Insurance for cars off-road

Richard Polhill ( snipped-for-privacy@polhill.vispa.invalid) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

No, because it doesn't exist yet.

The one slight exception to what you say is that areas which may be private land but are open to the public (car parks, primarily) are treated as public highway for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act.

There was some discussion last year about introducing a requirement for cars to be insured continuously, but there was an exception (similar to SORN) for cars which are not in use for an extended period of time.

There is no need for cars to be insured off road, and there is currently no proposal to make it compulsory.

There is a proposal for the other way round: any uninsured car would have to be declared off road. So if your insurance ran out today but your tax didn't, you would either have to reinsure the car (even if you weren't planning to use it on the road) or SORN it.

Only a proposal which was out for consultation last year, but there are an awful lot of wild rumours going around about it: I was sent a posting from a Daimler owners' club stating as fact that it had been implemented. It hasn't.

Even if it is, it shouldn't cause us classic car owners too many problems, as I expect most of us have year-round insurance even if the car is laid up half the time.

Ian

cars to be insured even when not on the road.

Ah right. I had mistakenly understood that this was legislation recently implemented or imminent.

Thanks, Adrian.

Ian Johnston ( snipped-for-privacy@btinternet.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

The way to it has been paved. It's in the Road Safety Bill, which received Royal Assent (first step to detail implementation) in November last year.

I disagree. I expect a lot of us have a project or two in deep sleep that we certainly wouldn't want to have to insure.

Willy Eckerslyke (oss108no snipped-for-privacy@bangor.ac.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Indeed. But since they won't get away without implementing some form of SORN alternative - it just won't happen - I'm reasonably happy.

Mind you, I'm one of those with no big conceptual problem against the current SORN regime...

I think it is totally ludicrous to suggest that a person's private property has to be legally insured at all times, why? it is my personal choice to do it or not. If I want to take the risk of my vehicle/vehicles being stolen etc. that is my decision. As long as there cannot be any third party liability involved, where does this logically stop? compulsory life insurance? Also what is the safety aspect of this?

Alan...

But we wouldn't have to, as long as the car is SORNed.

Ian

But nobody is suggesting that your personal property has to be insured at all times. So no problem.

Ian

Phaeton ( snipped-for-privacy@none.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Nobody's suggesting that it would be compulsory to insure your car at all times.

Merely that if you aren't insuring it, you stick your hand up and say that it's off the road. Since it's been a legal requirement for many decades that an uninsured car IS off the road, that's not exactly a huge shift.

Same as with VED for the last decade.