MSE News: Compulsory car insurance moves a step closer

rickbonar

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Not sure how they're going to clamp anyone who falls foul of this law.
Hasn't it always been the case that a car parked on the road (whether driven or not) needs insurance.
So the new rules only apply to cars off the road.
I can't see how they'd be allowed to come onto someone's drive and clamp their car.

I've got visions of the SWAT teams using the enforcer door key at dawn coming in and clamping the car in the garage.

Special stakeouts too to find where your car is.

Can't burn your passport either .... you're english?*!£$

jamesallen

rickbonar wrote: »

I've got visions of the SWAT teams using the enforcer door key at dawn coming in and clamping the car in the garage.

Special stakeouts too to find where your car is.

Can't burn your passport either .... you're english?*!£$

I have a bad feeling about all this. I suspect that what may end up happening is overzealous clamping firms looking for a quick buck will work out some kind of contract with the DVLA (which already sells out drivers' details on a regular basis) whereby they do the clamping and get a cut of the profits.

interminal5

Surely it would make sense for car insurance to be more affordable and to include 3rd party insurance with your MOT. Someone somewhere will underwrite that. As it stands premiums are prohibitive for many drivers and the reality is that they will still drive. Perhaps a more pragmatic approach is needed.

gmike

If insurance is to be compulsory, then it should be regulated.

A rate for a particular car, driver (age/sex would be discrimination) penalty system for convictions, previous claims, fault/no fault, consistent and transparent, available to look up on DirectGov. Is this likely to happen? You tell me.

Prices should be controlled, otherwise we face a legalised price fixing racket - a caballe. That's the future I see in this load of crystal balls.

I have to say, another Cameron clammer - ill thought out/not thought through, rushed, daft.

In principal absolutely just. The detail is just pants!

gmike

The corporate fraud point is one of those unspoken truths. We all know it, have done for years, but are powerless to 'owt' about it.

As I said in another post;
"If insurance is to be compulsory, then it should be regulated.

A rate for a particular car, driver (age/sex would be discrimination) penalty system for convictions, previous claims, fault/no fault, consistent and transparent, available to look up on DirectGov. Is this likely to happen? You tell me.

Prices should be controlled, otherwise we face a legalised price fixing racket - a caballe."

Depressing.

property.advert

Perhaps if you get 5 years for having no insurance, that is 5 years making big rocks into little rocks, then people would sit up and take notice. A second offence could simply result in you being put down. Scum have no insurance and yet think they have a right to drive. End it all immediately.

Black-Day

i can not believe how insane this really is, you are not going to catch the true trouble makers as they will simply sorn the car/bike and keep using it uninsured, it does nothing but ruin everyday peoples lives, shifting the burden of proof onto the innosent,

it also punishes the clasic car/bike owner/entusiast, for those people who are not nessicerly well off and in my experiance are actually not well off by any strech of the imagination, most clasic cars and bikes are covered by household insurance policys (not for use on the road just loss or damage)
people in that situation in my experiance purchase short term/weekend insurance, as they cannot afford a full years insurance, i myself do just that,
so unless they are going to completely change the tax system to allow short term taxing they are just making it harder for these classic cars/bikes to exist,

i myself have no choice but to tax my bike for 12 monts at a time, no other option is available,
this will force me to break the regulation or to dammage the value of my bike
as the only option would be to not tax the bike, breaking the concourous history of the bike, tax disks and mots dating back to the 60s
this regulation will waste taxpayers money and time, and punish people on lower incomes, forcing more and more people to break the law, if the government continues to punish those who strive to stay within the law, eventually even the most law abbiding person will become a criminal, ie the harder it is to stay within the law the more people will break it,
i know this to be true as i grew up in a crime ridden area, mostly due to the fact everyone who lived there was treated as a criminal by everyone else reguardless of whether they were or not,
just my opinion

dacouch

Black-Day wrote: »

it also punishes the clasic car/bike owner/entusiast, for those people who are not nessicerly well off and in my experiance are actually not well off by any strech of the imagination, most clasic cars and bikes are covered by household insurance policys (not for use on the road just loss or damage)
people in that situation in my experiance purchase short term/weekend insurance, as they cannot afford a full years insurance, i myself do just that,

Very few (If any) household policies will be covering classic bikes or cars, this is because virtually all household policies specifically exclude cover for motor vehicles and motorised bikes

raskazz

dacouch wrote: »

Very few (If any) household policies will be covering classic bikes or cars, this is because virtually all household policies specifically exclude cover for motor vehicles and motorised bikes

I've never understood this argument against CIE either. If your car is a genuine classic then you just buy an annual policy with limited mileage. You can often find these for under £100 if the mileage limit is 2-3k and you have another car for prime use (sometimes even cheaper per vehicle if you have 4 or 5 as part of a collection) - which is cheaper than buying several short-term policies over the year.

raskazz

gmike wrote: »

The corporate fraud point is one of those unspoken truths. We all know it, have done for years, but are powerless to 'owt' about it.

What form does this supposed 'corporate fraud' take? Where is the 'deception' in this supposed fraud? What evidence can you present to the forum that this supposed fraud has taken place?

gmike wrote: »

As I said in another post;
"If insurance is to be compulsory, then it should be regulated.

It is regulated - by he the FSA and Lloyds, with independent arbitration by the FOS.

gmike wrote: »

A rate for a particular car, driver (age/sex would be discrimination) penalty system for convictions, previous claims, fault/no fault, consistent and transparent, available to look up on DirectGov. Is this likely to happen? You tell me.

Do you know how a competitive market operates? Do you really think that our inefficient and barely-competent civil service would increase efficiency in this market?

gmike wrote: »

Prices should be controlled, otherwise we face a legalised price fixing racket - a caballe."

Where is your evidence that a price fixing racket has either taken place or will take place?

gmike wrote: »

Depressing.

Yes, it is depressing that there are so many ignorant people on MSE who don't engage with basic research before posting evidence-free sensationalist twaddle.