Re: Mandatory insurance

"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4gii3sF1np9jkU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Robert wrote:
<a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:cus7a21stdcsknibddgj0pqgdqg5kkgi6f@xxxxxxxxxx
I know several people that won't be happy.

http://www.instimes.co.uk/news/articledetail.asp?id=41618

(Requires reg)

Alt link:

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=14308

This is all just a re-iteration of what's been said before.

What would be best would be if there was a definitive system that
fined people who were untaxed (we have that), uninsured (don't have
that) but not SORN'd.

I know it doesn't work, because plenty of folk in my city don't
insure their cars, have tax, or no tax even, yet can still drive with
no worries, without SORNing.

Thats generally because the cars are down as no current keeper.
If the police/dvla don't know who's driving then there is little they can
do.

Thats in part responsible for the increase in ANPR vans.
Cars with no keeper are pulled over


It's the usual *** I.T systems implementation.

Not really. It's because vehicles can change hands without the new keepers
details finding their way to DVLA

If you can think of a way round that , other than making it law that every
single vehicle sale *must* be overseen by DVLA with huge penalties for non
compliance.......

If vehicles change hands, and the previous owner hasn't informed the DVLA,
then tough cheese, they should be getting fined for incompetence.

I wouldn't agree with your previous comment - the people I am talking about
are the registered keepers, but just haven't SORNd, and can drive with tax,
or without, and with no insurance. The chances of getting pulled here in
Scotland aren't too large at all, and we have about 2 ANPR cameras in the
whole of the country.


.

Quantcast