Non-insured vehicles

C_Mababejive

lisyloo wrote: »

Alternatively you could have had a heart attack, rolled down an embankment onto a train track, derailed a train and injured/killed people at a cost of £50m.

It wouldnt have been my cost though and whether insured or not,i would still have had the heart attack. What a way to go though...beats dying in a neglected NHS bed with the faint whiff of poo all around.:rotfl:

birkee

It's just occurred to me why the insurance evidence in your windscreen would be difficult.

The number of people who pay for their insurance on the never never. There are a good number of those, who make the first payment, and then stop.
Their insurance is cancelled, but they would still have the piece of paper for their windscreen, which makes it look like they're insured.
Could issue them a new one every month they make a payment I suppose, valued for another month. That WOULD put up their costs though!

lisyloo

What a way to go though

What killing and maiming others with "life changing" injuries.
If that's meant to be a joke, it's sick.
Bye.

Inactive

birkee wrote: »

It's just occurred to me why the insurance evidence in your windscreen would be difficult.

The number of people who pay for their insurance on the never never. There are a good number of those, who make the first payment, and then stop.
Their insurance is cancelled, but they would still have the piece of paper for their windscreen, which makes it look like they're insured.
Could issue them a new one every month they make a payment I suppose, valued for another month. That WOULD put up their costs though!

Simple cure for that, ban any credit facilities on insurance premiums.

mcjordi

Inactive wrote: »

Simple cure for that, ban any credit facilities on insurance premiums.

but that would hit a lot of legal motorists hard.. i cant afford just to pull out 400+on car insurance so pay it monthly and have never missed a payment..

i agree about the petrol station idea being utter stupid

dacouch

birkee wrote: »

It's just occurred to me why the insurance evidence in your windscreen would be difficult.

The number of people who pay for their insurance on the never never. There are a good number of those, who make the first payment, and then stop.
Their insurance is cancelled, but they would still have the piece of paper for their windscreen, which makes it look like they're insured.
Could issue them a new one every month they make a payment I suppose, valued for another month. That WOULD put up their costs though!

The other issues with it are that without a WID (Windscreen Insurance Disk) you would be liable to a fine etc. If you bought a car on say Monday afternoon and rang your Insurer to cover the vehicle you would not be able to drive it until you had physically received the WID though the post which assuming the Insurer were able to send it the next day could take a few days to reach you even assuming the royal mail do not lose it.

The argument may be that it could be emailed to you (Not everyone has access to a computer) if this was done they would be able to be forged.

Another arguement would be that people would break into your car to steal a valid WID to display in their car (There are people who do this with Road Tax discs).

The police would physically have to check the disc to confirm the vehicle was covered (When the WID was sent out).

The current system (ANPR cameras) allows them to check the validity of cars as they drive past the police cars or camera traps with circa 95% accuracy. It's not the greatest system but is improving and in my mind will always be superior to an outdated WID system

Arg

notafan wrote: »

I'm sorry I'm totally skint after being made redundant but it doesn't mean i should just not pay and let everyone else. If people are too poor then you have two options, pay up or get rid of the car. Partly the reason everyone pays more is because of people that don't. I don't think theres any excuse for not paying it, not that i don't think its extortionate or the full system needs work. But its partly this way because people have that attitude.

There's no excuse but there are plenty of valid reasons not too and if more people didn't insure out of principal we might see a more sensible approach to how insurance works.

Arg

lisyloo wrote: »

What killing and maiming others with "life changing" injuries.
If that's meant to be a joke, it's sick.
Bye.

Let's face it your post he was commenting on was just as silly.

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

The other issues with it are that without a WID (Windscreen Insurance Disk) you would be liable to a fine etc. If you bought a car on say Monday afternoon and rang your Insurer to cover the vehicle you would not be able to drive it until you had physically received the WID though the post which assuming the Insurer were able to send it the next day could take a few days to reach you even assuming the royal mail do not lose it...........

I think those are the rules that apply to the current certificate based system

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

I think those are the rules that apply to the current certificate based system

It's slightly different, the WID systems tend to impose an automatic fine if you drive the car without a valid WID being displayed as it is a specific offence. In the UK you would have been given a seven day wonder or more often now days they would check the MID. So in the UK assuming you have arranged cover you could drive your car whilst you await the certificate.

Most of the countries that operate WID are relatively small eg Jersey and Guernesy and typically are more reliant on local brokers who have the facilities to issue the WIDs