Safe Speed Forums

the answer is using the new legislation no insurance, tow it away

the answer is using the new legislation no insurance, tow it away

the answer is using the new legislation no insurance, tow it away

Just seen this one from Ian. There seems to be some semantics at play here. Most insurance policies say 'drive', while the law appears to refer to 'use'. Would these two terms (in a court of law) be deemed to be synonymous? Or would drive be seen as applying the insurance only when the vehicle is actually on the move?

IIRC, this option of third party driving of someone elses car was brought in as an option many years ago to allow a person to drive someone elses car when the normal user was for some acute reason unable to drive him/herself. At least that's my understanding, but I'd be happy to be corrected.

If anyone can clarify this it would be of great use as both my wife and I own motorcycles but she prefers to ride on only 6 month policies . and I was under the impression that that I could not ride hers whilst she herself had no insurance in place.

Steady on a bit, Botach - perhaps you're being a bit unfair.

Camera operator strikes me as quite a decent chap, and, unlike certain other 'operatives' here he's at least willing to enter into open debate.

Cheers
Peter

paul wrote
How many are they going to tow away each year? The Police presently manage to nick about 150,000 uninsured drivers each year. The DfT says there are 1.4 million of them.

The typical uninsured driver of a £500 throw-away vehicle will be back on the road in a month.

The numbers are about a million miles away from workable. Don't you think.

but don't you think its a start, up until now a HORT1 is issued, driver told to leave the car where it is 20 minutes later its gone. if by using the new legislation that car is towed away there and then and only to be released once insurance is obtained (same way as the DVLA tows vehicles)

Yes - perhaps , but why ??
i am man enough to admit that the bullshit given out by the SCP's is a load of crap sometimes

but don't you think its a start, up until now a HORT1 is issued, driver told to leave the car where it is 20 minutes later its gone. if by using the new legislation that car is towed away there and then and only to be released once insurance is obtained (same way as the DVLA tows vehicles)

gixxer

i'm sorry i cannot answer your point as my PNC / CAPTOR validity has expired, but on a simple PNC check the registered keeper would be named with a current insurance flag attached, the system has not changed only been updated maybe the traf pol can explain this more clearly

After section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert-

"165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance

(1) Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

(2) The first condition is that-
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 164, a person to produce his licence and its counterpart for examination,
(b) the person fails to produce them, and
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is or was being driven by the person in contravention of section 87(1).

(3) The second condition is that-
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143(No insurance),
(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

(4) The third condition is that-
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 163, a person driving a motor vehicle to stop the vehicle,
(b) the person fails to stop the vehicle, or to stop the vehicle long enough, for the constable to make such lawful enquiries as he considers appropriate, and
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143.

(5) Where this subsection applies, the constable may-
(a) seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;
(b) enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;
(c) use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).

(6) Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 that he will seize it-
(a) in a section 87(1) case, if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately;
(b) in a section 143 case, if the person does not provide him immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section. But the constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.

(7) If the constable is unable to seize the vehicle immediately because the person driving the vehicle has failed to stop as requested or has driven off, he may seize it at any time within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time at which the condition in question is first satisfied.

(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section are exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 165B are in force.

(9) In this section-
(a) a reference to a motor vehicle does not include an invalid carriage;
(b) a reference to evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 is a reference to a document or other evidence within section 165(2)(a);
(c) "counterpart" and "licence" have the same meanings as in section 164;
(d) "private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

165B Retention etc. of vehicles seized under section 165A

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to-
(a) the removal and retention of motor vehicles seized under section 165A; and
(b) the release or disposal of such motor vehicles.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision-
(a) for the giving of notice of the seizure of a motor vehicle under section 165A to a person who is the registered keeper, the owner or the driver of that vehicle;
(b) for the procedure by which a person who claims to be the registered keeper or the owner of a motor vehicle seized under section 165A may seek to have it released;
(c) for requiring the payment, by the registered keeper, owner or driver of the vehicle, of fees, charges or costs in relation to the removal and retention of such a motor vehicle and to any application for its release;
(d) as to the circumstances in which a motor vehicle seized under section 165A may be disposed of;
(e) as to the destination-
(i) of any fees or charges payable in accordance with the regulations;
(ii) of the proceeds (if any) arising from the disposal of a motor vehicle seized under section 165A;
(f) for the delivery to a local authority, in circumstances prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, of any motor vehicle seized under section 165A.

(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations is not liable to pay it if-
(a) he was not driving the motor vehicle at the time in question, and
(b) he did not know that the vehicle was being driven at that time, had not consented to its being driven and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented it from being driven.

(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may make different provision for different cases.

(5) In this section- "local authority"-
(a) in relation to England, means-
(i) a county council,
(ii) the council of a district comprised in an area for which there is no county council,
(iii) a London borough council,
(iv) the Common Council of the City of London, or
(v) transport for London;
(b) in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough; and
(c) in relation to Scotland, means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994; "registered keeper", in relation to a motor vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994."

The benefits of reducing insurance non payers would undoubtedly be huge, especially as uninsured are significantly more likely to be involved in RTCs. I dealt with 4 uninsured drivers on Monday alone.

Again if I've misconstrued the above intended legislation or if anyone has more info on what is planned for next year, I'm happy to be corrected or enlightened.

I agree about the benefits and the need for action. But I doubt that having insurance has much bearing on the crash rates.

It's more likely that the scrotes crash more and are also more likely to be uninsured. A cause in common rather than an effect.

From what I have just read of that Ian, it sounds to me like I (and a lot of other law abiding road users) are going to be having vehicles towed away left, right, & centre.

Unless I have been asleep recently, I do not believe that anybody is lawfully obliged to carry their driving license with them (although the the government will probably change that). Likewise the same goes for insurance & MOT (although they will probably change that as well).

Even if it is made law that you have to carry your license & insurance, there are still quite a few lawful reasons why somebody would not be carrying them when driving.

I agree, but if there was a reduction in the percentage of uninsured drivers, by some scrotes feeling compelled to insure their car, then it may engender a sense of responsibility in these 'scrotes', which may in turn reduce their propensity to crash - I don't know, but I know something has to be done.
I'd hazard a guess that if 5% are uninsured, they probably account for something like 20% of the total insurance payout. Anything to reduce my insurance bill would be a welcome help. They additionally cause a lot of added worry to the other parties involved in their collision.

I understand that to go hand in hand with this legislation, there will be a fixed penalty ticket for no insurance with £200 fine and 6 endorsable points.

{snip}

The problem as I see is it is that these uninsured drivers with their untaxed cars are simply outside of the law, and virtually immune to everything except long term jail:

Points on Licence? Licence is just a bit of paper, and points only matter if you want insurance. At the end of the day, you don't need a licence to actually drive a car.

Fine? Unlikely to get paid even if set by the Court. Is likely to be a lot less that the cost of Insurance in the first place. If you haven't got that much money in the first place then they cannot take it from you.

Crushed Car? Buy a new scrap one and forget to register it.

{snip}