I wanted to beat Doug to posting this story about uninsured/untaxed
drivers from today's Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2566896,00.html

I suspect it may be an example of that rare and elusive beast - a story
which reveals common ground between both sides of this group. The
anti-car guys don't like uninsured drivers because i) they are drivers;
and ii) they are irresponsible drivers, who cause a disproportionate
number of accidents. The pro-car guys on this group are, I think, on
the whole law-abiding folk (apart from the odd speeding ticket), so
will despise the scumbags who drive without insurance, cause accidents
and leave the law abiding types to foot the bill.

I am astonished that more has not been done to crack down on
uninsured/untaxed drivers. A few ideas:

1. Abolish road tax, and add a corresponding amount to fuel duty.
Impossible to evade, unless you steal your fuel or use red diesel.

2. Fund the Motor Insurers' Bureau (the body that compensates victims
of uninsured motorists) from fuel duty rather than from a tariff on car
insurance. That way, at least the uninsured drivers will pay something
towards the cost (unless they nick their fuel!).

On 26 Jan, 10:12, Huge wrote:

That is true - I guess 1.3 million untaxed cars equals only somewhere
in the region of £200 million, which is small fry to HM Treasury, when
compared to the amount extracted by way of fuel duty, VAT etc.

On 26 Jan, 09:26, "Brian" hotmail.com> wrote:

Having been on the wrong side to 2 overzealous pigs trying to sieze my
van because at that particular moment, by the side of the road, I
couldn't prove it was insured, a telephone confirmation from the
insurance company was not considered valid, they wanted something in
writing or confirmable on their computer. When proved beyond doubt they
were very reluctant to recall the summoned tow truck making me wonder
if there was some financial impact for them having summoned it (private
contractor) perhaps they instead of me would have to pay?

Had they taken it away and I subsequently produced the insurance within
the time limit I would still have had to pay for the vehicles removal
from the highway.

I will not support any such scheme that siezes vehicles unless some
better safeguards are built in.

"NM" mac.com> wrote in message
news:1169810856.561979.122220@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Never heard such bollocks in all my life. So it's too hard for your little
brain to file a registration document, MOT and insurance certificate
together somewhere?

On 26 Jan, 19:04, Adrian gmail.com> wrote:

Wrong I tried it, didn't work.

JNugent wrote:

But such people put more wear and tear on the roads etc. Surely you agree
with the principle of those who use the most pay the most?

On Jan 26, 7:59

Dave {Reply Address In.sig} ("noone$$"@llondel.org) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

and a new-styley MOT...

Last few reminders I've had haven't had an online ref, and have needed the
V5 to hand.

On 26 Jan, 21:53, "Dave {Reply Address In.sig}" <"noone$$"@llondel.org>
wrote:

On 26 Jan, 21:59, "Dave {Reply Address In.sig}" <"noone$$"@llondel.org>
wrote: