Drive any car - swift insurance.

Tilt

Driving without insurance is a serious offence and you surprise me (well you don't actually because you seem to think its ok to have millions of un-insured drivers lose on the roads) that you need that explaining to you.

Perhaps you will only find out should an un-insured driver hits you (as did me once) and then you may understand that it is far better to have them taken off the road by having their vehicles seized.

The onus is on the driver to make sure he/she has adequate insurance cover and you either are or your'e not. And the police should not allow someone to continue to carry on until the insurance status is established and quite rightly so.

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

And the police should not allow someone to continue to carry on until the insurance status is established and quite rightly so.

You're still not giving a clear answer, so let me ask more simply:

Does the part I've quoted from your last post mean that you believe the Police should go beyond what the Law allows them to do in order to stop uninsured driving? A simple yes or no will suffice

Tilt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

You're still not giving a clear answer, so let me ask more simply:

Does the part I've quoted from your last post mean that you believe the Police should go beyond what the Law allows them to do in order to stop uninsured driving? A simple yes or no will suffice

They don't need to go 'beyond the law'.

Apart from the one case which you are raving about, have you any proof that they 'go beyond the law' because I don't believe that they do. They have equipment now which flags up cars which are un-insured so it is for the driver to prove that he is insured. As I've said more than once now, I had cause to make sure I was covered driving a car which I knew would not be on the MIB data base so I carried a certificate with me bearing the VRM, Make and model of the car. Not rocket science is it? And if I can do it, then i'm sure everyone else can.

Having said that, i do know that the police will (as they did in the case to which you are banging on about) check themselves with an insurance co if necessary to establish the status of insurance. Not sure what more they are expected to do. I am quite sure that they will exhaust every avenue before actually seizing someone's car because they will be acutely aware of the consequences if they get it wrong.

But at the end of the day (as I've pointed out numerous times) the police have a duty to prevent possible further offences being committed which means they should prevent a motorist from continuing to drive when they cannot establish that they are insured (or licensed) to do so.

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

They don't need to go 'beyond the law'.
.

The case that I'm "raving on about" is a precedent set by the Court of Appeal, in which the judgement says quite plainly:

When a driver is stopped and asked for evidence of insurance, if he produces a certificate which, taken on face value, shows that he's insured then the police are NOT allowed to seize the vehicle. It also says that applies no matter WHAT other suspicions or information they may have at the time.

In fact, in the case quoted, they had information direct from the insurer that the cover wasn't valid. But it was STILL an illegal seizure.

So, to do as you suggest and refuse to believe a certificate on face value, they would have to go beyond what the law allows them to.

A State where the police are not bound to act within what the law allows is far more dangerous than any number of uninsured drivers, hence my comment whic h you seem hell-bent on not taking in context!

Rover_Driver

The only powers that the police have for seizing an uninsured vehicle is s.165A Road Traffic Act 1988

The problem is that there are conditions attached to that section. The police can establish, and deal with, the matter of a vehicle being used without insurance, but what they cannot do is seize the vehicle if the conditions of s.165A are not met.

The police have a duty to prevent possible further offences, but only if legislation (s.165A in this case) allows it.

Tilt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The case that I'm "raving on about" is a precedent set by the Court of Appeal, in which the judgement says quite plainly:

When a driver is stopped and asked for evidence of insurance, if he produces a certificate which, taken on face value, shows that he's insured then the police are NOT allowed to seize the vehicle. It also says that applies no matter WHAT other suspicions or information they may have at the time.

In fact, in the case quoted, they had information direct from the insurer that the cover wasn't valid. But it was STILL an illegal seizure.

So, to do as you suggest and refuse to believe a certificate on face value, they would have to go beyond what the law allows them to.

A State where the police are not bound to act within what the law allows is far more dangerous than any number of uninsured drivers, hence my comment whic h you seem hell-bent on not taking in context!

Too bloody right because it was a ridiculous comment to make.

So what happens when someone takes out insurance, gets the certificate, pays one or 2 installments then cancels the policy but conveniently forgets to surrender the certificate? So when they get stopped and produces a certificate which has been cancelled, then the police should not check and simply let them carry on? Are you seriously condoning that? Believe it or not, this practice is on the increase and this 'case' could potentially make it worse.

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The only powers that the police have for seizing an uninsured vehicle is s.165A Road Traffic Act 1988

The problem is that there are conditions attached to that section, and although the police can establish, and deal with, the matter of a vehicle being used without insurance, if the conditions of that section are not met, the have no powers to seize the vehicle.

So you keep saying and I did hear you the first time. But I still say they have a duty to ensure further offences are not committed.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

So what happens when someone takes out insurance, gets the certificate, pays one or 2 installments then cancels the policy but conveniently forgets to surrender the certificate? So when they get stopped and produces a certificate which has been cancelled,

Unfortunately, in those circumstances, the conditions of s.165A are not met, and there are no powers to seize the vehicle.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

But I still say they have a duty to ensure further offences are not committed.

They do, but they have to comply with legislation.

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Unfortunately, in those circumstances, the conditions of s.165A are not met, and there are no powers to seize the vehicle.

Utter Rubbish.