Yesterday, we learned that court-appointed bailiffs are knocking on the doors of UK motorists who’ve failed to pay their fines, and driving them to the cashpoint machine. Now we read that Her Majesty’s government plans to seize and crush uninsured motorists’ vehicle, even if they’re parked. “The Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) would work with insurance companies to identify uninsured cars [using mobile number plate recognition cameras], Reuters reports. “Letters will be sent to owners found without insurance, threatening them a 100 pound penalty notice, rising to as much as 1,000 pounds if they are taken to court. They would also face the seizure of their car, which would be sold, or destroyed if of low value. ‘These tough new measures will leave uninsured drivers with nowhere to hide,’ said Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick.” The Powers That Be justify the crackdown smackdown with sobering stats. “The government says uninsured and untraced drivers kill 160 people every year and injure 23,000 others. As well as the human cost, uninsured driving adds an extra 30 pounds a year to every motorist’s insurance, adding up to 400 million pounds of additional premiums.” So really, it’s all about saving lives and reducing the burden on innocent motorists. Who knew?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Usually I tend to see statements such as ‘UK becomes police state’ as paranoid and trivial. But this constant aggressiveness by the authorities towards motorists is staring to grate. Its not as if I go round murdering kittens with my car.
The truth is that saving lives always comes down to revenue. “Pay us what we say you owe, and we’ll leave you alone.”
I see the scam insurance industry has the UK government in its back pocket as well. Just think of how much cheaper everything would be without insurance.
“The government says uninsured and untraced drivers kill 160 people every year and injure 23,000 others.”
I don’t know where to begin looking up UK stats, but how many million insured and traceable drivers are there and how many do they injure/kill?
“…uninsured driving adds an extra 30 pounds a year to every motorist’s insurance, adding up to 400 million pounds of additional premiums.”
The cost of implementing this program, not estimated or hinted at in the article, seems to me like it could cost a lot more than 400 million pounds.
Does the UK have similar to the US yearly registration of vehicles? Why not check/verify insurance then. No insurance? Take the car then and there.
WOW, BB is alive and well in Airstrip 1.
I could see not allowing one to renew their vehicle license without proof of insurance or a hefty fine if caught driving without, but to actively pursue a car that is parked. What if it is on private property, what if it is parked on private property and not being driven BECAUSE there is no insurance.
Jeremy Clarkson’s land of the Free Indeed!
I hate to say it but America is winding down the same path towards fascism.
“Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence. Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation or a race”
When you can easily buy out the two players, you don’t need to worry about one. The only thing you need to do to make the above statement perfect is replace ‘dictator’ with ‘corporate hierarchy’.
It’s been said that the typical Internet political discussion goes through approximately six levels before “Hitler” or “fascism” is put into play.
As a driver here in the Mexican Republic of California, I whole-heartedly support this. The guesstimates are that 1 in 4 drivers are uninsured. It doesn’t make it more dangerous that they’re uninsured, it just makes it way more expensive for us out here.
Insurance is 100% optional in Brazil, afaik. My father-in-law has it anyway.
I really wish bicycles which are treated like vehicles (when it comes to rules of the road here in the US) were required to have insurance as well.
A friend already had someone crash their bicycle into his bimmer and leave an $1800-to-fix scratch across it. The bicyclist was going the wrong way down the street, and threated to sue him (the car was not moving, my friend had just gotten in and turned it on) for “Smashing his bicycle”
When my friend asked the guy to wait while he called the cops and let the cops sort it out, the guy took off as fast as possible.
“..what if it is parked on private property and not being driven BECAUSE there is no insurance.”
Here in New York, if your insurance lapses, you are required to turn in your plates, making it undrivable on public roads. I see this as a good thing.
I seem to remember that the UK does not actually issue plates, but I suspect that there’s some equivalent paperwork required to de-register a car which would, hopefully, allow a car to sit on an owner’s property and escape being siezed.
Hopefully one of the B&B with knowledge of how UK car registration works can enlighten us.
Why is going after the uninsured such a bad thing?
If you had a family member or loved one killed by an uninsured motorist, you probably wouldn’t think it so “fascist” to crack down on the lawbreakers(uninsured motorists).
Do you think it’s right or wrong to deport illegal aliens? Or should these lawbreakers be given citizenship? I’m afraid the USA will be adding 25,000,000 new citizens soon thanks to our weak kneed politicians.
“Why is going after the uninsured such a bad thing?”
Because their crime is usually being poor or young or stupid. These are conditions calling for sympathy and help, not condemnation and punishment.
The purpose of insurance is to protect the insured against a loss. Car insurance protects against 2 kinds of loss. One is damage to the insured car. Because the car may not be worth as much as the premiums, that coverage may not be worth having. The other, in most, states is to protect the insured against legal liability for negligent operation of the car.
This kind of coverage may or may not be worth having as well. It only protects the insured’s property from being seized to pay a judgment against the insured. If the insured has no property, there is no particular motive for him to have this insurance.
The problem with uninsured cars is that the victims of the negligent driver cannot recover their damages from him because 1) he has no insurance, and 2) he has no property. Now this is a known risk, and in many states, the insurance companies are required to bundle uninsured motorist coverage with their policies. That coverage pays the insured if he he is injured by an uninsured motorist.
This has a couple of problems. First, it does not protect uninsured persons, who may even be pedestrians. Second, trial lawyers, do not get their third.
I do not think there is much of a case for making a big deal out of uninsured car owners. If there is a problem with persons who are injured by uninsured car owners and who are not recompensed for their injuries, it should be tackle by a social insurance scheme that is equitably funded. If there is a problem with underpaid lawyers I do not know what it is.
Of course it is the latter concern that propels legislatures into paroxysms of righteous indignation. But, I don’t care.
Don’t forget that there is a tax on insurance premium payments in the UK. This is all about the Government making sure that it gets its slice of the moolah.
Robert Schwartz: “I do not think there is much of a case for making a big deal out of uninsured car owners. If there is a problem with persons who are injured by uninsured car owners and who are not recompensed for their injuries, it should be tackled by a social insurance scheme that is equitably funded.”
Well, if it was truly equitably funded the money would come from people who drive without insurance.
Those of you out there who think gasoline should be taxed another two or three dollars a gallon, that idea would be more appealing if the gas tax paid for universal liability coverage. Insurance would then only be needed to cover losses that aren’t the fault of another party.
Robert Schwartz : I would disagree on doling out sympathy for the young and/or stupid. Ignorance is no excuse. My experiences, as well as those of friends, with uninsured motorists usually turn into hit-and-runs (or attempt-to-run). In one case, my friend’s insurance company tried to avoid paying damages on a car because an unlicensed, uninsured driver didn’t brake for a red light.
In South Africa a levy on petrol goes to the Road Accident Fund which pays out for injuries, but not damage to cars. They recently capped the payouts after a Swiss tourist practically bankrupted the fund with his claim which included for loss of lifetime earnings.
Any big pool of cash is a magnet for crooked lawyers and civil servants. The RAF is a scandal. But, given the poverty of most of our population, I don’t see a better alternative. At least you will get *something* out if you are in a crash with an indigent person.
Because their crime is usually being poor or young or stupid. These are conditions calling for sympathy and help, not condemnation and punishment.
Wow, some people can come up with an excuse for anything. Their crime is actually the abuse of society; they are essentially stealing from everyone else. If you can’t afford insurance, you can’t afford to drive. Driving is not a right.
Robert Schwartz:
Because their crime is usually being poor or young or stupid. These are conditions calling for sympathy and help, not condemnation and punishment.
Being poor or young or stupid is not excuse for breaking a law and endangering other people.
I don’t see why a poor person cannot insure his car. If he can afford the car itself, why can’t he afford the insurance? If he really can’t, there is the public transit system. And there are two human legs as the last resort, which 5 billion out of the 6 billion people in the world still depend on everyday.
I don’t see why a young person cannot insure his car. If he is under legal age for driving, then both himself and his parents are legally responsible.
I don’t see why a stupid person cannot insure his car. If a person is so stupid as cannot understand it’s not allowed to drive without insurance, that person probably cannot understand that it’s not allow to kill a person. The kind of retards should be locked up in a facility and be treated.
And no, I am not a Fascist. I believe in human rights, as long as that action doesn’t violate other people’s more basic rights. Driving and living are basic rights, illegal driving compromises those basic rights of others and is thus not a right.
In the Uk, every vehicle pays an annual road tax which is evidenced by a disc (tax disc) issued by the national liciencing authority and must be displayed in the lower left corner of the windscreen.
To get said tax disc, you must produce a valid insurance certificate for the car, and if over 3 years old, a Ministry of Transport certificate (MOT) showing the car has been examined by an authorised technician for safety, emmissions etc.
To keep a car off road legally, you must fill in a form and send it to the authority stating that the vehicle is off the road.
A problem in the past was young drivers got high performance cars (typically Ford Escort RSs etc), but insured them as bog-standard Escots. They were ok until in an accident as the police check would show the vehicle as insured.
Even though I agree with uninsured vehicles being taken off the road, this is still more big brother from the nanny state. Heck, even the radio adverts warning people of insurance etc is said in a menacing voice.
The whole policy of the govt (and other authorities in the UK), is that fining motorists is a substitute for direct taxation all in the name of safety and greeness.
Gosh, next thing you know they’ll force people to pay for expensive licenses just to watch TV, and they’ll send around jackbooted thugs in electronic surveillance vans to search for people using forbidden UNLICENSED TVs, and come knocking the door down when they have a suspect.
Oh wait, they already do that.
@andyinsdca: As a driver here in the Mexican Republic of California, I whole-heartedly support this. The guesstimates are that 1 in 4 drivers are uninsured.
Aw, that’s nothing. Back in the ’80s when I was living in the Banana Republic of Louisiana, HALF of all vehicles in New Orleans were uninsured, despite state-mandated liability coverage. And a large percentage of drivers in that city were thoroughly sauced. Add to that an insurance commissioner who eventually served time in “Club Fed,” and you see why some of us aren’t too sympathetic for those who fail to carry auto insurance.
I worked for a company with offices all around the Cresecnt City, but not in it. My colleagues and I wouldn’t go into the city for business appointments unless we were driving either a company car or a rental.