Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE)

lambrettaboy

lambrettaboy

New member
dont know if everyone has heard that the goverment are to introduce new rules this year in an effort to clamp down on uninsured drivers,
under new powers it will be an offence to keep an uninsured vehicle, rather than just to drive when uninsured.
if you have a vehicle on sorn all is fine, under the new system the dvla will work in partnership with the motor insurers Bureau to identify uninsured vehicles. motorists will receive a letter telling them that there vehicle appears to be uninsured and warning them that they will be fined unless they take action.
if the keeper fails to insure the vehicle they will be given a £100 fine.
if it remains uninsured-regardless of whether the fine is paid-it could then be siezed and destroyed. Vehicles with a valid (SORN) will not be required to be insured.
 
bloody conning govt @@@@@@@s are at it again, if it kicks in soon its gonna cost me a couple of hundred quid:mad:
 
colz said:
bloody conning govt @@@@@@@s are at it again, if it kicks in soon its gonna cost me a couple of hundred quid:mad:
Click to expand...

I do not have a problem with this and I do know of someone who suffered badly due to an accident with an uninsured driver and the nightmare that was with the MIB re compensation, far less a payout than a normal cival action against an insurance company re injuries recieved.

So anything that stops or cuts down on uninsured drivers Iam up for and lets face it its not the end of the world to sorn a bike if its off road most of us Iam sure are doing it already.
 
I agree Scott, if vehicle is not on the road just SORN it and you don't have to keep the insurance running as long as it is kept off a public road which with most of us would be the case anyway.

Industry reckons we are all paying £30-£40 per annum on each premium to cover uninsured drivers.

2 minutes online to click a SORN box and that's it until you need to put it back on the road again.
 
239desmo said:
2 minutes online to click a SORN box and that's it until you need to put it back on the road again.
Click to expand...
Not quite. If the bike is going to be laid up for a long time you'll have to SORN it every year - or get fined if you forget and probably double fined because it's not insured either :mad:
 
Derek said:
Not quite. If the bike is going to be laid up for a long time you'll have to SORN it every year - or get fined if you forget and probably double fined because it's not insured either :mad:
Click to expand...

The way SORN currently works does seem a bit clunky and almost designed to catch you out. If it was changed so that once put on SORN it stayed on until you taxed it or notified the DVLA otherwise it would be more sensible. They could send you a reminder once a year that required no action.
 
True but the DVLA do write out and advise you the bike SORN is running out and you either tax or Sorn again. I agree it would be better that once Sorned that was it until it goes back on the road but this is only going to be a problem with folk who have a bike which was on the road recently but will be off the road for over a year.
If it is a pile of bits in the corner of the garage it will probably not be on the "system" so no need to Sorn.
In reality the numbers of folk who are going to be affected are relatively small.
I have these issues every year and I don't find it a hassle.
I know it is being portrayed as "big brother" but for 98% of us it is no different to what we are doing already and I find it a small price to pay if it cuts down on uninsured vehicles.
 
239desmo said:
If it is a pile of bits in the corner of the garage it will probably not be on the "system" so no need to Sorn.
Click to expand...
Yes, but sooner or later it will be on the system and many bikes that are currently on the system will probably be a pile of bits in the corner of the garage at some time in the future. So all will be affected by it eventually.
I suppose the need to renew every year keeps the records up to date but it could also be regarded as just a trick to catch folk out and raise extra revenue - and there is no right of appeal even if you have a genuine case. People have bought non-runners and subsequently been fined because the previous owner didn't SORN it.
I completely agree about stopping uninsured riders/drivers but I'm not sure that the burueacratics will make it easy for the rest of us who do tax and insure our vehicles.
 
the number of uninsured drivers would plummet if it was made an immediatly ( spelt very badly) arrestable offence with far stiffer penalties and a great deal more publicity
 
Be very carefull!!

Derek said:
Yes, but sooner or later it will be on the system and many bikes that are currently on the system will probably be a pile of bits in the corner of the garage at some time in the future. So all will be affected by it eventually.
I suppose the need to renew every year keeps the records up to date but it could also be regarded as just a trick to catch folk out and raise extra revenue - and there is no right of appeal even if you have a genuine case. People have bought non-runners and subsequently been fined because the previous owner didn't SORN it.
I completely agree about stopping uninsured riders/drivers but I'm not sure that the burueacratics will make it easy for the rest of us who do tax and insure our vehicles.
Click to expand...

If the previous owner had it on a sorn its irrelevant, the sorn applies to bike AND person who declares the sorn. If you buy the bike you MUST either tax it or declare fresh sorn, NO reminder is issued to purchaser.Finding that one out cost me £60.00
 
gordj65 said:
the number of uninsured drivers would plummet if it was made an immediatly ( spelt very badly) arrestable offence with far stiffer penalties and a great deal more publicity
Click to expand...

Completely agree, IMHO motoring offences like uninsured drivers, drink driving, using mobiles etc should be the same as weapon offences- after all thats what vehicles are- LETHAL if not treated with respect etc....

I once heard a statistic that 1 in 10 cars on uk roads is uninsured. Thats probably isnt the case in Scotland but still a scary thought when you ride/drive around and start counting cars and hoping none of them hit you......
 
RobbieT said:
I once heard a statistic that 1 in 10 cars on uk roads is uninsured. Thats probably isnt the case in Scotland but still a scary thought when you ride/drive around and start counting cars and hoping none of them hit you......
Click to expand...

Why do you not think the 1 in 10 figure applies in Scotland robbie?
 
As I understand certain parts of Scotland have a considerably higher percentage but I reckon the same applies across the whole of the UK in that inner city areas tend to have the highest figures. 10% is the average guesstimate.
As regards penalties it is standard now for Police to immediately impound vehicles at time of the stop.
Question of whether penalties are stiff enough or not is always going to be a difficult one as we all have an idea of what we consider to be more or less "acceptable" when comparing one crime against another.
At the moment the rough rule of thumb is 6 points and £200 fine for a "mistake" or 6 months disqulification if a blatant no insurance.
Drunk drivers twice the limit will spend the night in the cells and appear in court the next day now if that was extended to every no insurance case I'm not sure there would be enough cells in the country or manpower to cope. I am not saying that perhaps that would be part of an answer but when police and court budgets are being reduced then it is a practical problem.
 
851jim said:
If the previous owner had it on a sorn its irrelevant, the sorn applies to bike AND person who declares the sorn. If you buy the bike you MUST either tax it or declare fresh sorn, NO reminder is issued to purchaser.Finding that one out cost me £60.00
Click to expand...
They don't advertise that one, do they!
 
The SDC and DUN's very own technical expert on the subject of SORN (Davieravie) should be along at closing time to answer all your questions on "HOW TO SORN BIKES FOREVER" :)
 
PaulV said:
Why do you not think the 1 in 10 figure applies in Scotland robbie?
Click to expand...

OK, here goes....

There are 6 cities in Scotland, yet 66 in the whole of the uk. So removing Scotland, NI & wales that still leaves a huge number of cities for England alone.

Those in BIG (inner) city areas (eg London, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham etc and yes Edinburgh & Glasgow) tend to rely on public transport to commute so don't have a car (parking also a problem).

Those in the countryside (which Scotland has plenty of) HAVE to rely on a car mostly for transport, so are responsible enough to insure it!

That leaves suburbs and council estates, where many of these unfortunately have crime rates are much higher for motoring offences than others/areas, but easy access to cars without the need to insure them.

There are about 30 million cars in the uk, for about say 60 million people. Discount the 1-17 year olds, most of the over 60's and those that don't drive thats a friickin lot of cars.

Deprived areas have a high number of criminals using cars as transport. In case of police pursuit, and needing to abandon said mode of transport, it makes sense they don't register, tax, MOT or insure the vehicle. Larger cities have more deprived areas. So England, having many of the the big cities in comparison to area and population, has higher proportion of uninsured vehicles. Relatively.

It is flawed logic but it does also kind of make sense.
Simples.
 
RobbieT said:
OK, here goes....

There are 6 cities in Scotland, yet 66 in the whole of the uk. So removing Scotland, NI & wales that still leaves a huge number of cities for England alone.

Those in BIG (inner) city areas (eg London, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham etc and yes Edinburgh & Glasgow) tend to rely on public transport to commute so don't have a car (parking also a problem).

Those in the countryside (which Scotland has plenty of) HAVE to rely on a car mostly for transport, so are responsible enough to insure it!

That leaves suburbs and council estates, where many of these unfortunately have crime rates are much higher for motoring offences than others/areas, but easy access to cars without the need to insure them.

There are about 30 million cars in the uk, for about say 60 million people. Discount the 1-17 year olds, most of the over 60's and those that don't drive thats a friickin lot of cars.

Deprived areas have a high number of criminals using cars as transport. In case of police pursuit, and needing to abandon said mode of transport, it makes sense they don't register, tax, MOT or insure the vehicle. Larger cities have more deprived areas. So England, having many of the the big cities in comparison to area and population, has higher proportion of uninsured vehicles. Relatively.

It is flawed logic but it does also kind of make sense.
Simples.
Click to expand...

i,ll second that ;);) Simples now thats why i leave all the talking to robbie when we are out on the pull :D
 
Sorry Rob, can't really agree with you. I honestly think that you may be mis-judging just how law abiding country folk are( no offence you country living types), and on top of that the majority on the Scottish population live in either the central belt or Perth-Dundee etc. Certianly no shortage of under priveldged areas there.

You could make the arguement that due to a slightly weaker acconomy north of the border the stats could actually be worse than down south???? I'm guessing....

Anyone got any firm figures... be interesting to know.
 
PaulV said:
Sorry Rob, can't really agree with you. I honestly think that you may be mis-judging just how law abiding country folk are( no offence you country living types), and on top of that the majority on the Scottish population live in either the central belt or Perth-Dundee etc. Certianly no shortage of under priveldged areas there.

You could make the arguement that due to a slightly weaker acconomy north of the border the stats could actually be worse than down south???? I'm guessing....

Anyone got any firm figures... be interesting to know.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's kind of the point....the majority of Scotland living in the central belt , even with plenty of deprived areas, is still miniscule compared to the huge number of people living in similar areas in England (85% of the UKs population) so my argument is on the basis that England has a higher proportion of the population living in areas most likely to be uninsured, and not the countryside, considering population density per area. Probably a majorly flawed one,i admit that.

The problem is that data for exact areas is hard to come by and differs year to year, but the following still make interesting reading.
Also interesting is that in the early 2010 data 3 out of the top 10 areas showing the highest number of unibsured motoring offence convictes were in Scotland!!!!!

http://business.scotsman.com/business/Action-urged-over--500m.4186691.jp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8272054.stm

http://news.scotsman.com/transport-news/Fall-in-number-of-uninsured.6432926.jp

http://www.moneysupermarket.com/new...-for-uninsured-drivers-revealed_0008514 .aspx
 
miloVanMultistrada said:
According to the Motor Insurers' Bureau, the top 5 worst offending UK police regions for driving without insurance are...


( drumroll please )


1. Metropolitan (11%)
2. Merseyside (10%)
3. Greater Manchester (8%)
4. West Midlands (6%)
5. West Yorkshire (6%)

http://www.mib.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/...42/0/Hotspots_national_release_2010_FINAL.pdf
Click to expand...

Interesting read.
especially "Half of the worst offending postcodes are in the West Midlands" and "The Metropolitan area is top of the regional list, with 1 in 10 vehicles estimated to be uninsured, making it more than twice as likely for drivers in London to have an accident with an uninsured motorist"

Like you said, London isnt in Scotland, despite having 50% more of a population just for a city that
n a whole country/region.

Think I was basing my 1 in 10 argument based on 2008 figures, which have Scotland at about 4% average, the UK average at 10%, even though some places were up to about 20% (some in Scotland).

A lot can change in 2 years.

Interesting discussion/debate/thread though.
See you at the AGM Paul?? been ages since Iv'e seen you last!!!!
 
Should be there Robbie, might even be on a bike if I can be bothered to sort out the insurance........;)
 
Derek said:
Yes, but sooner or later it will be on the system and many bikes that are currently on the system will probably be a pile of bits in the corner of the garage at some time in the future. So all will be affected by it eventually.
I suppose the need to renew every year keeps the records up to date but it could also be regarded as just a trick to catch folk out and raise extra revenue - and there is no right of appeal even if you have a genuine case. People have bought non-runners and subsequently been fined because the previous owner didn't SORN it.
I completely agree about stopping uninsured riders/drivers but I'm not sure that the burueacratics will make it easy for the rest of us who do tax and insure our vehicles.
Click to expand...

Just to add to this - if you lay the bike up over winter and send the tax disc in to the DVLA for a refund then make sure you tick the tiny box (I wonder why they make it so small?) which asks you to declare SORN because otherwise you will get a nice letter asking you to donate £60 to HMG
 
Uninsured, drunk, on a phone, no time for those at all. Road tax however = HMG cash cow. Road tax, as name suggest its a tax for using roads in which case should be covering use of public roads (thankfully free motorway driving) road repairs and generally keeping roads in exceptable condition.

However, Montrose council decided that (during worst winter for so many years) applying natural way of clearing roads is just about how much we paying for it. Waiting for snow to melt away that is, and roads full of stones eventually will be cleared by vehicle tires as time goes on. Pavements had about the same treatment. Err, saving money is usually associated with depositing money into savings account not enforcing charges for service you NOT providing. But there you go....big brother or little one, same result, over the barrel
 
golddesk said:
Uninsured, drunk, on a phone, no time for those at all. Road tax however = HMG cash cow. Road tax, as name suggest its a tax for using roads in which case should be covering use of public roads (thankfully free motorway driving) road repairs and generally keeping roads in exceptable condition.
Click to expand...


Theres the magic word again "Road Tax" Nowhere on any forms do you see this wording used anymore its all been changed to read "Vehicletax" or "Excise Duty". Thats why they dont fill in the bloody potholes cause nobody pays road tax anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom