Just caught the end of Traffic Cops where there was this little story: Bloke gets prosecuted for driving with a fraudulent insurance certificate. He's a likeable bloke, known to the police and describes himself as a part-time or retired criminal. His third spell in prison has allowed him to see the error of his ways. To the question, "Where did you get your insurance certificate?" he replies "No comment". So not exactly helpful. He has already been prosecuted for driving without insurance. The upshot was that he was not convicted of fraud, as it couldn't be proven that he knew his insurance certificate was fraudulent. He was convicted of driving without insurance and fined.... £165. Case closed. So the question: how far over the speed limit do you have to be going in the UK to get a £165 fine? I don't know want to make of this programme. The police seem all smiling and friendly. The criminals likewise. No one seems intimidated, no one cares about their pathetic punishments. Of course, you wouldn't want a Gestapo-like police force, but the whole law and order thing seems to be treated as a joke by real and habitual offenders, whereas for normally law-abiding people who may cross the line on the odd occasion, the law instils fear and great inconvenience, not to mention expense. Teachers used to get far more upset with you at school for talking in assembly. 200 people die every year, apparently in accidents caused by people with no insurance, and everyone pays £30 a year more insurance so that they can drive without it. Any mention that the system should be reformed? I don't think I should look at Traffic Cops.
Yarp - ive had the book thrown at me for what I perceive to be minor infractions, last one was 200 quid fine in IOM 2 years ago (45 - in a 30)
I cannot watch these social services documentaries glid as they make the veins in my head and neck protrude. The taxpayers money spent shuffling these criminals around aimlessly is an absolute outrage. In my day, a good kicking in the back of the Sherpa van would have yielded results. Once we had a Police Force. The name was deemed unsuitable and changed to Police Service, they missed the "Social" out from the middle. Its all "sir" this and "sir" that, they are not "sirs" they are feckin criminals and need treating as such. Right Glid, you've kicked me off now...........damn.
Makes my €750 fine in France for speeding seem a bit rich..... Oh and a six month ban and a date in court. I must remember to keep my speeding to the soft UK
I'm saying nothing. After all I rode Lambrettas for over 10yrs with nought. Plus they banged me up for it.
In Switzerland, it's a simple system. There is basically a DVLC per canton. They control all the plates. You can only get a plate from them. To get a plate, you need an insurance certificate (your insurance company will look after this for you, directly contacting the authority). If your insurance were to lapse and you didn't hand your plate in, the police will come around and unscrew it. Ditto road tax. Hence, if a car has a plate on it, it is taxed and insured - no exceptions. If a car doesn't have a plate on it - it is obviously illegal and sort of easy to spot. Plates remain with owners, not vehicles. They only contain the 2 canton letters and a number. There is no personalisation. So you don't have all that "this year's plate" bollox, or "look at me" plates. You have very little choice for your plate, but you can ask for a deceased relative's plate, for example, to revert to you. If you have multiple vehicles, you may not need multiple plates. You just move the plate between your bikes before you go out on them, ditto cars. You'll have a separate plate every time you have a separate insurance policy. This system seems to work so well, I've never understood why it isn't more widely adopted.
Nice idea Glid but anyone can get numberplates from the local Pakistani autoparts shop near me. You simply need £20 and not be in Police uniform.......... sorry state of affairs really.
Yes, there is no way to criminal proof anything really. But the Swiss plates are sheet metal with the numbers and letters pressed out of them and painted. So you'd need a metal press to make one, rather than just a PC and a printer. And then you've got to paint it. Also harder to do ringers, because anyone might change their car, and then your fake plate would no longer correspond to it. The plates on stolen cars are "cancelled" in the database. Hard cheese if you got attached to it psychologically. I can still remember the number on the plate on my stolen 916, but can never remember the number on the plate that replaced it, even if I have been riding around with it for the last 10 years or more.
No chance of that in the uk Glid, can you imagine the loss of revenue for HMRC if you could have 4 or 5 vehicles & just move the plate between them.
I'm not sure about this statement... Does it mean that people who drive without insurance are more likely to kill you? Or does it mean that people who drive without insurance are more likely to be the type of people who drive badly and cause accidents that kill people? Or does it mean that if they hadn't driven because they didn't have insurance then those 200 people wouldn't have died? Or does it mean that if they did have insurance then those 200 people would not have died? I'm not sure I understand the correlation between having insurance and people dying in accidents without knowing more information about the causes of those accidents and how it relates to having, or not having, paid for insurance which doesn't necessarily determine someone's skill behind the wheel. Maybe I'm just cynical or maybe I can spot bullshit government scare-mongering statistics?
Surely people who drive without insurance are often people who are driving a stolen vehicle and/or people who have been disqualified from driving. So yes, it is quite plausible that people who drive without insurance are more likely to kill you. But that does not mean that if I failed to renew my insurance next month I would thereby become more likely to kill you.
There may, or may not, be a correlation about uninsured drivers occasioning relatively more road accidents. But that's not how I read it. I saw it as being, that the driver might face a personal liability claim for his driving in the event of killing someone, or perhaps just maiming them. Insurance surely is meant to cover this, rather than just bent metal. Someone who isn't covered for this is going to be harder to get compensation out of. I believe there is a sort of pot which covers this eventuality, but it can't be as good as being personally insured. It's just another can of worms for the victims in the accident.
