NEW INSURANCE LAW

[sheekbiker]

New insurance laws if they come into force will mean that all those bikes we don't use will have to be insured, this is in an effort to put a stop to all those uninsured drivers out there.
Have a look www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/motor/letter
Mick.

[Buzzin (^_^)]

I don't know what the law is like there, but here it's already mandatory to insure all vehicles registered to a person, unless you have it suspended (which does cost money + driving the vehicle becomes a serious crime)
If it is uninsured you automatically get a fine.
To make sure anyone can insure there is a govermentally regulated insurance company that HAS to take anyone.....big disadvantage is that the rates are extremely high. This of course only get's used by people that can't get normal insurance (like drunk drivers, people that got to many accidents or people that for some reason get refused....once refused it's unlikely any other company will insure you)

Same with taxes....registered = taxes. unless suspended.

Works fine if you ask me.
Mind you, it doesn't stop people from driving around uninsured, but it get's a lot less. Also, it makes it something not to be proud off.

I have met people in my time in england that made absolutely no effort to cover they didn't have insurance. No one seemed to mind in the group. (It was socially acceptable to do so) The group being students, foreign and native.
Let's say that some of the cars I have been in were a dangerous contraption at best.....and driven by people that didn't even know the english highwaycode

In conclusion: I think it might be a good thing, but having said that....I didn't actually read the article...
(and you should be able to suspend registrations....in case of rebuilds/scrapping them etc)

[McF]

My PC is acting up a little following a recent security update
I found this www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/miud/uninsureddrivingintheuka.pdf from the link posted by Sheekbiker, but in the limited time I had, was unable to find the recommendation that every vehicle registered would have to be insured.
Grateful if someone could point me at the right place.

Assuming Sheek's warning is correct, my response is "ridiculous and an outrage"
I have 4 motorbikes registered to me, but only one is in any state to be ridden; the other 3 are clearly in a state that would take many man person hours to assemble, then test, tax and insure to ride on a road. Why should I have to have them insured? and what about other collectors and even museums? We all declare a vehicle as SORN and agree it will not be used on a public road. or even stored on one; why isn't this enough?

This would be another example of penalising the law abiding majority (the linked document says "as many as 1 in 20 are not insured, that means 19 in 20 or 95% are insured) and not doing anything about those who put two fingers up at the law of the land. I have absolutely no time or patience for anyone who knowingly drives without insurance - take their vehicle off them, crush it (with them in if possible), then lock them up, throw the key away

I'm sorry if it offends, but if the newspapers I read are to be believed, the vast majority of those driving without adequate documentation (insurance, MOT or even ownership) were not born, or perhaps even legally registered to be in this country (or even Europe).

I believe that those who flout the law will continue to do so and will laugh at those of us who pay our taxes and comply with these dictats. They will not register vehicles, or deliberately mess up the details.

In the past couple of months I have reported two vehicles for their bad driving and on both occasions been told "you must be mistaken, that vehicle has been sat on it's owners drive all day - more than 200 miles away". I gave the police an accurate description of the vehicles, make, model, registration number and colour of vehicle, one with a pretty good description of the driver.
Amazingly, the police did not think it odd that my description of the vehicle did not exactly match the DVLA record of the car - I must have got the number wrong. I was front seat passenger in a car driven by 1 A learner driver, 2 an inexperienced driver with "P" plates and was incensed at the bad driving of the ones I reported. I am confident that I took the right number.
A neighbour told me today that he had reported suspicious behaviour of a car (probably drugs related) in our village. Gave the registration number of the Porsche 911 and descriptions etc. The police came back and said he was wrong because that registration belonged on a Gold Land Rover.
Final rant of evidence - my CBR600 was stolen in London. 6 weeks later I got a call to say it had been recovered. I picked it up from Holborn Nick and what a mess. First thing I noticed was the long registration plate at the back, you know - the kind found on most cars. Turned out the thicko who nicked it put on a plate from a Transit van, went through a red light in front of two bobbies who actually had time to deal with it. Followed him and radioed in a vehicle check then pulled him over. I got my bike back with a £2000 bill to repair (ended up in an insurance claim). Chappie was never charged and I ended up paying the excess and having a large claim on my policy. I understand chappie had spent a long time under a sun lamp, gave a false address and is probably still somewhere in London nicking people's cpride and joy

Bitter - me?
You bet!

[De Graaf van Salland]

Hi McF,

I can fully understand your anger about this situation.
But, then on the other hand, I do think that this new law could be a (small ?) improvement.

Like buzzin said: in the Netherlands, if a vehicle is registered in your name, you must have it insured, otherwise you will automatically get a fine (the computersystems are linked).

But you can suspend a registration for any amount of time. And, once suspended, you don't have to insure, pay tax or have an MOT on the vehicle.
You used to have to go to the postoffice once a year for a suspended registration, but this is now something which can be done online and (as far as I know) free of charge.

I don't really see this as a bad system.


Franklin

[McF]

A little calmer and more rational this morning!

Thanks Franklin, a good explanation of the Dutch method (steady on you pervs ;D)

In the UK, you can declare a vehicle SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification) which means you will not store (or park) your vehicle in a public place (including at the roadside) or drive it on a public road.

If the vehicle is is not SORN, you must have a tax disc, which means AT THE TIME you tax the vehicle, you must provide proof of valid insurance and (if required) a valid MOT (test of vehicle road worthiness). So I think that is quite similar to the Dutch method (there I go again ;D)

In the UK, it has been possible to do this online for several years. A national database contains details of MOT and a link to the British Insurance files to confirm that vehicle is insured.

The weakness (often exploited) is that your MOT and insurance could expire the day after you tax the vehicle, which could then be driven without tax or MOT for a year before any formal checks are made.

I'd be very happy for the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority) to send a requirement to the registered keeper saying if it was not insured or MOT it had to be SORN, or it would be collected and crushed.

But that still only addresses the law abiding majority. All of the scallywags who give false addresses, do not register their own cars, or have copies made of someone else's number plates will carry on doing so.

A few weeks ago I had to take dramatic avoiding action in my car to miss an idiot driving recklessly. A policecar was passing in the opposite direction, I said to my wife, I should have let him hit me, it was clearly his fault and what better witness than a policeman? (I innocently still believe most policemen (and women!!) are there for our common good). Logic - I have been considering a respray on the car as it has a few too many stone chips and a mark on the door from some ignoramus with a shopping trolley. Speeds weren't too great, I doubted we would have been injured and it's nice to think his insurance company would have paid for my respray.

The General, as ever applying sound logic said "lunatic was probably not insured so I'm pleased you avoided him".

With my luck she would have been right

Anyway, my luck was good this week. The beloved Passat (the car in question) was sold yesterday for a very good price; I am now car-less. Even managed to cancel my insurance and as it renews today (10th) I do not have to pay a £35 cancellation charge.
Sad to see the car go, I'm a big VW fan and the TDi in those cars is awesome. 4 years of ownership in which I did 75k miles (most of those in years 1 to 3). It is 7 years old with 165k miles on and other than the paint chips looked as good as new. 50mpg, went like a rocket, handled corners like it was on rails, oh I could go on, but this is a bike forum!!!

The mighty Pan and I are reunited ;D

[rj2para (Bisto)]

sorn is the start the net doth close me thinks..

and about time.

[sheekbiker]

Sorry lads & lasses I may have put the wrong link in try www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/motor/letter
Mick.

[sheekbiker]

I have now had a look at the white paper and there is a passage that states those vehicles that are SORNED will be excluded from this law.
Think the only thing I don't like is that once more it's an automatic fine, no judge or magistrate just a gotcha just hope there is an apeal system for those who make a genuine mistake.
It's interesting that they say they know that the real bad boys will declare a SORN and dive on anyway.
Mick.