SV650.org - SV650 & Gladius 650 Forum
Page 12 of 22 « First 2891011 12 13141516 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

SV650.org - SV650 & Gladius 650 Forum (http://forums.sv650.org/index.php)
-   Bikes - Talk & Issues (http://forums.sv650.org/forumdisplay.php?f=129)
-   -   Continuous Insurance enforcement (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=160280)

irons 14-01-11 02:06 PM
Re: Continuous Insurance enforcement
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig (Post 2460247)
irons. You either don't read posts properly or quite simply only take part of a post and then quote on that. You take that text out of context for your own arguement.

This is the 2nd thread I know of which you have contributed to and done the same thing. :roll:

Some would say it was trolling.
mate all i have said is i feel it will lower the number of uninsured vehicles (dont know by how much)
because i dont share your view im taking things out of context?? explain where i have done this?
funny that i have posted in a few threads and its only in 2 i have had issue's with user's. better still its the exact same user's. just because i have a different view than them lol

yorkie_chris 14-01-11 02:15 PM
Re: Continuous Insurance enforcement
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irons (Post 2460240)
yea it wont catch the 3 types you have mentioned and ive already stated it wont stop every uninsured vehicle on the road. But it will stop the people who for example insure for a month to get tax and then cancel. It will stop the genuine guy who try's to stay within the law but chances it with insurance because money is tight etc etc
lets say there are 1.5m uninsured on the roads (i dont know how many there are) if this scheme even removes 300,000 of those then its worthwhile
and you dont know it wont so lets see what it does.
There is some famous phrase about it being better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man going to prison.

Very similar idea here, I do not think it is good to fine people who are not doing anything wrong.

irons 14-01-11 02:21 PM
Re: Continuous Insurance enforcement
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yorkie_chris (Post 2460255)
There is some famous phrase about it being better that a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man going to prison.

Very similar idea here, I do not think it is good to fine people who are not doing anything wrong.
100% agree with you but people doing nothing wrong should not be fined? it your vehicle is off road, send your tax back and declare it sorn. Again they dont just fine you right away so if the normal bloke does just forget they will have a chance to correct it before getting fined etc.
it does require more work for people like sending tax back etc and i agree in some case's its going to be a pain in the ****.
overall tho i feel it will serve a purpose

TamSV 14-01-11 02:35 PM
Re: Continuous Insurance enforcement
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irons (Post 2460240)
lets say there are 1.5m uninsured on the roads (i dont know how many there are) if this scheme even removes 300,000 of those then its worthwhile.
Irons mate, you can't just make numbers up to support an argument. This scheme will be nowhere near that effective. Even the authors of the report don't believe that their full range of suggested measures, of which this was just one, will reduce uninsured driving by anything close to that sort of percentage.

What if I made up some numbers of my own and suggested that out of your 1.5m drivers it will remove 20,000, will cost millions of pounds to administer, and will result in 5,000 law abiding, Bentley restoring pensioners being fined because they didn't get the reminder/were on holiday/are a bit mental?

How would you feel about it then? These are made up numbers like, just for fun. But would you still support it?

yorkie_chris 14-01-11 02:38 PM
Re: Continuous Insurance enforcement
 
Hows about reversing those numbers and saying it will remove 5000 uninsured drivers but fine 20,000 innocent people?

It will also only target the least likely uninsured drivers to claim, the ones who are risking it a bit because they're skint. The most dangerous ones who drive their stolen bangers like c***s won't notice.

irons 14-01-11 02:41 PM
Re: Continuous Insurance enforcement
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamSV (Post 2460280)
Irons mate, you can't just make numbers up to support an argument. This scheme will be nowhere near that effective. Even the authors of the report don't believe that their full range of suggested measures, of which this was just one, will reduce uninsured driving by anything close to that sort of percentage.

What if I made up some numbers of my own and suggested that out of your 1.5m drivers it will remove 20,000, will cost millions of pounds to administer, and will result in 5,000 law abiding, Bentley restoring pensioners being fined because they didn't get the reminder/were on holiday/are a bit mental?

How would you feel about it then? These are made up numbers like, just for fun. But would you still support it?
yea sorry didnt mean for it to come across that way. the point i was trying to make and forget the numbers is out of however many uninsured drivers there are if it removes any number of those then its a good thing (the 300,000 was just to try and get the point across) even if it removes 100 then im for it
not saying it will but i feel it will lower the current number

TamSV 14-01-11 02:53 PM
Re: Continuous Insurance enforcement
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by irons (Post 2460288)
even if it removes 100 then im for it
Ah, then we're never going to agree.

I just don't think it's worth the cost to try to eliminate a few more uninsured drivers. Particularly the unquantifiable cost of alienating law abiding citizens - which is something we've been forgetting in recent years IMO.

It won't even be worth the financial cost. It will cost more than it saves and will make not one jot of a difference to your insurance premium.

EDIT: I think I said in an earlier post that it wouldn't make much difference to premiums. After looking at the research I have revised my estimate to "not one jot". ;)

irons 14-01-11 03:07 PM
Re: Continuous Insurance enforcement
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamSV (Post 2460292)
Ah, then we're never going to agree.

I just don't think it's worth the cost to try to eliminate a few more uninsured drivers. Particularly the unquantifiable cost of alienating law abiding citizens - which is something we've been forgetting in recent years IMO.

It won't even be worth the financial cost. It will cost more than it saves and will make not one jot of a difference to your insurance premium.

EDIT: I think I said in an earlier post that it wouldn't make much difference to premiums. After looking at the research I have revised my estimate to "not one jot". ;)
It will help if one of those 100 cars that are now insured crashes into me lol
We won't know how many it stops driving uninsured but surely it's got to reduce the number?? That's all I'm saying.
People will have a different view because we do things different, for me my bike and the 2 cars are taxed and insured all year every year so won't make a blind bit of difference. I do see it will be a pain if you have insurance and tax that runs to different dates and for example leave the bike taxed but not insured but just send the tax back and get money back

irons 14-01-11 03:15 PM
Re: Continuous Insurance enforcement
 
Another quick point is it won't fine any innocent road user. It will be law that if your vehicle is not sorn it has to be taxed and insured, either of those missing and your breaking the law thus making you not innocent.
Pain in the neck for some people yes bit it's always been the case that of your vehicle is off road for some time it should be declared
Why would anyone want to pay more tax than they need to?

irons 14-01-11 03:15 PM
Re: Continuous Insurance enforcement
 
Another quick point is it won't fine any innocent road user. It will be law that if your vehicle is not sorn it has to be taxed and insured, either of those missing and your breaking the law thus making you not innocent.
Pain in the neck for some people yes bit it's always been the case that of your vehicle is off road for some time it should be declared
Why would anyone want to pay more tax than they need to?


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:55 AM.
Page 12 of 22 « First 2891011 12 13141516 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® - Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.