Re: Mandatory insurance

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember David Taylor saying something like:

I see that side of it, but I wonder if it's also just another hurdle deliberately put in the way of those who want to keep older cars; each extra difficulty in that means a few more classics sent to the scrapper.

Grimly Curmudgeon ( snipped-for-privacy@REMOVEgmail.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I don't see logging plates being an issue for classic owners. FFS, how many cars do we tend to have and how often do we change 'em?

Traders, perhaps, but not insurmountable. Large fleets, more likely.

OK... so why not get an insurance disk to go with the tax disc? Or compulsory third party insurance paid for as part of the tax system?

Or... ridiculous, I know... get more TrafPlod out there stopping and fining people on the spot instead of automated vehicle detection and *tracking* systems?

PC Paul ( snipped-for-privacy@munge.org.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It's something I'd love to see

Mmmm. Relative risks of a 17yo in a chavved-up Paxo and a 50yo in a Corolla?

I've got no problem with ANPR - with RLSV not a camera - to do on-the-spot prosecution.

As is the case with my Mk1 Sprite, it was last used on the road about mid 1997 prior to the introduction of SORN and so doesn't require declaring according to the DVLA site. I wasn't aware it couldn't be SORNed if I wanted, whats the reason for that. I presume when I get it back on the road i'll just fill in the appropriate form at the PO and get the tax sorted, after that I would think the DVLA would track it and require SORN if not getting it re-taxed although not much point in not taxing it as its free.

Nope.

The message from David Billington contains these words:

I have a terrible memory for some things and I am not sure where my information that pre SORN cars can't be SORNed but I think it might have been from an enquiry I made when the scheme first started. OTOH it might have been something I picked up on urcc which would be far less authoritative. ISTR that there have been suggestions in the past that there might be problems getting a V5C for a pre SORN car but I had no difficulty at all.

As to the mechanism for changing to historic status (or whatever it is called) ISTR that that is something you can't do at the Post Office.

Hopefully there shouldn't be any problem with taxing at the PO as it already has historic status as its 1960. I can't remember when the historic tax was introduced but the car has been taxed before free of charge. I shall address the situation when I come to it as its a year or two of yet.

Similarly with my 4X4 trials Suzuki Samurai. It was taken off the road (in the legal sense) a long time before SORN was introduced. I've no idea what the reg No. is/was as the plates fell off years ago. ISTR getting a registration document with it but I've no idea where it is if it still exists at all. The Suzi will never, ever, in anybody's wildest dreams go back 'on the road'. Am I supposed to insure it?

Simon H

The message from David Billington contains these words:

I had forgotten that Historic car status had been around for so long. It does of course predate Bastard Browns tenure as chief extortionist.

The original concession was that vehicles first registered 25 years previously were entitled to a free tax disc. It was Bastard Brown that introduced the Historic Vehicle class, and locked the date to 31 December

When my 2000 was approaching 25 years old, I wondered why Swansea had sent me a renewal reminder for the full price when I reckoned I need only pay 4 months. So I wrote to them, and they sent me a detailed reply, with the above gist. I still had to pay though :-(

Jim

Obviously, the legislation would have to be extended to include such use, if it was the intention to use trade plates to cover the trader use case.

Christian.

ANPR does require lots of TrafPlod to implement. As the majority of cases involve either vehicles not registered to the correct owner, or apprehension of people for violent crime, a through the post type prosecution is very unlikely to be successful.

Christian.

Actually, the bond required is much smaller. Ridiculously small, in fact. Barely enough to cover a wing mirror. Personally, I think that this method of "insurance" should not be allowed. At least not without some evidence of reinsurance for large claims.

Christian.

Ah, but getting the tax disc requires you to produce an MOT and insurance details. Both of these requirements could be an incentive not to tax a tax free vehicle if you were so inclined.

Christian.

God! wouldn't that be great? Never *having* to deal with insurance companies who forget rule #1 of providing a service and treat us, their customers, as pieces of dirt.

I, for one, would welcome anything that allows the COMPULSORY and, in my view, wholly necessary requirement for third party insurance to be provided at a basic rate by a non-commercial organisation and paid for along with the tax.

That would make first party, fire and theft insurance purely optional and should change the attitude of insurance companies somewhat.

Good point, that slipped my mind at that point in the comment. The frogeye when it gets back on the road will be used as a 2nd car and won't see the 7k miles a year it did in the past so limited mileage insurance and low usage should make keeping it on the road cheaper and easier.

In message , Richard Polhill writes

It would almost be worth it to see the insurance companies grovel for business, once their participation became optional. Almost. There is evidence that flat-rating the risk leads to more accidents:

"Experience in Canada illustrates the impact of moving away from risk pricing. In four provinces the Government provides insurance and premiums that are averaged across all risks. Other provinces have market-based systems with premiums tailored to the individual risks. In the provinces where individual risk pricing is not applied, fatalities are 18% higher and young male admissions to hospital 59% higher. The likeliest explanation for these differences is that the public insurance systems produce too many subsidised higher risk drivers."

Anyway, now that I'm old enough that the insurance companies have stopped crucifying me, I'm not sure I want to pay extra to subsidise higher risk drivers.

There's also the consideration that a government run system would be subject to political interference. In the same way that some people think that our mandatory public health insurance scheme gives the government the right to dictate our lifestyle ("costs to the NHS" argument over any discussion of personal freedom and policy on smoking, alcohol, diet, etc) we might then see cover withdrawn from certain vehicles. You might need to take out additional cover to protect yourself from others if your car was worth than X, certain types of cars might be excluded from the government scheme (and thus banned), etc. It could provide a bureaucratic route to further regulate drivers outside of primary legislation.

Whilst there is a very strong element of what you suggest, significantly limiting the effect, I still strongly suspect that there is a safety enhancing aspect. I know that when I was young my choice of car was limited mainly by insurance premium. I also know that when driving faster cars, I tended to drive both faster and more dangerously. This effect has reduced significantly as I have got older and taken on more responsibilities. I now doubt that I would be significantly more dangerous no matter what car I drove. The effect also seems to be indicated by the Canadian statistics posted elsewhere.

Christian.