million) causing accidents without any insurance cover. Many young
people incorrectly believe that insurance is based on the value of a car, as opposed to the risk profile of the person driving.
No-claims bonuses and other discounts can lower premiums by as much as 65% and young drivers should start to build up a record of safe driving from the outset. Furthermore, research for the MIB shows that one in ten young drivers are not aware that motor insurance is a legal requirement.
The police are being more successful in taking uninsured vehicles off the UK road network – as many as 500 a day – and the penalties for driving without insurance are serious: the police seize the uninsured vehicle, the driver will get a fine and a minimum of 6 points on their licence. To have the vehicle returned, the registered keeper will still need to buy motor insurance.
Ashton West, Chief Executive of MIB said:
“Britain has one of the worst records in Europe for driving uninsured – around 5% of the population. Young people make up a significant number of uninsured drivers and with one in five newly qualified drivers having an accident in the first year of driving, they need to make choices based on the consequences of driving without insurance and not just on price alone. While we recognise the financial pressures for drivers taking to the roads for the first time, it is also a criminal offence to drive without proper insurance cover. More than £500 million in funds from law-abiding motorists are used every year to compensate people for property damage and personal injury as a result of uninsured drivers.”
www.mib.org.uk

Notes to editors
The Motor Insurers’ Bureau aims to significantly reduce the level and impact of uninsured driving by working closely with partners across government and the insurance industry. The Bureau guarantees compensation to victims involved in accidents with drivers who have no
insurance or failed to stop.
The Motor Insurance Database, introduced in 2001, is the only central record of more than 35 million registered vehicles in the UK. The MID supports a range of users entitled to different levels of information about insured vehicles, including the police, solicitors, the DVLA and the public.
All drivers can check their vehicle registration appears on the MID today at www.askMID.com. Since 2005, more than 550,000 uninsured vehicles have been seized by police using ANPR technology.
The Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) scheme scheduled to be in place by 2011, will identify vehicles that appear to be kept without insurance. The registered keeper will be reminded that insurance is a legal requirement and failure to have valid insurance will result in a fixed penalty.
Fast facts – uninsured driving
• Driving without valid insurance is a criminal offence and attracts 6-8 penalty points
• Uninsured and hit and run drivers injure 3 people every hour and kill 3 people every week
• A custodial sentence of up to 2 years is passed for those who kill while driving uninsured
• Research shows that uninsured drivers are 5 times more likely to be involved in road collisions, to fail to comply with other road traffic requirements, and to be engaged in other criminal activity
• The UK’s highest levels of uninsured drivers are concentrated in the West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, London Metropolitan and Merseyside
• Uninsured driving costs the UK more than £500 million every year
• In the UK about 5% of vehicles are uninsured, compared with 0.1% in Sweden and 0.2% in Germany
• The police convict around 230,000 people for uninsured driving every year
• More than 33,000 new claims against uninsured and untraced motorists were reported to the Bureau in 2008 – an average of 90 claims a day
• The number of claims involving uninsured and untraced vehicles has fallen by almost 13% in the last three years primarily as a result of police activity including vehicle seizure supported by the MIB police helpline.


Quote:
Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE)
The Road Safety Act became law in November 2006, and introduced a new offence which is aimed at overcoming the problem of vehicles not specifically covered by any insurance policy (even a blanket policy) being used by drivers who claim cover under their “driving other vehicles” extension. The requirement for insurance will apply to vehicles whether they are being driven or not.
The new approach will also have the added benefit that, like continuous vehicle registration, it can be enforced “from the record”, and vehicles need not be seen on the roads before action can be taken.
Once the necessary regulations are drawn up, it will be an offence to be the keeper of a vehicle which is not covered by a specified policy or by a blanket policy (“open cover contract”) covering vehicles owned by the policyholder or other party named in the policy. There will be specific exemptions, the main two of which will be that the vehicle has been statutorily declared off the road (SORNed) or a change of keeper is in the process of being completed by the DVLA.

The Act can be found at http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060049.htm
The detailed enforcement process is under discussion with the Government, and will not be finalised for some time. See press release [url=http://www.mib.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/6291A8F4-C89C-410E-B70E-166BC4C2E6EA/524/NoplacetohideforUKsuninsureddrivers.pdf]No Place to hide for UK's uninsured drivers.
RoSPA response Here Section :
Quote:
GENERAL COMMENTS
RoSPA welcomes the consultation paper and fully supports the concept of the continuous enforcement of motor insurance requirements from the record. In addition to Professor Greenaway’s report highlighted in the consultation, the National Document Compliance Check (Operation V79) identified that there is a significant number of people driving without insurance.
• 0.4 % of all vehicles stopped did not have a current Vehicle Excise Licence and were driven by an uninsured driver.
• 0.8% of all checks revealed an uninsured, unlicensed driver.
• 0.1% of all checks revealed an uninsured, unlicensed driver in an untaxed vehicle.
• 0.3% of all vehicles stopped were not displaying a current Vehicle Excise Licence and were registered SORN.
These figures represent totals lower than those found in Professor Greenaway’s research but are still a significant number of the driving population. They also illustrate clearly how uninsured driving links to other offences and shows that uninsured drivers have a disregard for road safety legislation.
Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires that a driver be insured. Failure to do so carries maximum penalties of a £5,000 fine, 6-8 penalty points and possible disqualification. Since 1 June 2003 it has been possible to deal with an offence of uninsured driving with a fixed penalty of £200 and 6 penalty points. Proposals in the Serious Crime Bill would allow for the seizure of uninsured vehicles. This consultation proposes the introduction of new legislation making it an offence to be the registered keeper of a vehicle the use of which is not insured in accordance with section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It would not require police to prove the vehicle was in use on the road.

BVRLA response Here
DfT info Here [/url]

This covers the various developments going on with this.
I am pleased to see that they are including the SORN still and change of use of vehicle allowance.
I am concerned and disappointed that they are not looking at bigger alternative solutions.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 13:07 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
The continuous enforcement thing has made it easier to drive uninsured and untaxed! If you declare sorn you have no need of tax or insurance so the vehicle would have to be spotted on the road to generate an inconsistency. At the moment there are people with uninsured but taxed cars (inconsistent) and those with insurance but no tax and not sorn'd (inconsistent) DVLA records are poor. Insurance records are also inaccurate so all that is going to happen is that normally law abiding people are going to get fined while the scroats get away with it. I don't see the police likely to into the places where there are lots of uninsured untaxed vehicles either.

There's also an issue with write offs as often insurance stops when a car is written off. What happens then? Unless the owner reaslises this and declares sorn then they could be fined for having an uninsured but taxed vehicle! Anyone without off road parking will be screwed too.

It would be so much easier to put third party insurance on something else. Eg fuel. But that doesn't deal with those that steal fuel or that use their own veg oil. I suspect they're in a even smaller minority to those that drive uninsured.

The fundamental problem is that there are a lot of people that have no sense of responsibility or what is right. Can you even get them to obey the law anyway? Maybe there should be an attitude shift that says that driving and owning a car isn't a right for everyone. Unless you have adequate means to insure, tax and maintain a car then you can't have one. This would unfortunately exclude the majority of the less well off from vehicle ownership.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 15:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7357
Location: Highlands
Stepping back and asking how this cam about is a social and moral series of questions.

Have the insurance companies got so greedy and justified such high premiums that young drivers simply cannot afford insurance. A fair and reasonable price would enable them to be legal.
Now that we have the MIB with additional approval to hand out our details to overlapping and other organisations it is another way also for our data to be used paid for and monitored by others.
I think they have lost sight of the objective and keeping trying to put sticking plasters on one after the other than sit back and look at the core issues.
I agree with caution with charging a few pence on fuel for a basic insurance then everyone is insured, and everyone that wants to add on a facility like fire and theft and comprehensive can. This means that everyone in the country is insured and those that have no money for insurance but can afford fuel are driving legal - car tax is another issue of course.
The whole road safety funding needs to be overhauled and all links removed between fines / enforcement, road safety engineering (traffic management) and road safety.
Whilst I can agree that people should be encouraged to be legal and obtain all proper documentation, when things have got this bad we have to question the whole system.
Automatically sending out fine and enforcement to people that have perhaps only made a paperwork error or been blissfully unaware of the changes to the Law will make many honest citizens criminals. A democracy cannot just keep making criminals of it's citizens, after a while the majority are criminals ! The laws applied must be appropriate and proportional and at the moment this is seriously going wrong.
Many people are now finding themselves in trouble with the Law, for potentially driving safely.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 17:30 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 18:42
Posts: 1283
Location: Essex
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Have the insurance companies got so greedy and justified such high premiums that young drivers simply cannot afford insurance. A fair and reasonable price would enable them to be legal.


My answer to that would be yes, the insurance industry are forever pleading poverty and low, low profit margins in the general and trade press, however, looking at the companies annual reports there is a very different story bneing told especially when it come to the motor insurance side of the company. At an incident I investigated the AI for the insurance company made the comment in conversation that the motor side of his company was a 'bloody good earner' and helped with all the flood claims that had been made - so the profit from the sale of motor policies made up the shortfall on claims on flood damaged homes.

On Top Gear one recent challenge was the young driver challenge - Jeremy Clarkeson was quite aggreived that his policy worked on the assumptin that he would write his car off 17 times a year. Given the worst young driver, how many write offs a year is normal - 17 to me seems like a helluva total and if that is the assumption that young driver policies are being based on it's a rip off.

Likewise insurance companies seem very quick to load for any 'faults' - I had an accident where the other driver drove into me yet I still recieved a £40 quid loading.

Yet when I passed my test, I did Pass Plus, I later did the IAM Advanced Driving Test, neither of these gave me any discount.

To me motor insurance is becoming a monopoly, a form of legalised theft, especially when you consider the level of 'service' and lengths the insurance industry go to not pay out or devalue cars in claims - even the insurance industry ombudsman is of the opinion that the insurance industry is ripping off it's customers.

And there is surprise that those who can't afford the rip off are deciding 'not to play the game' and driving unisured.

I don't condone it but can see why it's happening.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 22:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 20:00
Posts: 115
Location: Berkshire
When my sons were learning to drive I put them on my motor insurance and naturally had to sit down when told how much extra the premium would be. I then asked how much to keep them as a named drivers once the test had been passed. I was told that the premium would remain the same. My observation that an inexperienced driver with a qualified supervisor with them would be less of a risk than the same driver a few days later who had passed their test and could be out on their own received no effective answer.

No sympathy or brief for the uninsured but can understand why some people are.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 29, 2009 23:02 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
Given that it can cost about 2 grand for a 17yr old to insure an M reg 1.0 Corsa in some parts of the country, is it really all that surprising that people choose to drive uninsured.

Basically, unless mummy and daddy pay for your first car, and to run it, it's just not possible.

I remember my first car, this is only back in 1999, a D reg Ford Escort 1.3 "Popular Plus" that I paid £800 for, and £750 to insure and I thought that was pretty much extortionate. These days it's more than doubled.

Of course, the issue isn't just how much it'll cost to replace your car eg. Clarkson's "going to write off the car 17 times" it's how much it'll cost to repair or replace the car you hit. With repair costs going through the roof thanks to modern construction methods, single use safety devices. I'm sure we've all seen the thread with the guy who clipped someone's tow bar in his new Nissan GTR and got landed with an £11,000 bill since the car decided he'd hit a pedestrian and thus fired the pedestrian safety system which uses explosives to lift up the bonnet to catch the person you hit. I was lucky in that I only hit an 01 plate Mondeo (and learned the hard way not to believe a left signal, ever, especially on a roundabout) but if I'd hit someone's GTR or Veyron then it would've cost my insurance a few 10s of thousands easily.

When I moved house to where I am now, a lower risk area in terms of crime, my insurance went up I asked why and they explained that it's because the number of new and nice cars in my current area is much higher.

What a lot of youngsters (and their parents) don't realise is that the conventional wisdom of small cheap cars being the cheapest to insure no-longer applies. Clarkson found that out when insuring his Volvo 940. You can do a hell of a lot more damage in that thing than you could in a bloody Corsa, but it was cheaper to insure. Likewise a 1.8 Mondeo is surprisingly cheap to insure for a 17yr old. I suspect the "barryboys" culture has much to do with this.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 02:02 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
Maybe it's time youngsters realised that if you can't afford to run a car legally then you go without. Insurance is expensive but that's because young people crash loads more than older people. I paid about 900 quid tpft for my first car in 1996. If they're paying about 1800-2k now then it is roughly the same if you include inflation. It should be a lot higher due to the amount of stuff on new cars and how easy they are to write off. They need to get it into their heads that they are paying for the risk they pose to other people and the potential damage they can do not the damage they can do to their own car. Their car might be worth £500 but they can still drive into the back of a Bentley and do £20k worth of damage. Insurance is affordable for most young people on minimum wage if they're living at home with their parents. They'll just have to spend less on socialising and gadgets and other stuff just like a lot of people to do to run a car. If they don't have a job then they can't afford a car. Tough. I've never had a fault claim in the entire time I've been driving so every penny I've spent on insurance has been wasted. :(

Is motor insurance a profit making sector? Insurance companies themselves make a profit but is it from motor insurance or is it from other sectors of their business. I'd be interested to know whether there is any truth in the notion that motor insurance is generally break even.

I'd like to know why it seems ok for the poor to break the law in this way? Are morals changing so that it is ok to steal from those that you can think can afford the loss?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 02:24 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 18:42
Posts: 1283
Location: Essex
If you read the general and trade press the insurance companies are always moaning about how bad motor insurance is and how little (if any profit) there is in it.

Look at the breakdowns given in the companies financial reports and there is a very, very different picture - check out my comment earlier about the conversation with the guy from the insurance company.

I think there is a change in attitude towards insurance which I think is partly due to the insurance industry, the industry is now very aggresive in finding ways not to pay, customer service is very poor and when the likes of the insurance ombudsman upholds the majority of complaints over failure to settle or undervaluation of cars there does seem to be a view that I'm hearing from more and more from people I meet that when you also add in the tax on tax when it comes to fuel duty (which in some quarters is seen as at least immortal and has been argued maybe illegal) that they are being screwed from all sides so what incentive is there to play by the rules ?

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 02:30 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
teabelly wrote:
Insurance is affordable for most young people on minimum wage if they're living at home with their parents. They'll just have to spend less on socialising and gadgets and other stuff just like a lot of people to do to run a car. If they don't have a job then they can't afford a car.


Catch 22 there. Jobs for young people are rare in many parts of the country thanks to the recession. My younger brother, for example, couldn't even get a job at McDonalds as they had about 1000 applicants for 3 positions. He's going to have to look further afield than his local area if he's going to find work and that's going to require car ownership.

I was basically forced into car ownership in my first job as my daily walk/bus/train/bus (or alternatively walk/bus/ferry/bus) commute made my attendance record somewhat spotty at best and it was the only way I could bring it into line. I was on somewhat better than minimum wage, but the added cost of running a car really did make it a struggle.

I'm not sure about your claim that a youngster could afford it on minimum wage. That's £5.something an hour and most minimum wage work is part time. An insurance policy costing £1600, once you add on the extra for paying monthly, is going to cost you around £300 a month and that's just insurance alone, then there's fuel, maintenance and the car itself.


That said, most of the youngsters driving around uninsured probably aren't in any form of (legal) employment anyway.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 03:02 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 18:42
Posts: 1283
Location: Essex
Lum, same here I only started driving as I needed a licence to follow my safety career.

I'm working part time at the moment and had to give the car up 9 months ago as I couldn't afford to tax and insure it, having spent a bloody fortune on public transport for interviews I sometimes wonder if I'd have been better off taking out daily cover for when I needed it.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Lum wrote:

Catch 22 there. Jobs for young people are rare in many parts of the country thanks to the recession. My younger brother, for example, couldn't even get a job at McDonalds as they had about 1000 applicants for 3 positions. He's going to have to look further afield than his local area if he's going to find work and that's going to require car ownership.




It's funny how people assume that unskilled jobs are easy to get, when the reverse is true.
As told to me by a "human resource adviser"...... "anyone can do an unskilled job, so a university graduate can work at tesco. But an unskilled person can only do an unskilled job"
What she was saying (I think) is that an unskilled person is going to have a harder time getting a job than someone possessing any sort of education or skill.
As an aside: Working at an "amazonian" company is a lot harder than you would think...a 60/hr week...over 7 days...targets set high...and walking an average of 12 miles a day picking/packing....no overtime/antisocial hours pay....not allowed to use personal transport (no parking)....provide own ppe...and time off sick allocated penalty points...6 points and goodbye !
All for £6.30/hr.
And that is good pay for unskilled.

As for insurance...tough. You need it, they know it, so you pay for it.
I'm more interested in those that drive the car FULL TIME on their parents insurance...ie: The car is registered to the parent but is owned by the child and insured by the parent with the child as an also-driver.
I think the uninsured drivers would increase if they were included.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:35 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
jomukuk wrote:
As an aside: Working at an "amazonian" company is a lot harder than you would think...a 60/hr week...over 7 days...targets set high...and walking an average of 12 miles a day picking/packing....no overtime/antisocial hours pay....not allowed to use personal transport (no parking)....provide own ppe...and time off sick allocated penalty points...6 points and goodbye !
All for £6.30/hr.
And that is good pay for unskilled.


Hope this doesn't derail the thread too much, but I'm told that in order to work at the Amazon warehouse in Swansea one of the job requirements is the ability to speak Polish, basically excluding Britain's school leavers from such work since anyone with the aptitude to learn a second language (and one that isn't taught in UK schools) isn't going to be seeking a job stacking shelves in a warehouse.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:45 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Lum wrote:
Hope this doesn't derail the thread too much, but I'm told that in order to work at the Amazon warehouse in Swansea one of the job requirements is the ability to speak Polish



Oh, please.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:55 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
Up until 18 months ago we weren't in anything like a recession and there were plenty of jobs. At the moment employers can be fussy. Things will change and they won't be able to. I worked as a temp using PT. It is pants but you just have to make do. I moved to where I worked so I could walk to work. Did that for ages. I was made redundant from that job so I moved to somewhere with a rail station so I have greater work options. The unskilled don't have to to be unskilled. It's their choice to not bother doing much at school. There are plenty of evening courses and such like where they could learn useful skills.

The job market for the skilled is as narrow as the unskilled as anyone with a decent set of work experience wouldn't be considered as suitable for an unskilled job. If you don't have the right skills or exact experience an employer is looking for then you don't get an interview at the moment. Those with higher level skills are going after lower ranking jobs further displacing those in the middle.

If the young person keeps their nose clean for the first two years then their insurance does come down quite rapidly. Those that don't are rightly penalised. When you reach 21 and 25 insurance costs also drops. There are plenty of people I know that didn't even own a car until they were mid to late 20s.

If insurance companies are pleading poverty one one hand and raking it in on the other then it is time to publish the figures and make sure everyone knows what a bunch of liars they are.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:47 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
teabelly wrote:
Up until 18 months ago we weren't in anything like a recession and there were plenty of jobs. At the moment employers can be fussy. Things will change and they won't be able to. I worked as a temp using PT. It is pants but you just have to make do. I moved to where I worked so I could walk to work. Did that for ages. I was made redundant from that job so I moved to somewhere with a rail station so I have greater work options. The unskilled don't have to to be unskilled. It's their choice to not bother doing much at school. There are plenty of evening courses and such like where they could learn useful skills.


So you moved house twice because of issues with accessing work. How is a 17yr old living with parents going to manage that?

It's the lower middle class youngsters that get shafted the worst. They have a tendency to live in the suburbs with poor public transport. The number of expensive cars in the area pushes up their insurance premiums, because the risk is based on what they hit, not what they drive.
Also their parents are usually just above the threshold where state aid for things like further education is reduced or eliminated, but the parents aren't in a great position to help them out, especially with this recession on, and the inflation on essentials being much greater than the official inflation figures, meaning that any pay increases aren't in line with living costs.

If you're from a working class background then there's much more targeted aid available to you on the job front and you're more likely to live in a town centre, nearer to the jobs or to the public transport links. If you're from a non-working-class (ie. chav) background, then you've probably learnt from your parents how to play the system to your own benefit, or just don't care either way.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 13:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Most of the workers at the large retail warehouses here are enlisted from agencies, which also includes amazon.
Most of those so enlisted are work immigrants.
The "contracts" are short term, so the working time regs do not apply, and neither do the absolute hours for night workers.
As they are "employed" from agencies they (employees)(sic) are not "employed" by anyone...the end-user of their services is not their employer and neither is the agency.
Holiday pay doesn't arrive until 12 weeks have gone, and the various employment acts are of no use....the employment courts have no remit....less than 2 years service.
This is the future....we can only compete in the world by lowering standards and making everyone short-term employed ?

Never mind insurance...if people are on less than poverty wage you can expect a LOT more uninsured soon.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 13:31 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
jomukuk wrote:
Most of the workers at the large retail warehouses here are enlisted from agencies, which also includes amazon.
Most of those so enlisted are work immigrants.
The "contracts" are short term, so the working time regs do not apply, and neither do the absolute hours for night workers.
As they are "employed" from agencies they (employees)(sic) are not "employed" by anyone...the end-user of their services is not their employer and neither is the agency.
Holiday pay doesn't arrive until 12 weeks have gone, and the various employment acts are of no use....the employment courts have no remit....less than 2 years service.
This is the future....we can only compete in the world by lowering standards and making everyone short-term employed ?

Never mind insurance...if people are on less than poverty wage you can expect a LOT more uninsured soon.


The only way to compete with China.... is to become like China?

I guess that explains all the CCTV and cameras, RIP act, Terrorism act and so on and so forth.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 15:27 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
Lum wrote:
An insurance policy costing £1600, once you add on the extra for paying monthly, is going to cost you around £300 a month and that's just insurance alone, then there's fuel, maintenance and the car itself.


I think that would be more like £150/month, still going to be a week's income though.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 17:54 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 18:42
Posts: 1283
Location: Essex
Quote:
If the young person keeps their nose clean for the first two years then their insurance does come down quite rapidly. Those that don't are rightly penalised. When you reach 21 and 25 insurance costs also drops. There are plenty of people I know that didn't even own a car until they were mid to late 20s.


I wish ! Despite having a fairly good driving record, the bulk of my driving has been in company owned cars and as such most insurers are telling me that I should be paying far higher premiums than someone with my driving record who has owned a car, why I ask the risk is the same ?

So:

Driver X with 2 accidents and 1 SP30 conviction but has owned a car for the 12 years they have been a driver is quoted £250 fully comp on a Rover 400.

Driver Y with 2 accidents and 1 SP30 conviction but has driven company cars for the 12 years they have been a driver is quoted £630 fully comp on a Rover 400.

After getting the silly quote for my car and speaking to the insurers I put exactly the same details in but listed myself as having owned my cars for the last 12 years.

Despite the same level of risk how can insurers justify a £420 premium for not having owned my cars ?

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2009 21:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Know the feeling ,SE -had my last company car about thirteen years ago ,and my first car after that -couldn't get any more than 30% NCB .
Fortunately the garage was an agent for one company -the salesman got me 60% discount at a lower premium -so he got a nice little bonus out of that sale :D
Now comes what I consider a right royal rip off .
After having insurance for a year ot two -I went down the protected route .That wa eleven years ago -and since then I've been on max NCB .But ,two in five years drops my NCB, which should be a lot higher than it is .
Mind you -if I ever have two my fault accidents - would have to think long and hard if perhaps it's time to collect bus pass .

On topic of young drivers being a risk -accross road is a young lad -possibly been on the road for about four years ,and now on car no five -two ,I reckon found bollards ,one in front ,other in side .One attracted unwanted attention in a local estate after parking problems -the local parking "attendants " enforced the parking "laws" and left him a message in broken glass :D . the next a new sump ,and from amount of oil later put in -possibly a new engine -bad landing on a hump ,I'd say ..So along came number five -another unguided missile .

_________________
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.037s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]