Huge wrote:

On 2011-03-14, F news@nowhere wrote:

I'll leave the car in the garage for a day to let the
existing policy lapse and then take out new online.

And thereby commit an offence.

What's the minimum period you can SORN vehicle for?

Andy Burns gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I'll leave the car in the garage for a day to let the existing policy
lapse and then take out new online.

And thereby commit an offence.

What's the minimum period you can SORN vehicle for?

You can SORN it today, then tax it tomorrow. shrug

The SORN declaration needs renewing after a year, but you can tax it
whenever you want, so cancelling the SORN.

In message , Adrian
writes
Andy Burns gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

I'll leave the car in the garage for a day to let the existing policy
lapse and then take out new online.

And thereby commit an offence.

What's the minimum period you can SORN vehicle for?

You can SORN it today, then tax it tomorrow. shrug

The SORN declaration needs renewing after a year, but you can tax it
whenever you want, so cancelling the SORN.

But we're taking insurance. Is the 'must be insured or SORNed' law
actually in force?
--
Ian

John Williamson wrote:

It's not as if DL are
particularly cheap, which would explain them saying they're not on the
comparison sites.

Actually for the last 14 years, DL or Privilege (who seem to be DL in
disguise) have either been the cheapest for me (by considerable margins)
or have matched or come within £5 of cheaper deals I've found on the
comparison websites and the specialist brokers ...

Ian Jackson gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I'll leave the car in the garage for a day to let the existing
policy lapse and then take out new online.

And thereby commit an offence.

What's the minimum period you can SORN vehicle for?

You can SORN it today, then tax it tomorrow. shrug

The SORN declaration needs renewing after a year, but you can tax it
whenever you want, so cancelling the SORN.

But we're taking insurance. Is the 'must be insured or SORNed' law
actually in force?

shrug Most sources just say "early" or "expected to be". But there
seems to be a bit of a consensus saying "April".

On 14/03/2011 19:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , F
writes
On 14/03/2011 12:34 Huge wrote:

On 2011-03-14, Fnews@nowhere wrote:

I'll leave the car in the garage for a day to let the
existing policy lapse and then take out new online.

And thereby commit an offence. Not that you may care. Or the DVLA/MID
notice...

Correct...

Have the 'new rules' actually come into force - or are they still
arguing about it? All
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...nsurance/DG_18
6696
says is
"In early 2011, the vehicle insurance law will change."

That's unclear, and crazy. And I don't mean the date.

I have insurance covering me 3rd party only for any vehicle not mine.
My neighbour has an old MG; my insurance will let me drive it legally.
Is this law really saying that he has to have some kind of insurance on
the vehicle or he gets fined - and yet if I drove it I wouldn't be using
the insurance?

Andy

Andy Champ gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I have insurance covering me 3rd party only for any vehicle not mine. My
neighbour has an old MG; my insurance will let me drive it legally. Is
this law really saying that he has to have some kind of insurance on the
vehicle or he gets fined - and yet if I drove it I wouldn't be using the
insurance?

Yes. That's precisely what it is saying.

Don't forget that it's very unlikely that the vehicle would be insured if
you parked it up and left it. And, of course, he would never have been
able to get a tax disc for it if whilst it was uninsured (and, yes, pre-73
cars still need a valid tax disc, even if it is free). You'd also pop up
on any ANPR.

Mark wrote:
If you can find a good local insurance broken then these can be very
good.

Fully agree. I initially used a broker for my buildings[1] and
liability
insurance[2] mainly because I was lazy, but now use them for
everything.

[1]Try explaining to yer bog standard insurer that the building
you want to insure is commercial *and* residential. Even yer
landlord insurance specialists don't seem to understand the
concept that 90% of shops have a flat upstairs.

[2]I'm insured if I fall off a ladder and injure somebody... but
not if I injure myself

JGH

In article ,
lid says...
I have insurance covering me 3rd party only for any vehicle not mine.
My neighbour has an old MG; my insurance will let me drive it legally.
Is this law really saying that he has to have some kind of insurance on
the vehicle or he gets fined - and yet if I drove it I wouldn't be using
the insurance?

Yes. It doesn't really make any difference since he'll either have to
have SORNed it in which case you couldn't be driving it, or he has a tax
disc - for which he will have to have provided proof of insurance.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

In article ,
Andy Champ writes:

That's unclear, and crazy. And I don't mean the date.

I have insurance covering me 3rd party only for any vehicle not mine.
My neighbour has an old MG; my insurance will let me drive it legally.

Check the wording - several have just changed to say your 3rd party
cover only applies if the owner also has valid insurance cover for
the vehicle for themselves - you can't use it to drive an otherwise
uninsured car.

Is this law really saying that he has to have some kind of insurance on
the vehicle or he gets fined - and yet if I drove it I wouldn't be using
the insurance?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
Skipweasel wrote:
}In article ,
says...
} I have insurance covering me 3rd party only for any vehicle not mine.
} My neighbour has an old MG; my insurance will let me drive it legally.
} Is this law really saying that he has to have some kind of insurance on
} the vehicle or he gets fined - and yet if I drove it I wouldn't be using
} the insurance?
}
}Yes. It doesn't really make any difference since he'll either have to
}have SORNed it in which case you couldn't be driving it, or he has a tax
}disc - for which he will have to have provided proof of insurance.

To get a tax disc it is only necessary to have insurance to cover the
first day of the period to be taxed, so it's quite possible to have a
taxed and uninsured vehicle for just under a year.

In article ,
Charles Bryant wrote:
In article ,
Skipweasel wrote:
}In article ,
says...
} I have insurance covering me 3rd party only for any vehicle not mine.
} My neighbour has an old MG; my insurance will let me drive it legally.
} Is this law really saying that he has to have some kind of insurance on
} the vehicle or he gets fined - and yet if I drove it I wouldn't be using
} the insurance?
}
}Yes. It doesn't really make any difference since he'll either have to
}have SORNed it in which case you couldn't be driving it, or he has a tax
}disc - for which he will have to have provided proof of insurance.

To get a tax disc it is only necessary to have insurance to cover the
first day of the period to be taxed, so it's quite possible to have a
taxed and uninsured vehicle for just under a year.

Which you will now have to SORN, so (leaving aside classics) you might
as well claim the unused portion of the tax disc back from them too ...
have they really thought this through ?

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Huge gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

have they really thought this through ?

Of course not. The only people this will catch is the absent-minded but
otherwise law-abiding middle classes. The chavs who didn't tax or insure
their cars will carry on as before.

Unfortunately, you're right about that second - although I'd argue that
you're being a bit pessimistic about the first, and it'll be wider than
that.

So...

What DO you suggest?

About the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is to have the
physical plates issued officially and renewed every year.

In article ,
says...
}Yes. It doesn't really make any difference since he'll either have to
}have SORNed it in which case you couldn't be driving it, or he has a tax
}disc - for which he will have to have provided proof of insurance.

To get a tax disc it is only necessary to have insurance to cover the
first day of the period to be taxed, so it's quite possible to have a
taxed and uninsured vehicle for just under a year.


Which is, of course, the point of the new rules.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On 14/03/2011 21:23, Andy Champ wrote:
On 14/03/2011 19:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , F
writes
On 14/03/2011 12:34 Huge wrote:

On 2011-03-14, Fnews@nowhere wrote:

I'll leave the car in the garage for a day to let the
existing policy lapse and then take out new online.

And thereby commit an offence. Not that you may care. Or the DVLA/MID
notice...

Correct...

Have the 'new rules' actually come into force - or are they still
arguing about it? All
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring...nsurance/DG_18
6696
says is
"In early 2011, the vehicle insurance law will change."

That's unclear, and crazy. And I don't mean the date.

I have insurance covering me 3rd party only for any vehicle not mine. My
neighbour has an old MG; my insurance will let me drive it legally. Is
this law really saying that he has to have some kind of insurance on the
vehicle or he gets fined - and yet if I drove it I wouldn't be using the
insurance?

I was watching one of those cops with cameras type shows last night.

Woman had 3rd party insurance but the vehicle she was driving had no
insurance. Apparently her 3rd party only allows her to drive insured
vehicles.

They confiscated the vehicle.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Huge gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

So...

What DO you suggest?

I'm not sure there's a good solution.

Assuming we could trust the Government (which, BTW, I don't believe)

This specific government, the last specific government, or the very
concept of government?

the first thing we should do is put the "road tax" on petrol and abolish
the tax disk. Then we could have default third party insurance paid for
again with a tax on petrol.

Except, of course, not all fuel is taxed at all (up to 2500l of home-made
diesel) - and of that which is, not all is used in road vehicles.

Then just sit back and wait for the chavs to move on to nicking fuel. And
the criminal fraternity to start with grey imports. That already happens
cross-border Ulster-Eire.

On 3/15/2011 9:16 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-15, wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

have they really thought this through ?

Of course not. The only people this will catch is the absent-minded but
otherwise law-abiding middle classes. The chavs who didn't tax or insure
their cars will carry on as before.

Unfortunately, you're right about that second - although I'd argue that
you're being a bit pessimistic about the first, and it'll be wider than
that.

So...

What DO you suggest?

I'm not sure there's a good solution.

About the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is to have the
physical plates issued officially and renewed every year.

Assuming we could trust the Government (which, BTW, I don't believe),
the first thing we should do is put the "road tax" on petrol and abolish
the tax disk. Then we could have default third party insurance paid for
again with a tax on petrol. I believe this is the system they have in
New Zealand. That just leaves us with the problem of a roadworthiness
inspection (aka MOT). I'm not sure how to deal with this, without ending
up with disks and whanot, in which case we're back where we started
only now with extra taxes on petrol (which is what I believe happened
in Ireland; they abolished the tax disk and put the tax on petrol. Then
had an admin fee for checking documents each year, which crept up until
it was the same as the road tax had previously been, so now they're back
where they started only with two taxes instead of one.)



Here's one suggestion:

The cost of road use should be in proportion to use made of them. So
that should be covered by a fuel tax.

All vehicles (irrespective of age) have an annual safety test. You get a
"MOT" disk to display. A year old car may be a "cut and shut", after all.

Personal injury claims are settled by the CICB, at CICB rates, once
criminal negligence/intent on someone's part has been proven. No
criminal conviction - no claim. An unacceptable criminal history - no claim.

Property damage claims are settled by the "Criminal Damage Compensation
Board", at CDCB rates, once criminal negligence/intent on someone's part
has been proven. No criminal conviction - no claim. An unacceptable
criminal history - no claim.

Any other cover to be provided by individual insurance policies - but
with companies limited to the CICB/CDCB claims process when it comes to
recovery.

The above would rein back this trend for car ownership only to be
possible for the rich. All a motorist *has* to pay for is the car and
fuel and maintenance costs plus an inexpensive annual safety test. Those
who choose to pay for and risk an expensive car on the highway pay for
the expensive insurance needed to cover it against accidents. (The
"CDCB" rates would max out at £1000, or the book value of the vehicle,
if less, for a total write-off).

On 3/15/2011 9:37 AM, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

So...

What DO you suggest?

I'm not sure there's a good solution.

Assuming we could trust the Government (which, BTW, I don't believe)

This specific government, the last specific government, or the very
concept of government?

the first thing we should do is put the "road tax" on petrol and abolish
the tax disk. Then we could have default third party insurance paid for
again with a tax on petrol.

Except, of course, not all fuel is taxed at all (up to 2500l of home-made
diesel) - and of that which is, not all is used in road vehicles.

If someone has to go around smelling like a chippie to save £35 (which
is what a tax disk *should* cost) - then good luck to them. They will
probably die young and save the country far more than that on NHS costs.


Then just sit back and wait for the chavs to move on to nicking fuel. And
the criminal fraternity to start with grey imports. That already happens
cross-border Ulster-Eire.


If it was just the road tax that had to be absorbed into fuel costs, the
difference in a tank full would be tiny.

If it were also 3rd party insurance - then what is needed is to reduce
the costs of claims. It's totally unfair that a tetraplaegic's future
living standard, indeed lifespan, should be determined by whether there
was insurance cover, or not. So, limit personal accident claims to
criminal injury compensation. Similarly, limit property damage claims.
If the "insurance element" on a tankful had to cover £2000 max - then
again, the added cost would be minimal.

Species8472 gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Personal injury claims are settled by the CICB, at CICB rates, once
criminal negligence/intent on someone's part has been proven. No
criminal conviction - no claim.

So, for the vast vast majority of road traffic collisions, there would be
no compensation payable. Either that, or the court system would become
massively overworked as every single rtc was prosecuted - probably still
with few convictions, because of lack of evidence.

An unacceptable criminal history - no claim.

So you're a convicted bank robber, newly released from prison - and get
run over on a pedestrian crossing... tough?

Property damage claims are settled by the "Criminal Damage Compensation
Board", at CDCB rates, once criminal negligence/intent on someone's part
has been proven. No criminal conviction - no claim. An unacceptable
criminal history - no claim.

Home insurance would quickly fill the gap - you're just moving the costs
onto the innocent party.

Any other cover to be provided by individual insurance policies - but
with companies limited to the CICB/CDCB claims process when it comes to
recovery.

With that same caveat over conviction?

The above would rein back this trend for car ownership only to be
possible for the rich.

What "trend" is that? Would you care to share your definition of "the
rich"?

(The "CDCB" rates would max out at £1000, or the book value of the
vehicle, if less, for a total write-off).

You really aren't particularly clueful, are you?

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Assuming we could trust the Government (which, BTW, I don't believe),
the first thing we should do is put the "road tax" on petrol and abolish
the tax disk. Then we could have default third party insurance paid for
again with a tax on petrol.

Putting up the price of fuel would be a very popular move at the moment.
;-)

There's a lot to be said for paying the equivalent of the VED that way -
except that you'd still need to have some method of registering the car.
In theory, that is checked at least once a year at renewal time. Would
that service now be 'free' - or a fee paid?

Insurance being 'given' to all means the good drivers would subsidise the
bad ones - even more than is the case now.

--
*Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Huge gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Assuming we could trust the Government (which, BTW, I don't believe)

This specific government, the last specific government, or the very
concept of government?

All three. )

Mmm. I'd have thought that the various areas of the world without a
functioning government were fairly persuasive proof that "the very
concept of government" might not be perfect but it's a damn sight better
than the alternative...

Still, I'm sure there's nothing stopping you emigrating to Somalia.

Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-15, Adrian wrote:
Huge gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

have they really thought this through ?

Of course not. The only people this will catch is the absent-minded but
otherwise law-abiding middle classes. The chavs who didn't tax or insure
their cars will carry on as before.

Unfortunately, you're right about that second - although I'd argue that
you're being a bit pessimistic about the first, and it'll be wider than
that.

So...

What DO you suggest?

I'm not sure there's a good solution.

About the only thing I can think of off the top of my head is to have the
physical plates issued officially and renewed every year.

Assuming we could trust the Government (which, BTW, I don't believe),
the first thing we should do is put the "road tax" on petrol and abolish
the tax disk. Then we could have default third party insurance paid for
again with a tax on petrol. I believe this is the system they have in
New Zealand. That just leaves us with the problem of a roadworthiness
inspection (aka MOT). I'm not sure how to deal with this, without ending
up with disks and whanot, in which case we're back where we started
only now with extra taxes on petrol (which is what I believe happened
in Ireland; they abolished the tax disk and put the tax on petrol. Then
had an admin fee for checking documents each year, which crept up until
it was the same as the road tax had previously been, so now they're back
where they started only with two taxes instead of one.)

I believe that we went through the same process in the UK. Tax on fuel was
raised with a promise that VED would be abolished in the 1960s. The first
part happened.

As to MOT test, no need for a sticker. Plod can now check MOT status and
insurance details using ANPR. The entire task disk farce is an irrelevance.

On 14/03/2011 19:59 Ian Jackson wrote:

Have the 'new rules' actually come into force - or are they still
arguing about it?

From the renewal documents:
'From 2011 if there is no record on the Motor Insurance Database showing
your vehicle is insured, and you have not declared it as 'off road', you
will receive a letter warning you that you could face a fine,
prosecution, and the vehicle could also be clamped seized and ultimately
destroyed.

This new approach is being introduced to protect honest motorists and do
even more to prevent people from driving without insurance.

Most people obey the law, but there are still too many people driving
without insurance. So in future all vehicles must be insured, even if
they are not being used on the road. (Vehicles with a valid SORN are not
affected by this legislation).'

--
F

On 14/03/2011 23:30, Andrew Gabriel wrote:

Check the wording - several have just changed to say your 3rd party
cover only applies if the owner also has valid insurance cover for
the vehicle for themselves - you can't use it to drive an otherwise
uninsured car.


My brand new certificate says "The policyholder may also drive with the
consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and
not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement."

with some caveats about licences. So it excludes my brother's bike.
And the Nordschleife. But not next doors MG - which I very much doubt
he'd lend me...

Andy

On 15/03/2011 15:39 Huge wrote:

I wasn't aware that the State provided loo rolls.

It should. Labour put the sh*ts up a lot of us with its spending...

--
F

In article ,
Mark wrote:
My wife's car is still with DL. I could not get a significantly cheaper
quote from any of those web sites last December.

I wouldn't touch DL with a bargepole. They have one of the "best"
claim avoidance departments I have experienced.

Only claim I had with them was on the old Rover when the rear screen self
imploded. Eventually found the last new one in the country of the right
tint and they paid up with no quibble. Autoglass who they insisted I used
were hopeless, though.

--
*To steal ideas from *one* person is plagiarism; from many, research*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:30:27 +0000 (GMT) Dave Plowman (News) wrote :
There's a lot to be said for paying the equivalent of the VED that way -
except that you'd still need to have some method of registering the car.
In theory, that is checked at least once a year at renewal time. Would
that service now be 'free' - or a fee paid?

UK Companies House require all UK companies to complete an annual return
once a year. They've just dropped the price from £15 to £14 [the
equivalent here for an Australian small company like mine is ten times as
much] so it should be quite possible to handle vehicle registrations for a
similar amount, if necessary backed up by a small transfer fee on change
of ownership.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
}Huge gurgled happily, sounding much like they
}were saying:
} The only people this will catch is the absent-minded but
} otherwise law-abiding middle classes. The chavs who didn't tax or insure
} their cars will carry on as before.
}
}Unfortunately, you're right about that second - although I'd argue that
}you're being a bit pessimistic about the first, and it'll be wider than
}that.
}
}So...
}
}What DO you suggest?

That we stop being so paranoid about people driving without insurance.

In article ,
says...

That we stop being so paranoid about people driving without insurance.

Trouble is that it's often associated with other things - like a poorly
maintained vehicle and (at least round here) a completly crap attitude
to other road users.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On Mar 18, 9:43*am, Skipweasel
wrote:
In article ,
says...

That we stop being so paranoid about people driving without insurance.

Trouble is that it's often associated with other things - like a poorly
maintained vehicle and (at least round here) a completly crap attitude
to other road users.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

I was stopped once by plod, for no tax (he didn't see the trade plates
I had inside the screen). After he realised the car was covered, we
had a chat, and I said didn't he feel it was a waste of police time to
be acting as tax inspectors for the government. He smiled and said
that "very often, no tax is an indicator of other offences being
committed...."

In article 6b6f67b0-8ba4-40d2-90ec-d219570df515
@o20g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...
I was stopped once by plod, for no tax (he didn't see the trade plates
I had inside the screen). After he realised the car was covered, we
had a chat, and I said didn't he feel it was a waste of police time to
be acting as tax inspectors for the government. He smiled and said
that "very often, no tax is an indicator of other offences being
committed...."

Wish I could find the report, now, but some time in the last five years
or so I saw something that claimed that around 2/3 of vehicles pulled
for no tax had other things wrong too. IIRC the situation with no
insurance was similar.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On Mar 18, 10:39 am, Skipweasel
wrote:
In article 6b6f67b0-8ba4-40d2-90ec-d219570df515
@o20g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, says...

I was stopped once by plod, for no tax (he didn't see the trade plates
I had inside the screen). After he realised the car was covered, we
had a chat, and I said didn't he feel it was a waste of police time to
be acting as tax inspectors for the government. He smiled and said
that "very often, no tax is an indicator of other offences being
committed...."

Wish I could find the report, now, but some time in the last five years
or so I saw something that claimed that around 2/3 of vehicles pulled
for no tax had other things wrong too. IIRC the situation with no
insurance was similar.

google is your friend

Jim K

On 3/18/2011 9:03 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-18, Charles wrote:
In ,
wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
}were saying:
} The only people this will catch is the absent-minded but
} otherwise law-abiding middle classes. The chavs who didn't tax or insure
} their cars will carry on as before.
}
}Unfortunately, you're right about that second - although I'd argue that
}you're being a bit pessimistic about the first, and it'll be wider than
}that.
}
}So...
}
}What DO you suggest?

That we stop being so paranoid about people driving without insurance.

And are you prepared to pay the living expenses of a crippled 23 y/o
with 2 children for the rest of his life?


Don't you think that the entire system is flawed?

Your 23 year old cripple:

1) Fell out of a tree - state support
2) Run over by someone that couldn't be identified - state support
3) Hit with brick by an unidentified thug - state support
4) Hit with brick by an identified and then convicted thug - state
support + CICB compensation
5) Hit intentionally with car by uninsured driver with no assets/income
- state support + CCIB compensation
6) Hit accidentally with car by insured driver - state support + jackpot
7) Hit accidentally with car by uninsured driver with assets/income -
state support + driver payments
etc

The whole thing is a total lottery -even though the needs of the
innocent victim are entirely the same.

I'd suggest that the state should be the primary insurer, in cases of
personal accident. That would provide fairness - in each case the person
would receive the same living expenses that they needed -irrespective of
the circumstances of the guilty party. Guilt or innocence would be
purely a matter for a criminal court - should the injury have resulted
from criminal recklessness or intent.

The role of insurance companies would be to provide additional benefits
to the insured above and beyond those considered essential by the state.

Driving without insurance would then not be a crime at all. Driving an
unsafe vehicle would be. Driving without a licence would be. Driving
under the influence of drink or drugs would be. Driving without an MoT
would be. Driving whilst unfit to do so would be. Driving without
adequate vision would be. Driving without due care and attention would
be. Driving dangerously would be. Driving faster than the relevant speed
limit would be. Driving through a red light would be. We really don't
need a crime of driving without insurance as well to catch unsafe
vehicles and drivers..there are more than enough other crimes to convict
motorists for..

On 3/18/2011 12:10 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2011-03-18, wrote:

I'd suggest that the state should be the primary insurer,

Ghod forbid. You think we have a **** system *now*?

For the majority of those that are disabled - that "**** system" is what
they do indeed get now.

Why on Earth should those "lucky enough" to be injured by an insured and
identifiable motorist fare so much better than the vast majority of
people who, through absolutely no fault of their own, ended up with
disabilities?

Yes, taxpayers would end up paying for a better system that provided
reasonable living expenses for all those that are *incapable* of
providing one for themselves.

The present system cannot be defended on the basis that a lucky few are
treated fairly and the rest.. well, tough luck to them.

On 3/15/2011 10:16 AM, Adrian wrote:
gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Personal injury claims are settled by the CICB, at CICB rates, once
criminal negligence/intent on someone's part has been proven. No
criminal conviction - no claim.

So, for the vast vast majority of road traffic collisions, there would be
no compensation payable. Either that, or the court system would become
massively overworked as every single rtc was prosecuted - probably still
with few convictions, because of lack of evidence.


For the vast majority of innocent people that end up with disabilities,
there is no compensation payable.

Why should someone hit by a car, accidentally, have their standard of
living maintained as far as is possible, yet someone hit by a brick,
deliberately, think themselves lucky to get something from the CICB?

The state needs to provide a reasonable standard of living for all those
with disabilities such that they cannot be expected to provide one for
themselves.

Anyone who wishes to maintain a higher standard than that should take
out their own insurance. They can clearly afford to do so.

Why should someone on £20kpa pay an insurance premium so that a
millionaire can maintain their standard of living, when they would get
far, far less if the roles were reversed?


An unacceptable criminal history - no claim.

So you're a convicted bank robber, newly released from prison - and get
run over on a pedestrian crossing... tough?

You'd get the same standard of living and care that the state would
provide to anyone. You just wouldn't get the little extra that the CICB
provides. Which seems fair enough - the state has just spent far more
than that on keeping you locked up. If you wanted more than that - spend
some of the bank robbery proceeds on a personal insurance policy.

In article ed285321-a7ad-4109-964b-ca10005f9340
@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com, says...
Wish I could find the report, now, but some time in the last five years
or so I saw something that claimed that around 2/3 of vehicles pulled
for no tax had other things wrong too. IIRC the situation with no
insurance was similar.

google is your friend

Yeah - but I couldn't find it.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

On Mar 18, 6:01 pm, Skipweasel
wrote:
In article ed285321-a7ad-4109-964b-ca10005f9340
@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com, says...

Wish I could find the report, now, but some time in the last five years
or so I saw something that claimed that around 2/3 of vehicles pulled
for no tax had other things wrong too. IIRC the situation with no
insurance was similar.

google is your friend

Yeah - but I couldn't find it.

--
Skipweasel - never knowingly understood.

figures

Jim K

On 18 Mar 2011 12:10:58 GMT Huge wrote :
On 2011-03-18, Species8472 wrote:

I'd suggest that the state should be the primary insurer,

Ghod forbid. You think we have a **** system *now*?

I don't know how well it works, but New Zealand has a state funded
compensation scheme

"ACC is the sole and compulsory provider of accident insurance for all
work and non-work injuries. The ACC Scheme is administered on a no-fault
basis, so that anyone, regardless of the way in which they incurred an
injury, is eligible for coverage under the Scheme. Due to the Scheme's
no-fault basis, people who have suffered personal injury do not have the
right to sue an at-fault party, except for exemplary damages"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acciden...on_Corporation

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

On 19 Mar 2011 10:31:46 GMT Huge wrote :
I'll take my chances with the ambulance chasers, thanks.

The ones that have phoned me up - in the UK and here - have been left
with very sore ears.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on' Melbourne, Australia
www.superbeam.co.uk www.eurobeam.co.uk www.greentram.com

In article ,
Skipweasel wrote:
}In article ,
says...
}
} That we stop being so paranoid about people driving without insurance.
}
}Trouble is that it's often associated with other things - like a poorly
}maintained vehicle and (at least round here) a completly crap attitude
}to other road users.

Then it's stupid to worry about driving without insurance. Address the
real concerns directly instead.