Continuous Insurance enforcement

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by irons

i love this forum, yorkie and mbk (among a couple of others) write nothing but crap in this thread that they cannot back up. misquote and take text out of context and then ignore it when pulled on it.

but im the one causing this argument haha

i must learn not to have an opinion and just agree. what i was told about bikers forum's is ringing so true

There's no such thing as a Biker's point of view. We've got a cross section of society here who happen to have bikes in common. If you look at the first few pages of this thread you'll see that several people agreed with you that CIE was a good thing or at least not something to worry about.

I suspect your view is shared by the majority of the driving (and certainly the non-driving) public. Most people have one vehicle which they tax and insure all year round. On here they might have two - a car and a bike - but again they'll tax and insure. So the new regs won't affect them so therefore they don't give a monkey's. They believe the lie (based on the worst set of statistics you will ever see if you care to look) that it will reduce uninsured driving and maybe knock a bit off their insurance premium so it's all good.

I'm happy to debate this with you in a civil manner until the cows come home. It makes no difference to me if you're trolling, taking the p!ss or defending your most dearly held beliefs. I'm the one arguing the minority position here so I need to give your point of view some respect.

But it's possible that someone else reading the thread who isn't affected by this change in the law, sees the injustice of it, and begins to object to it. That's why I'm taking part, I suspect it's why Embee started the thread and I'm certain that's why I've seen Tommy H on other forums agitating for people to write to their MP's. What we've got here is an outbreak of democracy on our hands.

We should be thanking you as you're the only one representing the silent majority here. There's no point in debating with people who agree with you.

So, with that in mind, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on my previous post. I broke the SORN rules and got punished. Did the public need to be protected from my nefarious activities or was I collateral damage? Am I innocent or guilty from a moral, rather than a technical, point of view? Should embee be considered "guilty" in the scenario posted above?

[MisterTommyH]

You stalking me Tam?

TBH I posted it in a few places because I can't beleive that it's coming in so quietly. No one seems to know anything about it, and if they do know about it then they may feel the same as some of us obviously do.

I know for a fact that it won't affect me at the moment. But it limits my options etc, and presumes guilt (as so many of our recent laws seem to) and I have a problem with that.

The NTBPT guys seem to have done a pretty good job of publicising their case and taking action so I was kind of hoping someone down there would get on the case.

Originally Posted by TamSV

There's no such thing as a Biker's point of view. We've got a cross section of society here who happen to have bikes in common. If you look at the first few pages of this thread you'll see that several people agreed with you that CIE was a good thing or at least not something to worry about.

I suspect your view is shared by the majority of the driving (and certainly the non-driving) public. Most people have one vehicle which they tax and insure all year round. On here they might have two - a car and a bike - but again they'll tax and insure. So the new regs won't affect them so therefore they don't give a monkey's. They believe the lie (based on the worst set of statistics you will ever see if you care to look) that it will reduce uninsured driving and maybe knock a bit off their insurance premium so it's all good.

I'm happy to debate this with you in a civil manner until the cows come home. It makes no difference to me if you're trolling, taking the p!ss or defending your most dearly held beliefs. I'm the one arguing the minority position here so I need to give your point of view some respect.

But it's possible that someone else reading the thread who isn't affected by this change in the law, sees the injustice of it, and begins to object to it. That's why I'm taking part, I suspect it's why Embee started the thread and I'm certain that's why I've seen Tommy H on other forums agitating for people to write to their MP's. What we've got here is an outbreak of democracy on our hands.

We should be thanking you as you're the only one representing the silent majority here. There's no point in debating with people who agree with you.

So, with that in mind, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on my previous post. I broke the SORN rules and got punished. Did the public need to be protected from my nefarious activities or was I collateral damage? Am I innocent or guilty from a moral, rather than a technical, point of view? Should embee be considered "guilty" in the scenario posted above?

yea what i should of said is certain people like the ones named get abit silly during debate. maybe its because they cant hold an argument or difference of views in a controlled adult manner. not sure but said people to me anyway seem to want to turn a genuine decent debate into a slagging match by all jumping on one member. i just find it abit sad.
if i was trolling (which btw id never even heard of forum trolls before posting on this one) id be picking others opinions and trying to wind them up? i just gave my opinion and the same people jump on me lol.
with regard to your SORN issue of course its no major big crime and no in a genuine mistake you should not be punished but sadly that is the world we live in. At the same time tho we all know the rules so if you forget or just dont follow them you know whats coming
How many times are you searched at an airport? have your bags turned inside out and treated like a criminal? We are in everyday life considered guilty of something i guess. Thing is weather you can understand why we have these laws and policy's in place and accept them because in the whole it may make the world a better place or it helps cut crime etc.
For these small things i dont consider them morally right but ill accept them as long as they do what they were set up to do.

[TamSV]

I can accept, to a point, the example of airport security. I put up with a bit of delay and getting searched because it's preferable to screaming in a fireball at 30,000 feet. But the difference is, if you set off the metal detector, you are presumed innocent. You are not treated as a terrorist (i.e. shot repeatedly in the head at point blank range or put on the next plane to Morocco for an extrajudicial kicking). Once it has been established that you don't have exploding shoes you're on your way. You don't get an automatic fine just for setting off the detector.

The SORN rules were brought in specifically to catch tax-dodgers. I am not a tax-dodger. Yet I am punished. We know it happens but should it?

If you walk out of a shop without buying something should you be fined for exhibiting the behaviour of a shoplifter?

Originally Posted by TamSV

I can accept, to a point, the example of airport security. I put up with a bit of delay and getting searched because it's preferable to screaming in a fireball at 30,000 feet. But the difference is, if you set off the metal detector, you are presumed innocent. You are not treated as a terrorist (i.e. shot repeatedly in the head at point blank range or put on the next plane to Morocco for an extrajudicial kicking). Once it has been established that you don't have exploding shoes you're on your way. You don't get an automatic fine just for setting off the detector.

The SORN rules were brought in specifically to catch tax-dodgers. I am not a tax-dodger. Yet I am punished. We know it happens but should it?

If you walk out of a shop without buying something should you be fined for exhibiting the behaviour of a shoplifter?

No it should not happen but whats the way around it? im sure everyone will agree they and we cannot just allow people to get away without paying tax etc
There has to be something in place and being realistic the only way to do this is the way its done. Police cant check every car everyday.
The system in place is set out for us all to understand. we all know if we dont comply with it then we will get a form of punishment so our fate is totally in our own hands. We don't have anyone to blame if we don't comply than ourselves.
On a moral level it may not be right but they are very simple things and to be honest i have more of an issue with things like my every move being watched on cctv than sending a SORN form off

in an ideal world we wouldnt need all these laws but sadly we do

[TamSV]

We do exactly what we do with shoplifters. We catch them at it and prosecute them. We don't get them all that way but we also don't harass people who are just browsing.

If we want to catch some more shoplifters, we employ security guards, we install CCTV cameras, we put security tags on goods or put the most expensive stuff in cabinets. We make the crime more difficult and make detection easier. The point is it's totally passive for the honest shopper.

That's what we do for most crimes and we accept that we won't catch everyone. Because to catch everyone is actually impossible and any attempt to do so requires an intolerable restriction on our freedom such that the innocent are always punished in the trying.

ANPR is not connected to the MID in many cases. MID has only recently been linked to the Police National Computer so details can be checked passively while on the move.

THIS is where we should concentrate our efforts - on detection of the crime and enforcement of the current law - not on harassment and punishment of innocent law abiding citizens. This is what we do in every other area of criminal law and it is the foundation of our legal system, our society and our basic sense of fairness.

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by irons

in an ideal world we wouldnt need all these laws but sadly we do

Do we ?

The trouble is here, that the authorities are trying to fix a problem i.e. uninsured vehicles being used on the road. Which I fully support. I just dont like the way that this is being done. I.e. finining somebody who keeps a vehicle on private land with no intention of using it for having on insurance.

The sort of people this will catch are genuine people who have made a mistake or forgotten to notify the relevant authority that they are lapsing the insurance.

It wont catch people who drive without insurance on purpose, because more than likely the sort of people that make a concious decision to do it, wont care about a fine and associated wrist slapping.

Surely the problem is, that people drive around with no insurance because the fine and subsequent points for doing so are less than the insurance premium they would have paid in the first place. So they decide to run that risk...

It would IMHO be better to catch these very people and hit them hard in their wallet i.e. big fine etc etc and then get them off the road. Not go chasing after everybody who genuinely has a vehicle off the road for whatever reason and decides not to insure.

Catch them when the crime is commited, whats next

Fines for people who own a vehicle, just because that vehicle has the ability to exceed the speed limit...

Originally Posted by irons

There has to be something in place and being realistic the only way to do this is the way its done. Police cant check every car everyday.

No, there are other methods. ANPR has been mentioned and though it is not 100% I believe that wider use of a system with access to the national insurance database must be more effective at catching uninsured vehicles than forcing people to SORN their cars when they are not insured. After all how is it easier to detect an untaxed car than an uninsured car? Sure the Tax disk can be checked visually but police cant check every car every day, right?

Originally Posted by irons

The system in place is set out for us all to understand. we all know if we dont comply with it then we will get a form of punishment so our fate is totally in our own hands. We don't have anyone to blame if we don't comply than ourselves.

How very Orwellian of you. Surely you must draw the line somewhere, rather than shrug and say, thems the rules, must comply. The problem is this is one more encroachment on your civil liberty. Just as being watched 24/7 on CCTV. Its baby steps mate, one at a time, and you will look back one day and think, How the **** did we get here?

[embee]

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

..., whats next

Fines for people who own a vehicle, just because that vehicle has the ability to exceed the speed limit...

That was the analogy which has been going through my mind, but I digress.

Back on the theme, here's a real issue. Say your vehicle is taxed and insured, you decide for whatever reason (and the reason is totally irrelevant as far as this law goes) to take it off road and so let your insurance lapse, and dutifully send off your tax disc on a refund form and tick the SORN box. Right? All totally law abiding and to the letter of the law.

After a while you get a notification saying your vehicle is not insured but is taxed etc.

You reply saying you sent off the form, they say they never received it. Prove you sent it.

It's going to be up to you to prove your innocence, they won't have to prove your guilt, "the computer says no".

What happens? Presumably you just make another declaration of SORN, but for all they know you lied and still have the valid tax disc. If that's OK, why do you have to send the disc in at all? What's the problem, if you use the (or another) vehicle with the disc displayed, that's just another offence on top of any other offences. The database will say whether any reg no has a tax disc against it, what's the point of the paper disc? If the vehicle is cloned the database might well say it's legal anyway.

They will really need to make the SORN declaration possible without relying on Royal Mail to deliver letters.

A major problem with so many of these sort of half baked laws is all the "what ifs", most of them are simply ignored. When SORN came in and you had to declare an address at which the vehicle would be kept, I asked the DVLA if I had to tell them when I moved it to another address. The woman said "Aha, got you, you can't take it on the road, so there." I said "It's a bike, it's on a trailer. Now, back to the question, do I have to declare a new address?"

She said I could if I wanted (what sort of answer is that?) I told her "They're your rules, I just want to know what they are. You're the one threatening me with a £5k fine."

She accused me of being awkward, so I made an official complaint against her. Made me feel good for some reason.

The requirement to declare the address was subsequently dropped from the SORN declaration, presumably because someone finally realised it was totally pointless. Why didn't this get thought through in the first place?
I can see the CIE being full of holes too.

Originally Posted by irons

that statement alone shows you talk crap mate...

your full of $hit...

here is a very simple FACT...

That young sir is FACT

Originally Posted by irons

certain people like the ones named get abit silly during debate. maybe its because they cant hold an argument or difference of views in a controlled adult manner