View Full Version : Insuring unused cars
Heard on the news today that people who have cars that aren't roadworthy or not in use are going to have to start insuring them or face a 100 pound fine and then have the car crushed if this doesn't persuade them to insure it.
Just wondered if this is going to apply to bikes as well, as I'm sure a lot of us have bikes kicking around in garages and sheds that need tlc, so therefore not on the road and not insured.
Also wonder if this is going to mean a lot more cars get cloned as this will make things more difficult for the powers that be to work out whether the cars are legally insured or not.
gettin2dizzy
20-01-09, 04:54 PM
More money making scams. Ace.
the_lone_wolf
20-01-09, 04:55 PM
It's stupid, the law will apply to vehicles that are taxed but not insured, like my bike that's been unused since september, it'll be another dumb database that makes the assumption owner + tax -insurance = vehicle being used on the road illegaly
I've already said on another forum, why would anyone who's going to drive with no insurance bother to tax the car? just declare it sorn, no fine and they're still going to get flagged on ANPR in exactly the same way as if the car was taxed but not insured
454697819
20-01-09, 04:56 PM
YOu only have to have it insured if it is on a public road...they cannot enforce insurance if you have no intention of using it.... feckin dim witts
If it is sat there on the road it needs insurance...
If its a bike in the garage it doesnt...
What utter bollox! :mad: if it's not in use what exactly do you have to insure it against?
gettin2dizzy
20-01-09, 04:58 PM
It's stupid, the law will apply to vehicles that are taxed but not insured, like my bike that's been unused since september, it'll be another dumb database that makes the assumption owner + tax -insurance = vehicle being used on the road illegaly
I've already said on another forum, why would anyone who's going to drive with no insurance bother to tax the car? just declare it sorn, no fine and they're still going to get flagged on ANPR in exactly the same way as if the car was taxed but not insured
Too many employees on Whitehalls payroll trying to justify their wage...
the_lone_wolf
20-01-09, 05:00 PM
YOu only have to have it insured if it is on a public road...they cannot enforce insurance if you have no intention of using it.... feckin dim witts
If it is sat there on the road it needs insurance...
If its a bike in the garage it doesnt...
that's the situation now, what they're proposing is that any registered vehicle that isn't SORN'd is assumed to be driving on the road, and therefore needs insurance...
ArtyLady
20-01-09, 05:06 PM
But the law as it stands only requires third party insurance if you are driving/riding on the road! When I lost my licence due to illness, I couldn't even get insurance for theft because I didn't have a licence! :mad: Edit - just read lone wolf's post - you would just SORN it I suppose.
Sod this. I'm going to register all my vehicles at my Maltese address from now on. It's in the EU so I can drive them for pretty much as long as I like over here.
Feckin' civil servants need shooting.
the_lone_wolf
20-01-09, 05:16 PM
Edit - just read lone wolf's post - you would just SORN it I suppose.
yes, but what if, like me, i wanted to keep the bike taxed in case i did need to use it, insurance can be arranged within a few minutes, getting a tax disk in the mail would take days. what if i wanted to keep my bike taxed while i was off the road injured and my partner or friend wanted to occasionally use the bike, using their own insurance's 3rd party cover? for the sake of a refund of pocket change it wasn't worth me SORNing it
completely unnecessary law, that won;t stop people driving without insurance but will inconvenience thousands of people who have valid reasons for keeping a vehicle taxed but not insured
my partner or friend wanted to occasionally use the bike, using their own insurance's 3rd party cover?
You can drive other vehicles on your/their insurance's 3rd party cover only if that vehicle is already insured.
the_lone_wolf
20-01-09, 05:27 PM
You can drive other vehicles on your/their insurance's 3rd party cover only if that vehicle is already insured.
i call shenanigans on that...
where's your proof?;)
You can drive other vehicles on your/their insurance's 3rd party cover only if that vehicle is already insured.
Because it's true :smt019 @TLW :D
Unless you're talking about a trade insurance policy - which would let you drive it untaxed as well with garage plates
where's your proof?;)
My proof was washed away down the sewer system after I rode my mates Duc 748 home for him (before he got his licence), thinking that my insurance was enough. When I read the paperwork properly a little later, I realised that I'd just ridden it 35 miles with no insurance whatsoever.
Oops.
Ceri JC
20-01-09, 05:45 PM
This is a stupid, poorly thought out requirement. However, a mate had an old project parked on the road, taxed, but not insured as he never drove it. It was a hell of a state, a real "work in progress". One day he got a call at work from someone at the firestation alerting him to the fact they had been out as someone was concerned that there was petrol literally pooling under it and you could smell petrol all the way down the road. Let's say this had gone up whilst you were driving past; you would of hoped it would have been insured, wouldn't you? That's the only instance I can think of where it makes sense though and is so unlikely/applicable in so few cases you can dismiss it out of hand.
Perhaps it's designed to discourage people from parking old tax-exempt wrecks on the road for years on end? My uncle kept an old cage that didn't run as a lockup on the road near where he worked for over a decade. No need to insure it and free tax, what incentive was there for him to move it? :)
gettin2dizzy
20-01-09, 05:49 PM
This is a stupid, poorly thought out requirement. However, a mate had an old project parked on the road, taxed, but not insured as he never drove it. It was a hell of a state, a real "work in progress". One day he got a call at work from someone at the firestation alerting him to the fact they had been out as someone was concerned that there was petrol literally pooling under it and you could smell petrol all the way down the road. Let's say this had gone up whilst you were driving past; you would of hoped it would have been insured, wouldn't you? That's the only instance I can think of where it makes sense though and is so unlikely/applicable in so few cases you can dismiss it out of hand.
Perhaps it's designed to discourage people from parking old tax-exempt wrecks on the road for years on end? My uncle kept an old cage that didn't run as a lockup on the road near where he worked for over a decade. No need to insure it and free tax, what incentive was there for him to move it? :)
I'd imagine it is designed to catch out people who drive around uninsured, as currently they need to catch you in the act. It just helps sloppy police-work....
It's a b*gg*r for us.:(
We keep a second car as a 'space saver', so that basically no-one ever parks right across our gate and prevents us from getting the bike in and out. It's taxed and has an MOT but is not currently insured as we never drive it. Looks like that will change now.:(
Still worth it though I guess to ensure the bike can be got in and out of the house.:D
the_lone_wolf
20-01-09, 05:52 PM
nothing like this in my policy document...
Section 3, 1B
http://www.bell.co.uk/policyDocs/belPdf6.pdf
i'll call them tomorrow and ask, but as far as i can ascertain on the internet whether the other car has to be insured depends entirely on whether the insurer says so or not...
It is supposedly to stop people driving around uninsured but it's still going to make the government a hell of a lot of money from a lot of law abiding citizens.
You can drive other vehicles on your/their insurance's 3rd party cover only if that vehicle is already insured.
Funny that, as my policy states the exact opposite.
I can ride any bike I like, and I'm covered on my insurance, unless the bike is covered under any other policy (ie, the owner has an 'any rider' clause).
the_lone_wolf
20-01-09, 06:39 PM
Funny that, as my policy states the exact opposite.
I can ride any bike I like, and I'm covered on my insurance, unless the bike is covered under any other policy (ie, the owner has an 'any rider' clause).
^^what my car policy states as well
^^what my car policy states as well
just gone through all my paper work and it states,that I can ride any bike not belonging to me .Wheather insured or not
Funny that, as my policy states the exact opposite.
I can ride any bike I like, and I'm covered on my insurance, unless the bike is covered under any other policy (ie, the owner has an 'any rider' clause).
That would be because there are two underwriters covering the same risk. Who pays out?
Mine states that I can ride other bikes 3rd party as long as the other bike is insured by the current owner but NOT for any rider. Of course, it it WAS covered for any rider (or I was named), why would I need my own cover in the first place?
Can of worms eh?
That would be because there are two underwriters covering the same risk. Who pays out?
Mine states that I can ride other bikes 3rd party as long as the other bike is insured by the current owner but NOT for any rider. Of course, it it WAS covered for any rider (or I was named), why would I need my own cover in the first place?
Can of worms eh?
Surely though the owners insurance doesn't matter. In my case, if I ride another bike that's not covered 'any rider' (and I'm not specifically named on the owner's policy), and I get into an accident; the third party is covered under my insurance. So long as I have the owners permission to ride it, no other party would (or should) be interested at all.
the_lone_wolf
20-01-09, 07:47 PM
Can of worms eh?
not really, read your policy document and it explains it...
of course if the bike's owner has "any rider" cover you don't need to have "any bike" cover to ride his bike, however that's completely irrelevant to the topic, the whole point is that the bike is uninsured by the owner, but someone else can use the "any bike" section of their comp policy to ride that bike, regardless of the owner's insurance status, provided they have the owner's permission etc etc
i can't see why any insurance company would insist that a bike you were using, that belongs to someone else, is insured for that other rider before they'll provide the minimum 3rd party cover for you to ride it - who's your provider?
of course if the bike's owner has "any rider" cover you don't need to have "any bike" cover to ride his bike, however that's completely irrelevant to the topic,
Which is what I said. It was just an aside.
who's your provider?
Not sure who it was at the time (a few years ago). May have been H&R.
Flamin_Squirrel
21-01-09, 07:32 AM
i can't see why any insurance company would insist that a bike you were using, that belongs to someone else, is insured for that other rider before they'll provide the minimum 3rd party cover for you to ride it
The reason should be obvious - to stop you from getting insurance for an ER-5 you own, and using the 3rd party cover for any other bike to ride a Ducati Desmo that's registered with your wife/girlfriend/parents. That's a massive risk with no premium being paid to cover it.
the_lone_wolf
21-01-09, 07:40 AM
That's a massive risk with no premium being paid to cover it.
the risk being undertaken is exactly the same if the bike is insured by the owner or not...:?
The reason should be obvious - to stop you from getting insurance for an ER-5 you own, and using the 3rd party cover for any other bike to ride a Ducati Desmo that's registered with your wife/girlfriend/parents. That's a massive risk with no premium being paid to cover it.
The risk to the insurance company is no different to me owning my SV, and riding my colleague's CBR125. It's still 3rd party cover, so the bike you're riding isn't covered, the 3rd party (should you be at fault) is.
Granted, the CBR125 hasn't got the performance that the SV has, and in that respect is considered a downgrade, but put the two on a motorway, and the SV is safer due to available power.
Incidentally, I've had a play on a 1098 (and we all know the cost of those things!). I called my insurance company to be on the safe side, and they told me it wasn't a problem. :confused:
iprideaux
21-01-09, 02:03 PM
I don't get any of this. It's the driver that _has_ to be insured, not the vehicle. You _may_ also insure the vehicle, but it's not compulsory.
I don't get any of this. It's the driver that _has_ to be insured, not the vehicle. You _may_ also insure the vehicle, but it's not compulsory.
No, the driver is insured on a specific vehicle. If we go by what you have said why do peoples premiums differ so much, i.e if I insured a fiesta it'll cost alot less than if I insure a Ferrari. You can get insurance that covers you to drive any car, most cases trade insurance but this is usually a couple of grand a year.
I guess the legislation idea is to target the apparently growing number of people who take out an insurance policy on a vehicle, get the cert, tax the vehicle, then either default or cancel the insurance policy in the(wrong) belief that a photocopy of the now void cert will get them through. Of course the database checks will throw it up, but this scenario seems to be common judging by the TV police blah-de-blah documentaries.
As usual however this sort of legislation idea simply sweeps up all the genuine law abiding people along with the detritus, and makes everyone's life just that bit more difficult. Blunderbus laws, if you hit everyone you're bound to hit a criminal or two in the process.
gettin2dizzy
21-01-09, 04:40 PM
I guess the legislation idea is to target the apparently growing number of people who take out an insurance policy on a vehicle, get the cert, tax the vehicle, then either default or cancel the insurance policy in the(wrong) belief that a photocopy of the now void cert will get them through. Of course the database checks will throw it up, but this scenario seems to be common judging by the TV police blah-de-blah documentaries.
Followed by the narrator at the end announcing 'xxx who was driving without insurance, and without licence and currently serving a ban, was given a 6 month extension to their ban'
They should just fine them, then ban them, and if they get caught driving with a ban- lock them up as they obviously can't be trusted. Simple.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.