We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Electronic 'Slow down' signs
Options
Comments
-
Irrespective if the person driving the car is covered by third party insurance, the car must be insured in the first place, otherwise you arent covered either. The problem is that there are too many people driving about with no insurance at all on the car itself.
I actually was unaware of this. I know of quite a few instances where someone will drive a car based on their own third party insurance but where the car itself is not uniquely insured. I actually do not see the point in the car having to be uniquely insured - what if it was uniquely insured as third part only? The outcome would be identical to if it was not uniquely insured but driven by an individual whose own insurance covered them 3rd party? Are you absolutely certain about this - it does not necessarily make sense.
As for the checking of tax/MOT - yes, no excuse. It should be done but probably requires more cameras which the public does not like. You also face the issue that these sort of people are not easy to punish. They clearly are lacking in finances so fining them may not work so well - if you do make them worse off, they are just all the more likely to do it again unless the fine is sufficiently large, but if it is that large, you may very well induce further problems. Alternatively they just do not pay up or are very hard to track down resulting in the need for enormously time intensive police work. Even with such a system in place, that is no reason to remove speed cameras. By the simple fact that a huge number of drivers habitually break the law, speed cameras properly implemented will pay for themselves. In fact one might argue that more speed cameras may very well provide the additional cash necessary to first pay for their own implementation and secondly to pay for advances elsewhere in the road policing system.
Do you debate this as a profitable idea were it possible? A privatised speed monitoring and fining system. My suspicion is that if I were to buy a camera and put it on the road outside my house, I could pay it off and be in profit in no time. Even if all necessary costs were paid to government agencies, the potential for money making would be extreme.2 + 2 = 4
except for the general public when it can mean whatever they want it to.0 -
it doesnt matter where they put the cameras money making or not, you dont HAVE to speed !!!! its always someone elses fault, or I didnt see the signs, or didnt see the limit change, open your eyes and slow down.What is up with people ? you break the law (like it or not) so you pay the consequences!! live with it
So lets say 70% of 10000 people who use a particular road over the course of a week drive at 40mph instead of the speed limit of 30mph.
One day a week for an hour traffic branch turn up with a speed gun and catch 50 people, raise £3000 in fines (£60*50). Will that actually slow the other 10000 people down who use that road during the other 6 days and 23 hours or will they continue speeding?
All very well going for the 'you dont HAVE to speed!!!' line but realistically speed cameras dont resolve the problem, there merely punish a very small amount of the guilty and raise some handy revenue in the meantime.0 -
IvanOpinion wrote: »That is why we have insurance ... it is just that the insurance industry has developed into a game of blame and revenge. Insurance companies have found a way of making us spend extra by insuring everybody else including those that do not have insurance.
A friend of mine drove for years with no tax and insurance at one point he got tail ended ... very minor accident ... but one he took full advantage of. He was taken to court and got fines totalling £450 .. he then put in a claim against the person that tailended him (of course while utilising the unnecessary neck brace and crutches). He got several thousand quid out of it. I think (and told him so) that this is totally wrong .. he was uninsured and therefore, in my opinion, should not have been allowed to make any claim against the other driver.
We also know that joy riders take cars, deliberately crash them and then make claims against the owners ... and there are a growing number of cars that deliberately slam the brakes on in front of you in order to make a claim. My BIL following a minor accident had to pay out for multiple whiplash claims even though the only person in the car was a driver (although he learnt fron this ... following a similar incident earlier this year where he tail ended a car he refused to give any details until the police arrived .. as soon as the person heard that he had already phoned the police he decided to take off .. BIL waited for the police)
ivan
Insurance companies allow everyone to work up a 'no claims bonus' for not claiming each year. if an accident isnt my fault, why should i have to claim and lose that bonus? If someone drives into the back of me through their own stupidity, then its their fault and they should (through their insurance company and subsequent premiums) pay for that, certainly not me.
Totally agree with your other point though - if the other person has no insurance they should automatically waifer any rights they have to make a claim etc.0 -
talksalot81 wrote: »I actually was unaware of this. I know of quite a few instances where someone will drive a car based on their own third party insurance but where the car itself is not uniquely insured. I actually do not see the point in the car having to be uniquely insured - what if it was uniquely insured as third part only? The outcome would be identical to if it was not uniquely insured but driven by an individual whose own insurance covered them 3rd party? Are you absolutely certain about this - it does not necessarily make sense.
In fact one might argue that more speed cameras may very well provide the additional cash necessary to first pay for their own implementation and secondly to pay for advances elsewhere in the road policing system.
Do you debate this as a profitable idea were it possible? A privatised speed monitoring and fining system. My suspicion is that if I were to buy a camera and put it on the road outside my house, I could pay it off and be in profit in no time. Even if all necessary costs were paid to government agencies, the potential for money making would be extreme.
I am 99.9999% sure this is the case. You insurance will have a clause that says you are insured to drive any car that is not owned by you provided it meets at least the minimum requirements by law, which are insurance, tax and mot. I've tried phoning my broker but hes on hols. Even by default if you own a car, it must be taxed, it must also be registered in your name. If its registered in your name it must not be used on a public road without being insured by you. That HAS to be the case, otherwise i could borrow my mates uninsured Ferrari, drive it about, park it, and if it rolls off down a hill and smashes into a bus then noone would be responsible for the car.
Interesting that you see people who don't bother taxing or insuring cars as 'probably not able to afford to, therefore theres no point in actively chasing them for any fines' as opposed to people speeding whom you almost go as far as to say are easy pickings?
The rest of your post is just summarising what i have said all along on this post, that people speeding are picked on because they are easy targets and are a source of revenue. :rolleyes:0 -
Insurance companies allow everyone to work up a 'no claims bonus' for not claiming each year. if an accident isnt my fault, why should i have to claim and lose that bonus? If someone drives into the back of me through their own stupidity, then its their fault and they should (through their insurance company and subsequent premiums) pay for that, certainly not me.
Many people already protect their no claims bonuses, that does not need to change. The only thing that changes is you do not need to exchange insurance information and you do not care if that person is or is not insured/taxed/MOT'd etc. You simply claim from your own provider. The police and courts will concern themselves with blame, fines etc.
IvanI don't care about your first world problems; I have enough of my own!0 -
IvanOpinion wrote: »That is why we have insurance ... it is just that the insurance industry has developed into a game of blame and revenge. Insurance companies have found a way of making us spend extra by insuring everybody else including those that do not have insurance.
ivan
Also you are simplistically viewing the car insurance industry as if it were one large company. If my company insures me with full no claims and no speeding history for a particular amount, why should it pay out when some 18yo dozeball drives into the back of me in his dads corsa? Insurance companies work on calculating risk. If they suddenly have to calculate premums based on every risk then premiums would go through the roof.0 -
quote: The rest of your post is just summarising what i have said all along on this post, that people speeding are picked on because they are easy targets and are a source of revenue. They are picked on because they are too stupid to slow down or read road signs, NO-ONE MAKES YOU SPEED !!0
-
quote: The rest of your post is just summarising what i have said all along on this post, that people speeding are picked on because they are easy targets and are a source of revenue. They are picked on because they are too stupid to slow down or read road signs, NO-ONE MAKES YOU SPEED !!
No one makes people not have insurance, or not bother taxing their car, or not bother getting mot, but as we've already discussed if you read any of the above posts, its an easy target to pick on people speeding, using cameras to pick up tax avoidance or no insurance wouldnt generate as much revenue.0 -
So dont make yourself an easy target ? dont speed, no excuse I agree lots more should be done about no tax, insurance, mot, and yes I think they should be displayed on your vehicle as proof you have them.My argument is that speeding is in your hands (or right foot) so dont moan when you have been captured0
-
So dont make yourself an easy target ? dont speed, no excuse I agree lots more should be done about no tax, insurance, mot, and yes I think they should be displayed on your vehicle as proof you have them.My argument is that speeding is in your hands (or right foot) so dont moan when you have been captured
Can you maybe read down the posts, we've all debated your points days ago now.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards