30 points on my licence, but I'm still rolling on...

UndercoverElephant

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/30-points-stil ... 31577.html

Quite shocking that you can get to 30 points and still not get a driving ban. :shock:

mudcow007

imagine what their insurance is costing them with 30 points... :shock:

prawny

mudcow007 wrote:

imagine what their insurance is costing them with 30 points... :shock:

Considering they're all for driving without insurance, not a fat lot I'd wager

Tramps, this is the problem with laws, people don't care about getting caught, when I was a kid, my mate's dad had no driving licence but that didn't stop him. He insured his car properly, but had never bothered taking a test. He wasn't bothered, if he's have been done he's have paid the fine and carried on.

estampida

I have seen too many stories of people that should be stopped from driving

they normally claim in court that

1) they need car for transport (live in the sticks and have kids)
2) family trouble (normally booze related)

but the assure the court that it is completely out of character.... blah blah

or they are playing the immigration game

But if we had a good integrated public transport system there would be a choice to driving everywhere

tailwindhome

prawny wrote:

Tramps.

Perfect summary

bails87

estampida wrote:

or they are playing the immigration game

what's that then? Like the Generation Game?

Wallace1492

Thought it was an automatic ban at 12?

Roll on cars being integrated then we could actually ban people. Either retina or finger print recognition to start car, and this could be controlled by DVLA.

prawny

Wallace1492 wrote:

Thought it was an automatic ban at 12?

Roll on cars being integrated then we could actually ban people. Either retina or finger print recognition to start car, and this could be controlled by DVLA.

It's automatic unless you can prove exceptional hardhip. That is starting to mean that if you didn't have a car you maight have to use public transport, or heaven forbid walk or cycle a bit.

The integrated cars business would be fantastic, but civil rights moaners would be up in arms. Is it a basic human right to be able to break the law a bit?

bigmat

prawny wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

imagine what their insurance is costing them with 30 points... :shock:

Considering they're all for driving without insurance, not a fat lot I'd wager

Tramps, this is the problem with laws, people don't care about getting caught, when I was a kid, my mate's dad had no driving licence but that didn't stop him. He insured his car properly, but had never bothered taking a test. He wasn't bothered, if he's have been done he's have paid the fine and carried on.

I'm not sure he did insure his car properly if he was driving it without a licence, no insurance company on earth would cover a driver without a licence so he was effectively uninsured (they might get stuck with it by the back door, but that's another story).

prawny

BigMat wrote:

prawny wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

imagine what their insurance is costing them with 30 points... :shock:

Considering they're all for driving without insurance, not a fat lot I'd wager

Tramps, this is the problem with laws, people don't care about getting caught, when I was a kid, my mate's dad had no driving licence but that didn't stop him. He insured his car properly, but had never bothered taking a test. He wasn't bothered, if he's have been done he's have paid the fine and carried on.

I'm not sure he did insure his car properly if he was driving it without a licence, no insurance company on earth would cover a driver without a licence so he was effectively uninsured (they might get stuck with it by the back door, but that's another story).

Wel yeah what I meant was he paid for TPO insurance in the normal way. So the police didn't pull him over if they checked the reg in the early days of the MID. He wasn't insured from a legal POV, but at least he had a go eh. Insurance companies don't ask to see a copy of your licence unless you have a claim. An then not always IME

mybreakfastconsisted

One of the questions when you get car insurance is about your license. Lie, your insurance is invalid, a very dangerous game.

And I'm baffled by the "immigrant game" reference too.

prawny

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

One of the questions when you get car insurance is about your license. Lie, your insurance is invalid, a very dangerous game.

And I'm baffled by the "immigrant game" reference too.

Yes but if you only have a crap car and TPO insurance as in my case, the insurance company cant refuse to pay TP costs. So there's absolutely no point in them voiding the policy. It's a fairly substantial loophole that needs to be closed, there's probably a fair few people driving that aren't getting stopped by the police because their insurance is on the MID as valid.

bails87

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

And I'm baffled by the "immigrant game" reference too.

I think I know what it is.

I read in the Daily Mail that if you get drunk, and drive around at double the speed limit, and then crash into a bus full of orphans and puppies you can avoid being punished in any way by shouting "I'm an immigrant, me no speaka de eengleesh" at the arresting police officer.

In fact under human rights laws they're legally required to give you a taxpayer funded Bentley. It's true*.







*Not true.

mybreakfastconsisted

prawny wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

One of the questions when you get car insurance is about your license. Lie, your insurance is invalid, a very dangerous game.

And I'm baffled by the "immigrant game" reference too.

Yes but if you only have a crap car and TPO insurance as in my case, the insurance company cant refuse to pay TP costs. So there's absolutely no point in them voiding the policy. It's a fairly substantial loophole that needs to be closed, there's probably a fair few people driving that aren't getting stopped by the police because their insurance is on the MID as valid.

My God, is this true? That's not a loophole, that's a Black Hole.

Edit, you're absolutely correct:

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/c_motor_insurance.pdf

prawny

Of course I am 8)

bigmat

I think, and I could be wrong, the insurer in that situation would have an obligation to third parties in the event that the policyholder could not meet the claim personally. Which in 99.99999999999999999999999999999% of the time will be the case, but in theory insurers could kick out the claim and make the lying scumbag pay out of their own pocket.

mybreakfastconsisted

Whether the MIB or the insurance company direct pay the claim against an unlicensed driver, it's us mugs who end up paying really, in rising premiums.