Do Uninsured Drivers Get Off Scot Free?

Third party cover isn't just to pay for medical treatment, it covers ANY liability to third parties. That might include repairing minor damage to their vehicle all the way up to compensating them for lifetime loss of earnings if they are severely injured and can no longer work. Potential liability to third parties is effectively unlimited.

If an uninsured driver is involved in an accident I feel that the fine that they get should be directly linked to the cost of the damage they have caused, subject to a minimum value.

I think the goverment should definatly increase the minimum fine for unisured drivers around the £1000 pound regen, if not more. Because most people who are driving unisured do so due to their premiums would normally cost around this mark and therfore see the current fine as being cheaper than actually getting insurance. Plus like massexit stated they should be liable for the costs of injuries/ damages etc.
The goverment should force them to pay the fines, work it off as free labour or consider a jail sentance. Its harsh but so would be losing a family member to an unisured driver.

Car Insurance is that, thankfully, rareist of beasts, a product that you are obliged to buy.

Personally, I think that we should introduce the Australian system whereby you get your 3rd party insurance as part of your annual MOT. That way every car that is road legal is insured 3rd party. Not just for its owner but for anyone that drives it. You only pay extra if you want to add Fully Comp cover to the vehicle.

You can't stop people driving vehicles that are illegal, but by making these the only people that are uninsured you can increase the penalties for driving an unregistered, untested vehicle considerably.

Come to think of it, you could include the road tax in with the test too, then you have one place to go, once a year pay one bill and your car is taxed, tested and insured for another 12 months.

Somehow, I think that is far too efficient a process to get introduced here in the UK. Much better to have three different departments and a whole market of insurance companies taking dividends out of us lowly motorists.

This government has produced endless legislation, but have never addressed this (nor did the tories). Increasing fines does not usually work, as Uninsured drivers usually have meagre assets. However, it is a good symbolic start.

The Aussie system is a lot better. Also, all cars should have insurance disks on front windows by law (Labour have pussyfooted on this for 10 years). Uninsured cars should be crushed. Offenders tagged under curfew for several months. + Community service.

More can be done, but, cynical me, it is not a headline grabber.

The Yos

I agreee fines should be inreased and the uninsured made to pay the costs (whatever that is) but I do not agree wth jail. That just costs tax payers more money! Community Service is a better approach...

"Recent YouGov research shows that 87% of motorists feel that the Government doesn't do enough to prevent people driving without insurance."
I imagine the other 13% drive around without insurance...

Driving illegally in UK-

Whilst reading the comments from fellow Fools, I do not think the matter is addressed fully and with enough vigour.
The fact that a person drives a vehicle knowingly for whatever reason i.e. without legal insurance cover, road tax, licence or full owners consent, it is an illegal act.

It would appear that the severity of any incident is being measured as, when or if damage to life or property has occurred.

Surely we should standardise the act as illegal along with attracting a severe penalty. Let us not pussy foot around, the potential must be realised at the commencement of the act.
Make the offence so serious, hit the perpetrator so hard (very hard), and stop the potential end result ending in a possibly fatality.

I can think of of places within the service of the country that the skills for such bravado or unsociable behaviour could be attuned to be part of the penitence, especially if the financial reward was meagre and the period prolonged

Few people would disagree with the spirit of the article, but what has it got to do with the Motley Fool - a personal finance website?
It belongs on the discussion board of a motoring website.

Seems to me that the UK is fundamentally out of control. The low-life who drives without insurance is more often than not also driving a vehicle without tax, without an MOT, and without a driving licence anyway. There are reckoned to be more than a million such vehicles on the road at any one time.

Until a zero-tolerance policy is adopted the situation will get ever worse as more and more people realise that they can get away with it.

Bring back the 'Stocks, rotten eggs and tomatoes'. This was the method by which anti-social louts realised that the rest of the community would not put up with such behaviour.

Of course uninsured drivers get of scot-free.
The law has no teeth, and is no deterrent.
You need to look at the full statistics, this article, unfortunately does not.
All the above suggestions assume a degree of conformity, mot certs, buying petrol etc.
Who drives uninsured?
No one with assets.
Thieves.
'Joy riders'
under age
No driving licence.
Those already banned
Need I go on?
The law, as it stands and like most laws, only applies to those who are already basically law abiding and have something to lose by not conforming.
Whilst people are not held responsible for their actions in any meaningful way, the good people of this country will continually be at risk and will be picking up the bill for the lethal parasites in out midst.
Statistically, I would bet that more people are maimed/killed and more property damage by the uninsured driver than that coursed by terrorists, yet only a fraction of the money and man hours is applied to this home cultivated disease.

The seizure and destruction of the vehicle is usually a good deterrant, and is the current penalty for road-tax evaders, so I think this should be part of the minimum penalty for un-insured drivers also (although I assume if they're driving without insurance then they won't have tax either). Either way, the fines should be well in excess of what legal insurance would have cost them, otherwise driving uninsured could been seen as a Foolish option!

I don't agree with seizure and destruction. By all means seize the car, but it should then be sold and the monies raised used to compensate victims.

If the TV adverts are to be believed the DVLA apparently have a huge database that can tell at a glance who has valid road tax on their car. Everytime I have applied for the road tax either on line or at the post office I have had to prove my car had insurance. At my previous job a manager had his car towed and crushed from outside his house as it had no tax. An insurance disc next to the tax disc is a simple solution to both problems, you don't display both, valid, then the car should be siezed. The driver should be given seven days to come up with both tax and insurance or the car is crushed. People like Clements should be made to pay for the rest of his life.

Perhaps we need a different approach. For a start the fine should be at least (double?) the cost the owner/driver would have paid for the insurance. So if it would have cost you £800 to be insured the minimum the fine should be is £800 (or perhaps much more). Then there is the question of whether you and/or the car were fit to drive. Surely if you kill some one when you or the car are unfit that is at least manslaughter and should carry, what, 10+ years in prison? Why is killing someone with your car when you are drunk so much more socially acceptable than killing someone with a knife when you are drunk?

Ownership and use of a car is not a human right.
If you cannot afford to buy, maintain, insure, and mot a vehicle then you cannot have one.
To that extent this is a monetary issue but, when you cause or contribute to someones death or injury as a result of avoiding these expenses, the punishment should reflect the severity of the crime just as it tends to in other spheres of the law.
If an uninsured driver had failed to make payment on a loan he would be pursued through the courts by the lender and would probably end up having all his assets seized and be made bankrupt. Why should an uninsured driver not be similarly pursued for the money he owes to his victims in compensation for death, injury or damage?

Uninsured vehicles ARE seized!

The Motor Insurance Database (MID) has a record of every insured vehicle in the UK so the police can tell immediately if a car has valid insurance. If you renew your car tax online or over the phone, the DVLA use the MID to see if your vehicle is insured. You can even check online if your vehicle is on the MID at http://www.askmid.com

Now that more and more police cars are equipped with ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) cameras, it's becoming pretty hard for uninsured drivers to use the roads, as if they pass a police car with an ANPR camera, an alarm automatically sounds inside the police car to warn officers that the camera has spotted an uninsured (or untaxed, expired MOT etc.) car, the officers can then pull the uninsured car over. Unless the driver can prove that the car is insured (and the police will call the insurance company to check), the vehicle will be seized. Once a vehicle has been seized the owner/driver has 14 days to produce the correct documents at a police station or it will be sold or crushed.

Static CCTV cameras are also being used as ANPR cameras so CCTV control room operators can inform officers on the ground of uninsured drivers passing the cameras. Police forces around the country also set up ANPR camera vans on certain key routes to detect uninsured drivers, as well as other criminal activity such as stolen vehicles, vehicles used to commit crimes etc. Once detected, they will be pulled over by a police vehicle waiting further up the road. It won't be long before all police cars are fitted with ANPR cameras so I think uninsured drivers have had their day!