Uninsured drivers - why we can't get rid of them?
On last night's east Midlands news, there was an item about derbyshire cracking down on these people.
But, included in the news, was an item that infuriated me. It showed a white van wedged in the side of a small business in Chilwell, Notts. Over a year has passed, and the building has still not been repaired, and I presume the van is still there as its removal could cause the building to collapse.
The infuriating bit is that the uninsured driver got a £25 fine and a 2 weeks driving ban.
How are we ever going to rid the Uk of these parasites with courts behaving like demented idiots?
Do other EU countries have such a large group of uninsured drivers (estimated at around 1.4 million in the UK) on the roads, and, if not, how do they prevent it?
I suppose the intelligent question would be, 'how did the van get there'?
Well, not really, wagolynn. I would ask,
Originally Posted by wagolynn
(1) "What is wrong with our legal system that makes it worth the risk to drive uninsured?"
(2) "What message do the law enforcing establishment think is being sent out by this stupidly lenient penalty?"
There can be several reasons why/how the van got there, but none will answer the question,"Why are so many uninsured drivers daily escaping detection?"
Or, "Why aren't the worst cases of driving attracting life-time bans?"
I think the value of the safety of the general public on our roads is a reciprocal of how much the powers-that-be feel it is worth the effort to address the problems.
I suppose the driver of that van was very soon back on the road. Is he now insured? Has anyone else suffered at his hands since? Will he eventually cause a death or serious injury because his penalty amounted to about 4 packets of cigarettes and a couple of weeks without his "wheels"?; that's if he bothered to wait that long before driving again!!!
How do we know he was un-insured?
How do we know that insurance statutes was connected to or caused the crash, the fine and ban looks like a traffic offence?
I agree that the blatant use of a vehicle without insurance should, and does, severe penalty, a lifetime ban though is going to be difficult to enforce.
As always, there will/may be mitigating circumstances which the court has to take into account and are rarely if ever reported, when has the media ever let the truth interfere with a sensational story?
What is required is a system linking fuel purchase to insurance for the vehicle rather than the driver.
Last edited by wagolynn; 26-11-11 at 13:36.
For me, he would need to have an exceptionally strong mitigating excuse for having no insurance. I fail to understand why the MIB hasn't resolved the building repairs.
As you say, wagolynn, there may be circumstances not truly reported; but the situation of being uninsured is too serious to allow benefit of doubt. He wasn't insured, so the penalty is too low. I don't know about other opinions, but mine is zero tolerance to being uninsured. There is no excuse, because everyone who drives is fully capable of ensuring they can legally do so before getting behind the wheel. I cannot abide those who bleat, "I didn't know", after being caught. If they 'didn't know' (probably more like they couldn't be bothered to find out; or worse, didn't even care), then they should not go ahead and drive.
What about innocent victims, or bereaved relatives; can they be expected to have any compassion for the driver of an uninsured vehicle?
One possible explanation for leniency is 'hardship'. It is known that many drivers are legally driving with very high numbers of penalty points under this proviso. Not acceptable to me. What comes next; release of a vicious rapist, because confinement to prison would cause hardship for his family? I support the old adage, "If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime!"
We all know that our "Tax Disc" has to be displayed on our windscreens, so why don't they come up with same type of thing for insurance?
The technology is already there to scan the number plates of moving vehicles, it wouldn't take all that much for insurance companies to issue out certificates of insurance, so that they could be stuck on the windscreen along with the tax disc, if you know what I mean.
I think that part of the process of ANPR is that eventually we will get rid of tax discs. As to no insurance, we had a car abandoned on our cul-de-sac. I phoned the Police and reported it for having no VED displayed, and obviously no insurance. They told me to get on to DVLA. I phoned DVLA and they told me to contact local Police. Noone is 'really' interested in getting uninsured cars off the road, as they still buy fuel, and pay duty which is a source of Revenue. A real national purge would get rid of a high percentage overnight.
They could use the German model of putting stamps on the number plate - the German ones are not for insurance but such a system could be used, then you know straightaway if they have insurance if the stamp has a date on it - as long as it is not counterfeited.
I don't know how the price of car insurance compares with that of other countries - but it is certainly a rip-off here, and unjustifiable rises for safe and law-abiding drivers certainly cause some to break the law. This is not an excuse for the uninsured drivers but every time the insurance companies pointlessly raise their prices they must realise more people are then going to chance it without insurance.
I've never ever heard of a lifetime driving ban being given, usually due to the effect it would have on the life of the driver e.g. losing job etc. Well when you commit murder, you have a lifetime ban from liberty, and that has a pretty devastating effect on you and your family, but the sentence is still passed, so what's the difference between that and banning someone from driving if they've driven so appallingly?
Last edited by 98selitb; 02-12-11 at 14:09.
98selitb, I believe that the more lenient approach to killing someone by bad driving is because it is regarded as accidental, as opposed to muder or non-vehicle related manslaughter. Also, although certain driving offences can receive a manslaughter verdict, this is a very rare occurrence.
Personally, I cannot see why it is so rare. If someone decides to drink and drive, and kill someone, then it is just as wilful as violence which was not intended to kill.
When we get behind the wheel of our cars, we are all aware that the vehicle can take life if carelessly handled. So, recklessness which then costs a life has to carry some degree of deliberation with it.
Only a few nights ago, when on a road where it is necessary to give way on these chicanes with priority in one direction, a driver who should have given way simply ignored the rules and drove straight at the approaching car which had lawful precedence. This forced the driver with priority to brake hard. Had it resulted in a RTC and a fatality, the driver at fault would, in my opinion, be guilty of manslaughter. He took the choice of committing an act which he knew to be an offence, so would have been guilty before the fact had there been a collision.
Indeed, and even sometimes violence or other actions not intended to kill have resulted in murder convictions. When I did a module in criminal law at university we learnt of many cases involving crimes of passion and arson of believed-to-be empty properties which constituted murder: a ditched lover waits until the other person's has gone out or on holiday, then burns their house down. Then it turns out that the person and sometimes their whole family was indeed at home and they die. These resulted in murder convictions even though the culprit did not believe there to be anyone in the house.
Originally Posted by Snowball
So if this can happen with murder I agree that driving shouldn't be any different.