Sorn

I got nicked a couple of years ago. It was a traffic car, and he saw me at a mini-roundabout (he was going the other way). He went all the way on to the next roundabout, turned around and came speeding after me, finally catching up with me a couple of miles later.

All for a £20 fine. What a complete waste of police time.

In message , on Sun, 7 Dec

2003, Simon Worby writes

Yes, it would have been a much better use of police time to have tied up the officer in hours of paperwork, hanging round casualty departments, taking statements and being unavailable for other incidents if you'd actually unnecessarily injured yourself in a collision.

Could be an expensive phone call. I had laid-up insurance via Norwich Union for several years - can't remember the exact premium, but somewhere around £100 a year. When I finally got it back on the road they wanted £1400 for fully comp!!! (It's now with AON).

Geoff MacK

Can you apply for a V5 for a vehicle for which the number plate, documents, and ID/VIN plate have been irretrievably lost, (ie pinched)? Would some kind of certification as to Make/Model/Year of manufacture from the Owners Club enable this perhaps?

Thanks TT

Which is so much cheaper than the cost of trying to rebuid your face (assuming you even survived) after an accident.

If I want to injure or kill myself, surely that's my right as a free citizen.

Alex

The risk of not wearing a seat belt is exceptionally low, yet the law dictates you must wear one.

I would suggest to you that the very act of driving a classic car puts you at a much higher risk than not wearing a seat belt.

There are so many activities out there that are so dangerous, yet are permitted.

If all dangerous things were prohibited, I would have understanding for your point of view.

Thankfully that is not the case; so I don't.

I refer you to my response to Mr Stokes; it is entirely appropriate for you also.

I didn't buy it, I got the article through a guy who works there!

Here it is, scanned in:

Quite right, and the same goes for motorcycle helmets as well.

However, although I am a libertarian and therefore are expected to make these comments, it is the case that you are likely to damage yourself far more in an accident if you don't have a seat belt or helmet. Therefore although I think neither should be compulsory, you should pay much higher insurance charges if you intend to drive / ride without them.

If you have an accident having claimed you will wear a belt, and are found not to be wearing one, your insurance should then be null and void.

Climbing down off my right-wing bandwagon now :-)

Seems reasonable to me. I've flipped my SIIa 109 over on a roundabout before now, and I can honesly say a seatbelt would have afforded no extra protection, and would have considerably hampered me getting out had it had one, a notable point should the vehicle have caught fire.

The ambulance man had hysterics when he asked wether I was alright, and my reply was "Damn, I've broken my wingmirror"

Alex

The message from Howard Rose contains these words:

Thanks. Now you have got me worried. There is more than a slight whiff of no SORN - no registration and not a dicky bird about how those who are currently not allowed to make a SORN are going to be treated. The only possible good news is the advertising campaign which wouldn't seem necessary if they intended just to dump the not SORNed but the advert could still be of the form 'get your car back on the road pronto or lose the chance permanently'.

Roger

This is only fair and just if you insist that anyone who engages in

*any* dangerous / risky activities pays more tax (to cover NHS treatment / emergency services, etc) and higher life insurance premiums (so all the "safe" people aren't hard done by).

So, S-Class Mercedes drivers 10% tax; Ford Fiesta drivers 20% tax; classic car drivers 30% tax;. DIY freaks 40% tax; urban cyclists 50%; mountaineers 70% tax; Concord flyers (speed kills, don't forget) 99% tax. Fair?

Only if you previously declared you wore one.

It's hardly right-wing! It's more socialist nanny-state!

That's more or less how I read it to, the important bit is ".... will have been issued with the new style V5C. From 1 July 2005, all existing V5 registration documents will no longer be valid".

I'm sure the classic car press will be dealing with this one soon?

Pezzack

You can, but you'd get a Q-plate (never tax exempt).

It is exceptionally low. If you don't crash...

Kill youself while endangering other people's lives? Ever see that "belt up in the back" advert?

Tel them to come and crush the Corsa down the road with tax from last July. ;-)

If it was my car I'd have got stopped the 1st of August...

Mark S.

Surly you can get a Q plate tax exempt, as it isn't the date of registration but you have to prove it was manufactured before Jan 1973. It isn't the registration letter that governs whether you get free road tax but the taxation class. Andy