Non-insured vehicles

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

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..........

What about rta s147?

"........A policy of insurance shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act unless and until there is delivered by the insurer to the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as a “certificate of insurance”) in the prescribed form and containing such particulars of any conditions subject to which the policy is issued and of any other matters as may be prescribed......."

dacouch

Its in effect ignored

raskazz

WIDs are a total waste of time. They would have to be validated in any case in order to check cover. So the MID fulfils this purpose and fulfuls it better.

Quote

Arg wrote: »

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

Silly? !!!!!! are you talking about?

alistair.long

Let me poke your brains again.
Is the price you pay for insurance correct? The reason I say that is because insurance near the city is higher, but sorely people in the city drive out of the city, and People who are not in the city will drive nearer the city.
What Im trying to get at is that people who live in a low risk area are likly to go to a high risk area, and people in a high risk area are likly to goto a low risk area.
What Im trying to get at is that we need a uniform insurance rate according to your age and previous history.

liam8282

alistair.long wrote: »

Let me poke your brains again.
Is the price you pay for insurance correct? The reason I say that is because insurance near the city is higher, but sorely people in the city drive out of the city, and People who are not in the city will drive nearer the city.
What Im trying to get at is that people who live in a low risk area are likly to go to a high risk area, and people in a high risk area are likly to goto a low risk area.
What Im trying to get at is that we need a uniform insurance rate according to your age and previous history.

Insurance is costed on a risk based assessment.

The prices are quite uniform already, based on age, previous history, where you live, where the car is parked up etc. Which is the reason they ask these questions when you apply for the insurance.

I think what you are missing on where you live / work, is that your car will be at your home for say 60% of the time. Also the time of day that the cars will be in these locations.

For example, the person that lives in the city and parks on the street overnight, it is more than reasonable to expect that their insurance should be higher, than the person that lives in the suburbs and parks their car in their garage overnight.

Either way this is all taken into account when you apply for the insurance and the price is adjusted accordingly.

lisyloo

is the price you pay for insurance correct?

I think the price I pay is way too cheap to be honest.
I have paid £120 for bike insurance including legal cover, european cover and UK & European accident and breakdown cover.
I think it's ludicrously underpriced and should be about 4 times that.
I have 1 fault claim on my record.

Arg

Quote wrote: »

Silly? !!!!!! are you talking about?

It sounded like something from a Weekend at Bernies.