What penalty for no insurance / driving licence?

[keicar]

death it's the only way fuckers...

LOL.

I'm only half joking* when I say I'd have two punishments in this world...death penalty and community service.

They are the only honest punishments - either let an individual make amends if that is possible or get rid of em. Caging 'em is pointless


* but I am half joking, before I incur the wrath of the anti-death penalty brigade

 

[ICB]

Well if under 25, as a statistical grouping, stopped driving way beyond their abilities and slaughtering themselves, their passengers and any other poor bastard who happens to share the road with them at the time, their premiums would be lower.

Sorry but we've all had to put up with that in our time. My first car's annual insurance (TPO) cost me more than the fucking car did !! I calculated I was spending 20 hours a week up to my elbows in burger grease just to keep it on the road !! In my case it forced me onto two wheels, and that little grey mini that cost me a bomb to insure at 18 was the last car I've ever owned

But I NEVER drove uninsured.

It can take years for a young drivers ability to catch up with their confidence, for the terminally stupid like the nephews of the OP's hubby it can take a lot longer, and if the state needs to give them a helping hand, so be it.

Interesting interpretation of my post, what I was alluding to was that the penalties should be heavier not that the insurance should be cheaper.

A less car dependent culture and planning policies might help as well.

 

[subversplat]

Nonsense

Worse than paedos? Stop being a prat

 

[moomoo]

your husbands nephews are cunts and by not shopping them you sliently codoned their actions.

I agree completely with the first bit

As for the rest, I don't have anything to do with them - when I say 'we', I mean 'the family'. It would be a bit difficult for me to shop someone when I don't know their addresses or the details of their cars now wouldn't it so don't you be calling me a cunt

I certainly don't approve of Grandad condoning it. He is trying to find a way of getting them put on someones insurance

Anyway I've been busy for the past few years - not got very involved in extended family business!

 

[detective-boy]

So by committing one offence you are effectively being forced into comitting others.

No-one's "forced" into anything. They CHOOSE to commit two offences. You're a fucking apologist for people who cause huge hardship to others and who cost ALL people who do have insurance significant amounts of money every year (paying out for their fucking unisured losses).

(ETA: Following an exchange of PMs, it seems I misunderstood what keicar was actually getting at - their concern was the fact that people are encouraged (by a variety of difficulties with other forms of transport) to drive, and, for the young especially, the costs of doing so legally are a huge barrier. I take no issue with those points. I would, however, continue to take issue with anyone who claimed that young people were forced to break the law - no matter how difficult being legal is, it is still a personal decision to break the law.)

 

[pembrokestephen]

yes i do agree that the insurance people are right rip offs cus they charge more than the car is worth, my first car cost me about £1700 and the insurance for the first few years was £600ish. How can that be, but i had to lump it pay it out and get on with my life rather than say it costs to much. If you cant afford it either get a motorbike like one of the above posters stated or walk.

I'm not excusing the insurers, but a mistake that lots of people seem to make regarding insurance is thinking that it's just about insuring against damage to their own car.

That's the least of it. What you're paying for as well is insuring yourself against the cost of accident/injury to third parties. If you mow down a bus queue in your car, someone (the insurer) has to pay out all those compensation claims, and increasingly now the costs of treatment: the NHS is very hot on going after insurance companies to recoup the cost of treating people injured as a result of motor accidents. While the likelihood of that kind of accident occurring is much lower than the possibility of someone running into your car and writing it off, the potential liabilities could run to thousands of times the value of your car, and that has to be financed somehow.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Agreed 100% The other alternative would be to ban insurance (no really) Think about it. If you were uninsured, would you drive more safely or more riskly?

Just to add (and this really is my final. final point on the matter) my grandfather drove for 70 years without a licence*, and never had an accident. So I'm not conviced they make for safer drivers.

* or rather without passing a test

Traffic densities would have been vastly lower, as would speeds.

 

[keicar]

(ETA: Following an exchange of PMs, it seems I misunderstood what keicar was actually getting at - their concern was the fact that people are encouraged (by a variety of difficulties with other forms of transport) to drive, and, for the young especially, the costs of doing so legally are a huge barrier.

oh, thanks for that, DB.

In all fairness I didn't make myself clear, indeed far from it. This thread isn't about me, but I can understand from personal experience why people do such things. Finding yourself in a rural aera in your late teens or early twenties the difficultly of breaking the catch-22 of no car=no job=can't leave home to move somwhere with decent PT is something I recall only too well.

FWIW I stayed legal, but that was more fear of my dad's disapproval than owt else

 

[Radar]

Interesting interpretation of my post, what I was alluding to was that the penalties should be heavier not that the insurance should be cheaper.

A less car dependent culture and planning policies might help as well.

God, I'm shite at this I wasn't actually saying I believed premiums are too expensive, I was trying to say that the premium probably reflect the quality of driving at that age pretty accurately. You get lower premiums by having a better quality of driving than your peers. You show that you do by earning and keeping a no-claims bonus.

Trying to get a decent no claims is difficult, especially as insurance companies rarely let you accrue a no claims bonus as a named driver (leastways the Irish insurers didn't). That I do think is unfair. Someone's making the effort to show that they are responsible, so why penalise them by not rewarding their claims-free driving.

 

[moomoo]

God, I'm shite at this I wasn't actually saying I believed premiums are too expensive, I was trying to say that the premium probably reflect the quality of driving at that age pretty accurately. You get lower premiums by having a better quality of driving than your peers. You show that you do by earning and keeping a no-claims bonus.

Trying to get a decent no claims is difficult, especially as insurance companies rarely let you accrue a no claims bonus as a named driver (leastways the Irish insurers didn't). That I do think is unfair. Someone's making the effort to show that they are responsible, so why penalise them by not rewarding their claims-free driving.

I don't quite know how this worked but I took over my husbands no claims bonus when he stopped driving. I had only been driving a year or so and the insurance company transferred his full no claims onto my policy

Most odd (but saved me a fortune).

 

[pembrokestephen]

I don't quite know how this worked but I took over my husbands no claims bonus when he stopped driving. I had only been driving a year or so and the insurance company transferred his full no claims onto my policy

Most odd (but saved me a fortune).

I drove for about 10 years on my wife's insurance. When I rang the insurance company following our divorce to organise insurance in my own right, they very kindly handed me a full 5 year no-claims bonus: I suspect it was conditional on my remaining with them, but that wasn't any great hardship.

I suspect if you're on some kind of Lloyd's broker-written policy, the options aren't quite as generous.

 

[ICB]

God, I'm shite at this I wasn't actually saying I believed premiums are too expensive, I was trying to say that the premium probably reflect the quality of driving at that age pretty accurately. You get lower premiums by having a better quality of driving than your peers. You show that you do by earning and keeping a no-claims bonus.

Trying to get a decent no claims is difficult, especially as insurance companies rarely let you accrue a no claims bonus as a named driver (leastways the Irish insurers didn't). That I do think is unfair. Someone's making the effort to show that they are responsible, so why penalise them by not rewarding their claims-free driving.

Agree with all that, and with D-B that people make these choices and should take responsibility for their actions. I don't think that a car dependent culture and insurance that's more expensive than fines are an excuse just part of an explanation.

I dunno about you being shite, probably just me being ambiguous

 

[chymaera]

I'm delighted they have finally been caught - what sort of punishment should they expect to get?

Given the consequences to anyone who is injured in an accident, or to the relatives of anyone injured or killed by an unlicenced/unisured driver, public execution would be my preference.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Worse than paedos? Stop being a prat

yes worse than pedos as there' are approximatle 25% of the drivign population who do so with out insureance or licences compared to at it's best guess around less than 1% of the population being peados...

you fuckign moron a quarter of people on the road have no licence or insurence... what's the chances of the a child coming into contact with an uninsured driver compared to a pedo... 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 million... work it out son... you fucking prat the demons you and your moronic pedo scweaming muppet fuckers go on and on and on about in some small dick machismo willy waving fashion are less dangerous to children than the quarter of uninsured drivers by sheer weight of numbers alone...


but you carry on in you fucking moronicy with your big devil to bash....

eh

twat...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I agree completely with the first bit

As for the rest, I don't have anything to do with them - when I say 'we', I mean 'the family'. It would be a bit difficult for me to shop someone when I don't know their addresses or the details of their cars now wouldn't it so don't you be calling me a cunt

I certainly don't approve of Grandad condoning it. He is trying to find a way of getting them put on someones insurance

Anyway I've been busy for the past few years - not got very involved in extended family business!

4 words

and

so

fucking

what?

oooo good for you for your own reasons you didn't report this fucks ergo by default you are guilty of allowing them to continue...

and i don't give a fuck how twisted your family releationship is you should still haev shopped them... or you are a cunt for not doing so...

there's a world of difference from not gettign involved cos it's a family feud or whatever and allowing some one in your family or extended famliiy to do somehting which will endanger the lives of others...

 

[TopCat]

What a pious idiot, as per usual.

 

[baldrick]

4 words

fuck off you twat.

that's 4 words, isn't it?

 

[TopCat]

Stupid fat fucking idiot, thats 4 too?

 

[pembrokestephen]

Given the consequences to anyone who is injured in an accident, or to the relatives of anyone injured or killed by an unlicenced/unisured driver, public execution would be my preference.

Blimey, chymaera in bending-over-backwards-to-be-a-bleeding-heart-liberal shocker. Film at 11!

You're predictable, I'll say that for you...

 

[pembrokestephen]

yes worse than pedos as there' are approximatle 25% of the drivign population who do so with out insureance or licences compared to at it's best guess around less than 1% of the population being peados...

you fuckign moron a quarter of people on the road have no licence or insurence... what's the chances of the a child coming into contact with an uninsured driver compared to a pedo... 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 million... work it out son... you fucking prat the demons you and your moronic pedo scweaming muppet fuckers go on and on and on about in some small dick machismo willy waving fashion are less dangerous to children than the quarter of uninsured drivers by sheer weight of numbers alone...


but you carry on in you fucking moronicy with your big devil to bash....

eh

twat...

[why is it that the kind of people who storm around ranting so viciously about child sex abusers can't call 'em what they are, whether that's "child sex abusers", or "paedophiles" (if you must). It's always "pedos". You'd think that if they considered the offence so very, very serious, they'd use the proper name for it, rather than trivialising it in this way. Or perhaps their written inarticulacy is representative of their thought processes]

Anyway, I think that anyone trying to establish some kind of moral hierarchy between paedophiles and people who drive while uninsured is on a bit of a sticky wicket.

What is interesting, though, is that you have unintentionally compared two groups that are similar in an unexpected way: uninsured drivers haven't necessarily had an insurable loss, and "paedophile" describes someone with a sexual preference, but who may well not have committed an offence against a child. In both cases, the harm remains in potentia.

Nonetheless, that's about the only similarity between the two. An uninsured driver makes the choice, ultimately, to drive while not insured (leaving aside the case where his mrs forgot to post off the renewal letter, etc); the child sex abuser has a compulsion to abuse. In most cases, unless they have an accident (and yes, I'm aware that uninsured drivers are considerably more likely to than insured ones - but that's not specifically by virtue of their not being insured), uninsured drivers do not intrinsically cause any damage or harm, and even if they have an accident, it'll be much more likely to involve a financial loss than permanent harm or injury; a child sex abuser (assuming you meant that when you used the illiterate and inaccurate term "pedo") DOES cause harm by his offending, and harm that can be severe, and long-lasting.

Are you seriously going to try and establish an equivalence between (say) the writing-off of a £5000 car and the psychological trauma caused to a young child who is abused?

They're both illegal, and for good reasons. That is, surely, all that needs to be said on the matter.

 

[Firky]

Fuck me, you spelt four words in a row correctly.

 

[Radar]

Fuck me, you spelt four words in a row correctly.

That's fucking harsh..

pembrokestephen is very good at spelling

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

[why is it that the kind of people who storm around ranting so viciously about child sex abusers can't call 'em what they are, whether that's "child sex abusers", or "paedophiles" (if you must). It's always "pedos". You'd think that if they considered the offence so very, very serious, they'd use the proper name for it, rather than trivialising it in this way. Or perhaps their written inarticulacy is representative of their thought processes]

Anyway, I think that anyone trying to establish some kind of moral hierarchy between paedophiles and people who drive while uninsured is on a bit of a sticky wicket.

What is interesting, though, is that you have unintentionally compared two groups that are similar in an unexpected way: uninsured drivers haven't necessarily had an insurable loss, and "paedophile" describes someone with a sexual preference, but who may well not have committed an offence against a child. In both cases, the harm remains in potentia.

Nonetheless, that's about the only similarity between the two. An uninsured driver makes the choice, ultimately, to drive while not insured (leaving aside the case where his mrs forgot to post off the renewal letter, etc); the child sex abuser has a compulsion to abuse. In most cases, unless they have an accident (and yes, I'm aware that uninsured drivers are considerably more likely to than insured ones - but that's not specifically by virtue of their not being insured), uninsured drivers do not intrinsically cause any damage or harm, and even if they have an accident, it'll be much more likely to involve a financial loss than permanent harm or injury; a child sex abuser (assuming you meant that when you used the illiterate and inaccurate term "pedo") DOES cause harm by his offending, and harm that can be severe, and long-lasting.

Are you seriously going to try and establish an equivalence between (say) the writing-off of a £5000 car and the psychological trauma caused to a young child who is abused?

They're both illegal, and for good reasons. That is, surely, all that needs to be said on the matter.

steven read my response in context please...

and clearly a child being buggered and being alive is to all intents and purposes better than a child being run over and killed by an uninsured driver ...

but no i wasn't dealing with in potentia i was dealing with probabilties...

the probabilities of a child coming in to contact with some random peado how abuses them is signifcantly less than them coming into contact with a non insured driver... if they have 20 friends at school chances are that at least 5 of those will have an uninsured driver takign them places, as opposed to the likelyhood of less than 1 will be abused...

in terms which subversplat were to understand the comparitor beign that they are attempting to paint peadophilia as beign the biggest crime but in terms of preverlance it simply isn't there in the same way...

kinda like the anti smoking lobby have no intrest i havign desil banned althgouht his would increase everyones health and air quality in terms of particulates instantly but will see a tiny and redcuign minority hearlded as the new great demon...

but hey...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What a pious idiot, as per usual.

off topic abuse from the nonce who threatened to have me killed....

what a suprise...

eh nonce... ??

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Stupid fat fucking idiot, thats 4 too?

Lying Deciteful obbsessive nonce... that's 4 as well... love...

 

[subversplat]

steven read my response in context please...

and clearly a child being buggered and being alive is to all intents and purposes better than a child being run over and killed by an uninsured driver ...

but no i wasn't dealing with in potentia i was dealing with probabilties...

the probabilities of a child coming in to contact with some random peado how abuses them is signifcantly less than them coming into contact with a non insured driver... if they have 20 friends at school chances are that at least 5 of those will have an uninsured driver takign them places, as opposed to the likelyhood of less than 1 will be abused...

in terms which subversplat were to understand the comparitor beign that they are attempting to paint peadophilia as beign the biggest crime but in terms of preverlance it simply isn't there in the same way...

kinda like the anti smoking lobby have no intrest i havign desil banned althgouht his would increase everyones health and air quality in terms of particulates instantly but will see a tiny and redcuign minority hearlded as the new great demon...

but hey...

Thanks for letting me know my opinion!

 

[tarannau]

If you close your eyes and slowly squint, defocusing your eyes then Garf's posts actually look like the ranting shitheap of try-hard toss that they genuinely are.

That thought always helps me for some reason.