This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

How do you think we could

The Colonel

I can't quite understand how it cost £10k, surely you had insurance? But anyway even with that, would you not rather the police focused on murder, assualt, rape, drugs etc, targeting known criminals as opposed to randomly stopping and inconveniencing innocent motorists in the hope of maybe issuing a penalty notice or something?

It seems logic has escaped you momentarily - as the other driver was uninsured, my insurance company can't pay back any of my money, nor reinstate my NCB. :frown:

I lost a year's worth of insurance, tax and the extra warranty/guarantee thing I bought with the car (as it was less than two years old when the accident happened) on top of the price of the car, plus other expenses. £10k in total, plus huge inconvenience for me.

I'm not saying that 100% of the police force should be targetting insurance dodgers, but rather the police should be introducing random checks to deter those who think they can get away with not insuring their vehicles. Doesn't take more than two officers, and since the law has been changed this week about non-insured drivers, they'd be able to issue more severe punishments on the spot.

I'm sure that if an uninsured driver caused you to lose an awful lot of money, you'd feel very differently. If you're a bona fide driver with all the correct documentation, it makes no difference whether you're stopped or not - the police are in fact doing you a favour by identifying and removing 'threats' from the roads...

Reply 41

The Colonel

13

Angelharpist

It seems logic has escaped you momentarily - as the other driver was uninsured, my insurance company can't pay back any of my money, nor reinstate my NCB. :frown:

I lost a year's worth of insurance, tax and the extra warranty/guarantee thing I bought with the car (as it was less than two years old when the accident happened) on top of the price of the car, plus other expenses. £10k in total, plus huge inconvenience for me.

Don't insurance companies cover you in these events? I know Direct Line pay your excess and let you keep your NCD if you are hit by an uninsured driver, as well as obviously paying for the repairs to your car

Angelharpist

I'm not saying that 100% of the police force should be targetting insurance dodgers, but rather the police should be introducing random checks to deter those who think they can get away with not insuring their vehicles. Doesn't take more than two officers, and since the law has been changed this week about non-insured drivers, they'd be able to issue more severe punishments on the spot.

And realisticly how many cars can 2 police officers stop? There is still a huge number of cars, and tbh most people driving without insurance would still probably take their chances.

Angelharpist

I'm sure that if an uninsured driver caused you to lose an awful lot of money, you'd feel very differently. If you're a bona fide driver with all the correct documentation, it makes no difference whether you're stopped or not - the police are in fact doing you a favour by identifying and removing 'threats' from the roads...

Its not quite as simple as pulling over for 2 minutes for a nice chat though really, the chances are you will not have insurance certificate etc on you, and will have 7 days to produce it at the nearest police station, it can easily make people late for work, losing them money etc, I understand you have good reason to feel aggrieved with uninsured drivers and in no way am i condoning it, but I don't think there is a simple solution such as having a couple of police officers checking a couple of cars.

Reply 42

Angelharpist

13

The Colonel

Don't insurance companies cover you in these events? I know Direct Line pay your excess and let you keep your NCD if you are hit by an uninsured driver, as well as obviously paying for the repairs to your car.

Read the small print of your policy. Insurance companies only ever pay out if they get some money back from the other party. The Motor Insurance Bureau will only pay up to £500 for an uninsured driver claim, which isn't enough if like me, your car was written off. NCB is only reinstated once the claim is settled. The problem for me, is that we've tracked down the witch that did this, and even though my lawyers have sorted out a repayment plan for her, she's not paying up. Baliffs are due to go in next month, but until then I'll just have to wait. Apparently I have to wait for the entire balance of the claim to be settled, and considering she was paying back £150/month, it'll be years before I see my money...

Reply 43

mmc24

No Speed Limits Obvioulsy !!, Who Needs Em ??

Reply 44

mountainmetman

14

Been off for a couple of days, back at work now...
WRT low bhp cars, it's certainly true that they can break the limits, mine's a 3 pot 68 bhp city car (somewhere below supermini) and on a closed runway I've got it to about 105 before.
As for making overtaking more dangerous, no, it just means I've got to plan better and ensure I've got more space.

With regards to making the tests harder, given the increases in test difficulty/composition over the last few years, does anyone wonder what the standard of recently passed drivers now is compared to say 10 years ago, just before the introduction of the extra bits on the theory test and hazard perception? (Not counting drivers that do extra development, just the average.)

I do think that more police on the roads would help, provided that they focus on dangerous driving, and ignore people in little silver city cars doing a smidge over the limit.... :biggrin:

Reply 45

Insignificant B

Ryan

Not really.

A bigger engine = does less work than a small one being ragged to keep up with traffic

Or a bigger engine on the motorway is sitting at say 2k rpm doing 80 on the motorway whereas a car with a small engine and short gear ratios like my ZR is revving at over 4k at 80mph lol

I said a slower car rather than a smaller engined one.

Reply 46

soilman

12

Same difference, almost.

The kids point still stands.

Reply 47

JC.

19

Ban anything smaller than 4 litres.
That'd remove most of the cars from the road :biggrin:

Reply 48

gbduo

15

Ooo...that is an idea! But then you wouldn't be able to drive MkII 3.8 :frown:

Reply 49

JC.

19

So stick a 4.2 in it... the engine it should have had.

Reply 50

gbduo

15

But you would have to bore out your Rover V8 as well by 100cc to qualify!

And other classics like the TR6.

Perhaps it should exclude classics?

Reply 51

AT82

To be honest there will be ecomomical consquences of making the test harder. And you can only do that if you make current licence holders resit it to make it fair.

I think improving roads is one way.

Increasing the minimum age to 18 and having much stricter punishments for driving without insurance etc.

Part of the problem in Britian is most our cities were built well before the car and the roads can't cope.

Reply 52

JC.

19

gbduo

But you would have to bore out your Rover V8 as well by 100cc to qualify!

And other classics like the TR6.

Perhaps it should exclude classics?

I'm prepared to make sacrifices by putting a 4.6 litre in. :wink:

Thats a sacrifice :O

soilman

Same difference, almost.

The kids point still stands.

As a difference cannot be the same this is rather an overused and hypocritical phrase.

Reply 55

Insignificant B

Ryan

Not really.

A bigger engine = does less work than a small one being ragged to keep up with traffic

Or a bigger engine on the motorway is sitting at say 2k rpm doing 80 on the motorway whereas a car with a small engine and short gear ratios like my ZR is revving at over 4k at 80mph lol

As both cars are travelling at the same speed the kinetic energy will be the same. Only an idiot rags a car to keep up with traffic. You accelerate slowly to your speed limit, which is 70, and there we go i have used less fuel that someone who has gunned their 3l to 90mph.

Reply 56

Angelil

19

Do what they do in France - let you have lessons from the age of 16, but only let you drive with your parents until you're 18 and only let you take your test when you're 18 as well. That way you have 2 years' experience (minimum) before the DVLA sets you on the general public.

I would also agree with the idea of a retest every 10 years for everyone, making it every 5 years for the over-70s.

Reply 57

mike101

1

I think having variable speed limits on the motorway according to the weather, e.g 80 on a dry clear day, 70 when its raining/very light fog.

Regular re-testing, maybe every 10 years or so a mini test shoud be done, a full re-test at the age of 70.

I dont think the test should be made harder although i havent even had mine yet so cant really comment.

And more traffic cops on the road, this is the biggie, the other day i went on a 200 mile round trip on A roads and motorways and only saw 3 cop cars, and 2 of them were together.

Reply 58

Ryan

OP

10

70 in the fog!?!?

How do you think we could

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you