Money.net reports that various U.K. authorities have destroyed some 45k uninsured vehicles during the first nine months of '07. Which is OK with Nick Starling, director of general insurance at the Association of British Insurers. "These figures show that the determination of the insurance industry and the police to drive them [uninsured motorists] from our roads is beginning to bear fruit." The Manchester Evening News says their local constabulary can claim 10k of that total. "Since January 2006 we have seized more than 25,000 vehicles," boasts Sgt Mark Beales of the Greater Manchester Police's traffic section. "We will continue to ensure there is no hiding place for those who break the law." While the Association of British Drivers (ABD) doesn't dispute the police's right to confiscate uninsured motorists' vehicles, ABD Environment spokesman Ben Adams argues "This government is so venomously anti-car, that confiscated vehicles are thoughtlessly crushed out of sheer spite. They claim the environment to be their top priority yet it appears they are encouraging the mindless destruction of huge resources of used parts that could be recycled and destroying serviceable cars." Fair dues?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
If Jeremy Clarkson was Prime Minister, I’m sure we’d see a quick end to this bit of madness.
This is what happens when you’re a subject and not a citizen.
I admire the UK’s tough stance against uninsured drivers.
I detest their tactics of destroying seized cars.
If you are using your property in a way that violates laws, then the government may have a right to seize the property. Why would the government deny these cars from the market? It seems like just another cog in their machine to remove private vehicles.
I was disappointed that ABD would imply that allowing the government to seize cars (i.e. steal private property) is a good idea.
The sad thing is that the US is following in the UK nanny state’s footsteps. “You’re using a car that is emitting too much carbon dioxide, in violation of the law. Therefore, we must confiscate your 911.”
Ironic considering that this sounds exactly like something you’d read about during WWII in Nazi Germany. Why not take the cars and resell them and take the profit. Still not an ideal solution.
The Nazi party didn’t waste resources, they would have redistributed them to loyal followers.
It must be nice to know the government owns you and everything you own is theirs to do with as they wish, just like communism.
Sure it’s a travesty. But, I am betting the Big 2.8 are looking at lobbying the U.S. gummint toward implementing such wholesale destruction – think about it: A way to increase the re-sale value of autos through supply/demand – minimizing the drive-off devaluation of their products.
As well, if there are enough crushed it will force new car sales.
I’m curious as to how the insurance industry feels about GM’s “driverless” cars? No more variable rates based on all sorts of crazy reasons.
Wait, the insurance industry is a bunch of intelligent crooks. They’d figure another way of wringing more money out of our pockets.
No need to cover the waste of crushing so many cars…that speaks for itself.
What I see in british insurer`s association is one big megalodon of greed, a paradigm of a superprimitve organism whose appetite for income has to be satisfied through intimidation strategy. How else an income starving nation desperate to make money, but having no real industries to really generate it,can concoct some revenues. Just by squeezing middle class by testicles, declaring their little misdeeds as mortal sins. Or desperately charging them for wrongly parked cars. Or proudly towing your neighbours half distilled Austin morris and cash draining the last morsels from the poor britton`s creditcard. No workbenches, no product stamping, no assembling, just the carnucopia of eternal service milking. Well done ! What a royal care for society to insure their cars!
I don’t mind UK oppressing its own Motor Vehicle Owners. But I am shit scared that the Canadians may follow suit.
I will just move to a third world country with my Ford Windstar.
When my dad lost his job, he had both our cars uninsured and he was using the transit. So clearly, i love the notion, that just because you don’t have insurance you are on the road with the car driving it drunk or retarded
I think, like others have alluded to, you could not flood the UK used-car market with 45,000 seized cars without adversely affecting the market – which would be a significant blow those selling their cars privately.
qduffy,
The bigger issue is at what point is it ok for a government to take personal property and then destroy it? An automobile is a significant money sink for any person, and to have it taken away and crushed for not having insurance is beyond extreme. I doubt the government (or insurance companies) are offering the people any reimbursement.
The UK is screwed. All the smart ones (Like RF and my parents :-D ) left years ago because they saw this crap coming.
I find it astonishing that the government can simply seize valuable private property and destroy it as it sees fit. I hope some peer gets caught cruising in his vintage Bentley with lapsed insurance and tests their resolve.
I assume that many of those 45k uninsured cars were old beaters that would have very little resale value anyway. In fact, if crushing is the only penalty drivers face, there would be no reason at all to get insurance for some cars. There are plenty of functional cars whose value is less than a single year of liability insurance, especially if the driver has a bad driving record.
A fine would be a better solution to discouraging uninsured driving.
According to the Manchester News article, the owner has 14 days to pay the fine and fees, after that the car can be crushed, scrapped or sold. Then again, a person who can’t afford insurance likely can’t afford the minimum 317 pound fee to reclaim the car.
Orian,
I’m not really disputing whether or not the government has the right or not to seize property, although I do believe both parties form a social contract of sorts and agree to generally abide by the rules. Probably because I’m Canadian. :)
Driving without insurance is pretty serious. I guess I don’t have a significant issue with seizure laws relating to property used in a crime – like drug-dealers having their cars sold at auction.
It also seems like a lot of uninsured cars are also not properly registered, nor properly inspected, and that might constitute a danger to the public.
Now just don’t try to take away my gun.
Kidding. Let’s close that can of worms right now.
Isn’t there a movie quote out there that says something about this happening when you do something to a stranger’s behind ? I’m not meaning to compare John Goodman to the UK’s policy here, it’s just that this draconian policy makes me want to cry with sadness like the movie line makes me want to cry with laughter. Whatever happened to a good old fine?
Here are a few quick responses to some of previous postings
1. We are citizen subjects, and have every same right as other countries that have mere citizens.
2. Comparing this move to a Nazi tactic makes me wonder how closely people pay attention to history.
3. What is a worse crime, having the government seize your asset (after giving you fair and ample warning for failing to live up to the responsibilityone undertakes when purchasing a car) or driving around without insurance and potentially costing yourself or taxpayers huge expense in the event of an accident? As parents are so ready to inform young ones, driving is a privilege not a right.
“What is a worse crime, having the government seize your asset (after giving you fair and ample warning for failing to live up to the responsibilityone undertakes when purchasing a car) or driving around without insurance and potentially costing yourself or taxpayers huge expense in the event of an accident?”
Definately, much worse for the govt to sieze your asset. Why? It doesn’t belong to them.
Of course private property rights have little meaning to marxists.
Definately, much worse for the govt to sieze your asset. Why? It doesn’t belong to them.
Of course private property rights have little meaning to marxists.
It does in fact belong to the government as that the person enters in to a contract once they purchase a car. They are required to maintain insurance as part of the operating cost of the vehicle and their driving privileges. As for them being marxist, this is simply not the case if one has read Marx and studied history.
*sigh* – The police don’t just seize and crush your vehicle.
If you are found to be driving w/o insurance, the vehicle is impounded. The driver must then take out insurance on the vehicle and pay a fee to redeem it from the pound. If the driver doesn’t bother to do this, after a certain time the vehicle is considered abandoned, and disposed of by crushing, as are all vehicles abandoned in the pound.
It’s not very different from the system operated in many US States where vehicles without current tags are impounded and declared abandoned if the owner doesn’t redeem them after a certain time. I believe that disposal by public auction is more usual than crushing in the US though.