Re: Mandatory insurance

Just like Norwich Union used to do for motorcycle rider's policies. You were covered for as many bikes as you owned up to a certain size engine. The bigger the maximum engine size the more expensive the policy. I don't suppose that type of policy exists any more.

Ian

...

Eh?

The message from "John" contains these words:

It seems to have escaped Ladymans notice that cars that have been off the road since before SORN was introduced not only do not need to be SORNed but are unable to be SORNed.

Try not snipping so much.

When it's on the public road, yes it needs to be explicitly named on somebody's policy.

The discussion was about the fact that in some circumstances, such as when it is kept off the public road, it is currently legal to drive it on 'any other car' insurance, but it wouldn't be after these changes.

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

Not necessarily.

Explicitly COVERED, yes, but not explicitly named - a policy may be in force which covers all vehicles owned/leased to Company . If it's a big fleet, keeping that list up to date just isn't feasible - think of BT or the Royal Mail, for example.

I know, I know. I was trying to avoid having 75% of the post being caveats and corner cases...

Not if you're a motor trader with a blanket cover policy.

The law, however, does have to cover the caveats and corner cases.

Christian.

OK, OK, expect every post on this issue to be much longer in future...

*Obviously* a policy which is explicitly written to allow any car to be driven under it, such as motor trade or fleet policies, will cover the vehicles in question.

If we restrict it to standard domestic car policies, then it all gets much easier to discuss.

On 2006-07-27, Christian McArdle wrote: [...without leaving any attributions]

Presumably this is the real point of the legislation. Require that all "any vehicle" policies are actually updated to list all registration numbers that are being driven under that policy, so that ANPR systems will work correctly.

The main problem I can see at present is that it's yet another Government IT project, and will probably fail to cope with the required timescales. If you could simply register a car automatically in 5 minutes, it'd be fine. If, OTOH, it takes 3 weeks of fighting insurance companies/government departments, it'll be a complete waste of time.

We can't, though. The system can't tell if a car should be covered under a domestic car policy or a commercial one. What changes the law makes has to cover commerical users. The needs of these commercial users are likely to be the more difficult boundary cases for determining the functioning of the system, as there are likely to be many commercial users with a high throughput of vehicles (particular car dealers) who will need to ensure that the stay within the law, but who can't be expected to get a printed certificate for every car that passes through their hands.

Christian.

Hence the trade plate system.

Now if they wanted to alter that so that the original plates had to be covered so only the trade plates showed, that's fine. Or even to make the trade plates be where the normal plate is so ANPR can catch it.

But these changes look like they are more aimed at the casual insure something cheap drive something fast type user.

If you're a trader you will be using trade plates presumably

Well, that could work, but has some disadvantages.

Firstly, the trade plates would uglify the vehicle, which a car trader does not want. Secondly, the trade plates would be prone to theft, especially on long period test drives, where the car will be parked for periods. Thirdly, the trade plates will be prone to cloning, as presumably the ANPR would ignore any car with apparently valid trade plates and would be unable to determine the make/model/colour, so the police standing by can't pull over suspicious cars.

That is their intention. The problem is reducing the impact on law abiding commercial users from the fallout.

Christian.

Not always, by any means. Indeed, of the test drives I've done, probably only a quarter involved the use of trade plates.

Christian.

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

Yes.... but...

How do you then enforce-by-computer the "Insure or SORN" requirement?

But no easier to actually DO.

Christian McArdle ( snipped-for-privacy@nospam.yahooxxxx.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Tough.

But trade plates don't cover Joe Public for long-period unaccompanied test drives.

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

Not at all.

A trade policy covers the vehicles for any use - including SD&P. Trade plates explicitly don't. They can only be used for definite business use.

Gordon ( snipped-for-privacy@lgbpcomputing.co.uk.invalid) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

I think it's a damn sight bigger than that now.

Yes, I know, but the logic still stands...