---

Community

I believe the best system for 3rd party liability cover is a government scheme, where you get cover with the tax disc. The government would levy an additional amount that would take some account of owners age and the performance rating of the vehicle, but would be at a fair rate. If you then don't have tax disc or sorn is not made, the government should then have the right to confiscate the vehicle to sell and help fund the scheme.

The government needs to give the Police more powers/funding to take uninsured drivers off the road. Having 1 in 5 younger drivers who are uninsured is not acceptable.

Huckster

"Shockingly, 20% of young drivers have no insurance. They blame sky-high premiums"

What on earth can be done against a background of this sort of faulty thinking? - Gotta have a car - insurance too high so I can't get any... Off I go brmm, brmm... Frightening! Equally frightening is the total votes for all the subsidy options.

I remember some years ago that Australia had an apparently effective answer to the problem - you couldn't physically drive without insurance or was it that the number plates showed if you were insured and even then, without digital cameras, the police could recognise uninsured vehicles very quickly?

To even suggest subsidising young drivers shows a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Young people should only be allowed to drive vehicles if they are competent and have the financial resources to support them.This means ,of course, that they must have insurance.

Could insurance be arranged like road tax? ie.Have a disc showing on the windscreen that the vehicle is insured as we do for road tax.Then everyone could see if the vehicle is insured and necessary steps taken with the authorities if it is not.

Or is this too simple?

All drivers who go on the road without insurance should be treated very sverely - the consequences of their actions can be quite horrendous. Why do we not do as many other countries and require all vehicles to display valid insurance alongside the licence on the windscreen? This would still leave driving without permission to be at risk but it would surely cut own on the offence and would allow routine checks to be carried out by parking attendants.

I think the system in the USA could be the way to go where the insurance is linked to the numberplate, or perhaps both car tax and insurance could be on the tax disc. Either way i think the industry should subsidise young drivers as in the long run it would be more cost effective and also reduce heartache when someone is killed by a driver with no insurance. Scottie999

Despite the increasingly clever technology available to them, we can't simply rely on the Police to check and arrest offenders as there would appear to be too many to process without taking the Police off the streets altogether or making the paperwork and processing more simple/automatic (it's not just the youngsters referenced here). Such a scheme involving traffic attendants/wardens/PCSO's/empowered others (clampers ?!) to check a mandatory visual "badge" on the vehicle might be more useful and provide greater manpower coverage to capture (clamping might be useful) and process the numbers involved.

I just renewed my Tax online and noted that the system checks for the required current Insurance and MoT so there appears SOME mechanism to cross check that all is correct and present, but I suppose there's nothing to prevent clever timing of such renewals to happen just before Insurance runs out or for policies to be cancelled/refunded immediately afterwards....

Enforcement is key. It appears we live in a society where people know they stand a good chance of getting away with it altogether or being let off lightly if they do get caught - with fines apparently far lower than paying for insurance. It seems very similar to driving while banned: people re-offend during their ban and receive... Another ban and possibly a fine they can't or won't pay.... DOH !

Educating drivers into acting responsibly is a "big ask" in many quarters but maybe a campaign of getting drivers to realise they are in control of a potential deadly weapon might turn a few of them into acting more responsibly.

dream on....

Each litre of fuel sold (diesel or petrol) should include an amount to provide every vehicle with 3rd party cover.

Basic insurance would then be provided except for those breing their own bio fuels. Something would need to be done abour electric / hydrogen / "air" powered veichles. But these are in the minority.

Also the road fund should also be collected from sales of fuel.

Higher penalties are the answer, but they will only work if there is a high chance of the offenders being caught.

Most uninsured drivers know that there is little chance of them being caught. If they are, the fines imposed are ridiculously low and if they claim financial hardship they won't even have to pay the maximum. They then get back in their cars and carry on, knowing that the same situation applies - little chance of being caught, low fines.

On a financial basis this looks better to the driver than paying for insurance. If they knew that a penalty in excess of the cost of insurance would be enforced and that a second offence could lead to jail a lot of uninsured drivers would think twice.

More spot checks by the police need to be carried out to catch more offenders. The key is that if one driver has to face severe penalties a lot of his friends will stop breaking the law - you don't need to catch all the uninsured drivers.

I find it truly shocking how many people voted to up the age to 21, honestly! Can I just remind people that 80% DO have insurance and do not cause any problems.

People seem to be missing the point here, it’s got nothing to do with age, the focus needs to be on people who do not have insurance, not young drivers, that fact that younger drivers do it more is irrelevant, and an approach needs to be taken which deals with uninsured drivers across the board.

I am 20 and male, have been driving since I was 17 and have NEVER been on the road without insurance even though in the past 2 full years I have been driving it has cost me in the region of £4000 for Third party fire and theft that’s with having 2 years no claims and never having any accidents, it has been expensive but that in my opinion is due to the recklessness of drivers of similar ages.

I understand that statistically more likely to have an accident due to my age due to how people in my "category" drive. So I accept needing to pay higher premiums. I need to be able to drive for my job, I work unsociable hours that buses don’t, and I’m hardly going to cycle 15 miles to and from work at 11pm on dual carriageways or rural roads.

I think the best idea is a ticket on the car showing that it is insured is not as good an idea as people make out, you need insurance to tax a car, this is where online tax doesn’t help, your confronted with a tick box to confirm you have insurance, unlike the post office which actually checks your certificate. I would put money on the fact that the majority of people who do not have insurance, also do not have a license, tax or up to date MOT, because if your going to get done, you may as well be done for the whole lot because it doesn’t make much of a difference in terms of sentencing for the person.

At the moment I believe this means your car will get crushed and you will get a ban, if you have an old banger and don’t have a license anyway if you can get away with it for a year you will probably have saved £1800 on insurance MOT and tax, not mentioning driving lessons and a test. So you’re probably be considerably in profit, and when they ban you, what is to stop you getting another car and driving that, your no worse of after they have banned you because you didn’t have a licence anyway, it’s a joke, uninsured drivers need harsher punishments, ones that actually cause them more than a little inconvenience, that is what the solution is.

I vehemently disagree with most of the comments made in this thread, it is not just uninsured drivers that are the actual cause of the problems, it's also the combined faults of :

1) The Government for being so indecisive and smothering everyone with unwanted rules, regulations and pathetic enforced laws in the first instance.

2) The courts for being so toothless in not having the backbone to enforce any meaningful punishments, who are also really out of touch with the thoughts of the general public at large. They are incidentally paid by the public to protect the public interest, of which they are failing to do, otherwise the problem would almost disappear overnight.

3) Followed by the greedy insurance companies who will use any excuse in the book to jump on the bandwagon in order to increase the premiums along with their profits, all taxed, additionally refusing to pay claims whenever they make or find a loophole, - not just limited to younger drivers either.?

Some of you won't like this, but the truth hurts.

Me and my mates got that cheesed off with struggling & constantly trying to stay within the law to have limited legal use of our menial motors, which we found was impossible and totally unaffordable due to the above Red tape and official policies. Instead we were therefore radically forced into changing our outlook and attitude, which has meant we don't give a toss about what happens anymore and use the live for today motto type attitude, instead of worrying about what happens tomorrow.

What we do is borrow motors for the night and just drive them into the ground, there's no worry about tax, insurance, MOT costs or anything even petrol if you make sure the gauge is well up before you borrow it. The beauty of this is when or if, we ever get caught by the fuzz that we can just cry disadvantaged poor kids from a rough neighbourhood housing estate with nothing else better to do in life.

The authorities and the do-gooder's like mugs all believe our protests, if we are really unlucky all we will get is a supervision order or a binding over (snigger), it's laughable it really is.!

One of my mates got youth custody for Six months after his Fifth conviction, he lead the fuzz on a Thirteen - (unlucky as he got caught) mile chase in a beemer M3 through gardens, parks and the city centre, as I said he got youth custody and whilst he was in this cosy institution fitted with TV, pool tables, gym, sauna etc. and got better food than he got at home, they then sent him on a rehabilitation holiday to Spain, can you believe it.? So we are all trying to get the same cushy treatment for ourselves now we know we can also get this. !

I suspect most of you will be outraged by this attitude but that's the way it has become for us, if you're ever up the northmoor area look out, there's a uninsured driver about in a borrowed high performance motor and --- he's comin at ya.!

Only way I see round this is :

1) Get a new Government that actually listens to what the majority of people want.

2) Shake up the mouldy old judicial system to make it enforce punitive action that is in line with the crime, replace the dreary old fart magistrates with people who know what they are doing and who will pass convictions in accordance with what the public demands.

3) Remove the incentive or opportunity from insurance companies to jump on the gravy train. Develop a sat nav system that can be incorporated into drivers mobile phones. Then charge young drivers or anone who opts in, on a mileage / time insurance pay as you drive scheme. Or better still let the expensive Government "think tanks" come up with a better solution, they are the ones who are paid vast amounts of cash to come up with possible cures.

Compulsory insurance is a good law not a stupid one, it stops every accident going to court because people cant often afford to pay the damage done on cars they hit. Say you wrote off someone's new Bentley by crashing into it and don't have the 200K to pay for it. Who you expect to pay for that? The owner when its not his fault? the taxpayer? or you going to spend the rest of your life paying off a debt you never got anything for?

Your second point raises a good point, we need less speed cameras and more patrol cars on the road, a camera cannot police the streets, it is there to make money that's all. Its people actually breaking the law who they need to get off the road not someone doing 34 in a 30. and the courts are generally a joke especially when it comes to sentencing but that's another matter.

I agree with your 3rd point, I disagree that something that is compulsory should be profitable. I believe if the government wants people to have insurance, there profit should be moderated and caped so they they cannot make ridiculous amount of money, but then you run the risk of them becoming like local councils, and if there is anyone worse than insurance company's for ripping you off there the ones.

I can only hope the middle section is a joke, do you honestly need the law to stop you from doing things that are morally wrong and endanger peoples lives? Do you actually think about the peoples cars you "borrow" and if your blasting round in a M3 or something and you hit someone and make them loose both there legs whilst trying to get away from the police, then what, you going to compensate them for that?

Can I ask do you actually think about anyone other than yourself?

Now your ways round this

1) We actually have a system for this, its called voting, if you don't like it, don't vote for a lefty party because this is what you get.

2)Magistrates avoid prison sentences because prisons are full, this is not the fault of magistrates, but the fault of the government for allowing the country to become overpopulated.....also I never saw the problem with just building more prisons and getting the existing prisoners to build it, kills 3 birds with one stone. Get more prisons, get free labour and make prison that little bit more uncomfortable.

3) Who is going to pay for this sat nav thing? who is going to pay for it to be developed? Drivers mobile phones? if it did that I would leave my mobile at home and god forbid if it ran out of battery. I think the only way is a harsher legal system.

Cameras are only there to make money... greedy insurance companies take any opportunity to put up premiums. Needs a bitof qualification don't you think?

There is a warning of a camera comfortably before you hit it unless of course you're going so fast you can't stop in time. With technology as it is they're a cheap cost effective way of traffic calming and saving injuries and lives. We all want the cops back, who wouldn't? You gotta chance to explain to them thatyou were doing 70 (not everyone is as law abiding as you may be and does 34 in a 30 limit - what may be confusing you is that the guy who is doing 70 says he was doing 34) in a 30 limit cos er... my girlfriend here is going into labour... I take offence at that Officer Plod (Ouch!) she may look like a bloke...

Greedy insurance companies - absolutely. Trying to avoid paying claims - not so much but good idea to choose not just on price. I think the whole sector devotes part of its work time in seeing how it can confuse the public with ever more refined sectors of the market as a result of better and better and faster and faster data collection so that the key is not the old sore about premiums going up and up but newer and newer niches making insurance cheaper for those niches but the margins being too fat. People don't notice because they're so grateful that insurance is going down. It's like this new fashion to offer free contents insurance if you also take out buildings insurance - pure actuarial marketing.

This kind of comment doesn't help - it is beside the point and is no more than an excuse to sound off about unrelated issues. The issue of uninsured drivers is serious and it is not the insurance companies or the installers of cameras who are responsible. We are all paying through increased premiums for uninsured drivers and if you ever have the misfortune to have an accident caused by an uninsured driver you too will wish the law was more effective and implemented more actively. It is serious - people are getting badly hurt and worse by irresponsible drivers of all ages and have no recourse when the driver has no money behind him. Some visible evidence that the car carries at least third party cover would be a great step forward.

Johngrant - "This kind of comment doesn't help - it is beside the point and is no more than an excuse to sound off about unrelated issues. The issue of uninsured drivers is serious and it is not the insurance companies or the installers of cameras who are responsible. We are all paying through increased premiums for uninsured drivers and if you ever have the misfortune to have an accident caused by an uninsured driver you too will wish the law was more effective and implemented more actively. It is serious - people are getting badly hurt and worse by irresponsible drivers of all ages and have no recourse when the driver has no money behind him. Some visible evidence that the car carries at least third party cover would be a great step forward."

I think you are being too hard on yourself. Are you versed in the Australian system I mentioned in my first thread?