Its OK to drive uninsured the police do not care.

Adams1

George_Michael wrote: »

If you class reporting someone who may committing a criminal offence, may be a danger to other road users and who may be costing all law abiding motorists money in increased insurance premiums as snitching, then personally I'm all for it.

Question: Why is people who don't have insurance always classed as "may be a danger to other road users." I mean, how does having insurance stop you from driving dangerously? Another one, how is it that motorists who don't have insurance be the cuase for the hike on YOUR car insurance? It dosn't.

The reason behind the recent hikes is the fact that your own precious insurance company sells your details to claim managment companies (probably their own) who fend off the insurance companies you fund which in result, you end up paying more for.

Uninsured drivers bring down the cost of car insurance.

Example: An uninsured driver hits your car and drives away. (insured drivers also do this btw, lol.) You call up your insurance and you claim for your car.

Example 2: An insured driver hits your car and he gives his details. At the end of the day, a claim is still being made, and repairs are being carried out on now, BOTH the cars.

So having insured cars hit each other and having them both claim is more of an insurance hike then having an uninsured car hit you and only ending up with a single claim being made.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Adams1

George_Michael wrote: »

I said that they may be, and this is because if someone can't afford or can't be bothered getting insured, you may well find that they also can't be bothered getting an MOT or keeping their car in a roadworthy condition.

Getting an M.O.T doesn't really mean a car is safe to drive unless an M.O.T test is made mandatory to be taken every 24 hours. Common sense will tell any human being not to drive a car that is genuinely dangerous. I for one, would drive a car without insurance, road tax, and M.O.T without a care in the world. This doesn't mean I would drive a car that is falling apart. My life is more important.

The stuff you keep repeating are pretty much spoon fed B.S picked up from insurance companies sales slogans over the years. Insurance companies will sell their own mothers if it means making that extra buck. And police love insurance companies. Hike to unaffordable prices, force motorists to cancel/not renew, police catch them with ANPR, police get paid, win win for all. (except motorists.)

dacouch

Adams1 wrote: »

Question: Why is people who don't have insurance always classed as "may be a danger to other road users." I mean, how does having insurance stop you from driving dangerously? Another one, how is it that motorists who don't have insurance be the cuase for the hike on YOUR car insurance? It dosn't.

The reason behind the recent hikes is the fact that your own precious insurance company sells your details to claim managment companies (probably their own) who fend off the insurance companies you fund which in result, you end up paying more for.

Uninsured drivers bring down the cost of car insurance.

Example: An uninsured driver hits your car and drives away. (insured drivers also do this btw, lol.) You call up your insurance and you claim for your car.

Example 2: An insured driver hits your car and he gives his details. At the end of the day, a claim is still being made, and repairs are being carried out on now, BOTH the cars.

So having insured cars hit each other and having them both claim is more of an insurance hike then having an uninsured car hit you and only ending up with a single claim being made.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Uninsured drivers are nine times more likely to be involved in an accident than an insured driver.

Your arguement holds no water as the damage caused by uninsured drivers is normally picked up by the MIB who are funded by a levy of approximately £30 on each insured persons policy.

The uninsured person is not paying an insurance premium so is not contributing to the insurance pool for their own insurance or contributing towards the MIB pool

George_Michael

Common sense will tell any human being not to drive a car that is genuinely dangerous.

Common sense would also tell most human beings that it is advisable not to break the law of the land.

I for one, would drive a car without insurance, road tax, and M.O.T without a care in the world.

So you admit to be happy to drive knowing that if you caused an accident in which someone was seriously injured and had to spend the rest of their life in a wheelchair, you wouldn't care that they may have to spend months or years trying to compensation from the MIB.
This says more about you than anything else you've posted.

Example: An uninsured driver hits your car and drives away. (insured drivers also do this btw, lol.) You call up your insurance and you claim for your car.

Example 2: An insured driver hits your car and he gives his details. At the end of the day, a claim is still being made, and repairs are being carried out on now, BOTH the cars.

So having insured cars hit each other and having them both claim is more of an insurance hike then having an uninsured car hit you and only ending up with a single claim being made.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Very wrong.
Example 1
An uninsured driver hits my car and drives away.
I call up my insurers and claim for my repairs.
I lose my no claims bonus and end up paying higher premiums for many years.

Example 2.
An insured driver hit my car and a claim is made on their policy.
My no claims stays intact. The other driver loses some or all of their no claims and their premium rises each year because of the accident.

m1974m

MDBJ wrote: »

Although I'm not a police officer my work naturally attracts people who want to offer information. People rarely, in my experience, offer information for simply altruistic reasons and so when they call I want to know as much as possible in order to judge the credibility of the person and their information. Being "grilled", was simply a product of the police wanting to be able to understand why you called as much as what it was you wanted to tell them.

Actually people offer information for a variety of reasons. Sometimes people report crimes, particularly car tax/insurance/MOT crimes, because they themselves pay for these things and it is unfair for someone else to get away with it. Even if the person reporting a genuine crime has a "grudge" against someone, the grudge may be a motivation behind reporting the crime but does not change the fact that the crime has occurred and should be reported.

pitkin2020

Adams1 wrote: »

Question: Why is people who don't have insurance always classed as "may be a danger to other road users." I mean, how does having insurance stop you from driving dangerously? Another one, how is it that motorists who don't have insurance be the cuase for the hike on YOUR car insurance? It dosn't.

The reason behind the recent hikes is the fact that your own precious insurance company sells your details to claim managment companies (probably their own) who fend off the insurance companies you fund which in result, you end up paying more for.

Uninsured drivers bring down the cost of car insurance.

Example: An uninsured driver hits your car and drives away. (insured drivers also do this btw, lol.) You call up your insurance and you claim for your car.

Example 2: An insured driver hits your car and he gives his details. At the end of the day, a claim is still being made, and repairs are being carried out on now, BOTH the cars.

So having insured cars hit each other and having them both claim is more of an insurance hike then having an uninsured car hit you and only ending up with a single claim being made.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

People who tend not to bother with insurance tend not to bother MOT or taxing either. Whilst your example above are feasible they don't cover damage to property for example. Saying uninsured drivers don't effect the premiums is ridiculous as someone has to pay for damage caused.

For example if £1 mil of damage was paid out by insurers last year and only 500,000 people bought insurance those 500k of people will pay double to cover those costs than 1 million people, its basic maths!!

If someone drive into your car or your house and they are uninsured why should the owner of that car/house pick up the bill?? If your not prepared to pay for the costs associated with motoring don't drive, walk.

Adams1 wrote: »

Getting an M.O.T doesn't really mean a car is safe to drive unless an M.O.T test is made mandatory to be taken every 24 hours. Common sense will tell any human being not to drive a car that is genuinely dangerous. I for one, would drive a car without insurance, road tax, and M.O.T without a care in the world. This doesn't mean I would drive a car that is falling apart. My life is more important.

The stuff you keep repeating are pretty much spoon fed B.S picked up from insurance companies sales slogans over the years. Insurance companies will sell their own mothers if it means making that extra buck. And police love insurance companies. Hike to unaffordable prices, force motorists to cancel/not renew, police catch them with ANPR, police get paid, win win for all. (except motorists.)

MOTs as you say only show the roadworthy condition of the car on that day the problem is too many people rely on the MOT to tell them when something is wrong rather than check over the car themselves. How many threads have been started on here (MSE) alone about people not realising their tyres were bald, brakes were shot etc because it passed the MOT 11 months ago without a problem.

The new driving test is starting to address some of these issues and is actually showing people people what they should be checking and how to check it as part of the test. Before it was a case of they should know and they didn't. Its scary how many people don't know how to check tyre, coolant or even oil levels basic stuff but all very important.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

sorry but crims have gone savvy since days of ANPR, in the land of old car being driven no mot and tax insurance were hard to detect unless that crim made a eye catching mistake that warranted a tug by the cops, these days anpr does most of the eye work. crims trying to be savvy will buy a car with MOT and TAX on a car already so not to set alarms bells off in plod cars that dont have the ANPR. its only when they pass a VAN or traffic car that it gets flagged no insurance tax mot, by then they already have had the car 1-2 months and just stuck to the local area, then when confidence get the better branch further out from home that when their usually get caught out.

Arg

George_Michael wrote: »

I lose my no claims bonus and end up paying higher premiums for many years.

Which is really what it boils down to. You want everyone else subsidise your insurance. The irony is a lot of traffic laws encourage people to care less about their cars or driving.