Insuring unused cars

[rowdy]

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.

More money making scams. Ace.

[the_lone_wolf]

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

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...

[Stu]

What utter bollox! if it's not in use what exactly do you have to insure it against?

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

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]

Originally Posted by 454697819

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...

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! 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]

Originally Posted by ArtyLady

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