h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

we obviously have different situations in our experience...

If a disabled person requires transport here, there will be some grant or government provided benefit (or alternative housing) to make sure they wont go hungry etc.

There's still no excuse for breaking the law, esecially where there can be provision made and benefits claimed that will enable a person to cope adequately. The system's not easy but it's workeable and while not rich, a person can live on the income support and benefits available. There's also the option of internet shopping for groeries and such like.


And yes, I do think so. I think it is harsh, and perhaps the car should be impounded and returned with no charge after a period during which you can provide the correct documentation (a 'producer') as not all insurance details are kept adequately up to date on the database the police use... IF you can prove you are driving legally. If not, crush it (often these cars arent worth an awful lot) or sell it on and put the proceeds into the cost of running the system (the pound and so on).

I still dont see why I should be even minimally inconvenienced so that others can not bother to conform to a standard that is expected and is according to british law necessary. And $100 dollars may not seem like much, and I dont knwo what the exchange rate is, but certainly brit to usa $100 is around £50 give or take a little. so try looking at around $800 U.S. dollars for your slight inconvenience...

>>Yes, but you haven't answered the question: do you really think having someone's car trashed is a valid punishment given that in the majority of cases the injured car is going to be covered, less excess and no claims bonus?<<

Yes absolutely (sorry I know I'm not Robyn, but I wanted to answer). Kea, the thing is, if someone is driving around uninsured then they *can't afford* to have a car. It's as simple as that. The state is doing them a favour by removing an unmanageable expense from their lives.

To say it's okay for drivers to go around uninsured; and that people with insurance unfortunate to have an accident with these people can pay it off their insurance is a bit like me going into an electrical shop, helping myself to a nice, expensive TV, and saying the shopkeeper/manager "I want to watch this telly, but I can't afford it, so you can pay for it on your insurance"

What about other road users? I pay for insurance for my bike but very few other cyclists do - what happens if they are hit by an uninsured driver? Is it right that they have to fork out for repairs or a new bike?

I retracted the 'inconvenience' already

At the risk of getting slapped down again for commening about the UK when I don't live there... despite there being a welfare system, and supposed benefits for people with disabilities, for those on a benefit and having a disability I seriously doubt that there is any guarantee to a livable income. I'll check with people here who are British, but I'm guessing that like NZ, the UK likes to think of itself as fair to it's vulnerable people, but in fact it probably isn't.

And service like internet shopping will again be something that exist in parts of big cities but won't be universal. Ditto access to healthcare, recreation etc.


Like I said, I'm not saying it's ok or good, or that it should go unpunished. Myself, I've always had car insurance even when at my poorest. But then I've never spent my whole life in that degree of poverty (although I've always been on low incomes), so I guess I have a level of priviledge that many don't.

Now that I've read that link that suggests that it's unclaimed cars that are getting crushed, I feel the law makes more sense. If people have the chance to front up and sort the situation out, then that seem fairer (although I guess it depends on how much the fines are).

There's another aspect.

Get caught driving without insurance and your premium will sky-rocket when you next try to insure a car. Given that the fine for driving without insurance was less than the premium in the first place, the pressure was to become a repeat offender. Combine this with the fact that there are less and less police on the roads (until the introduction of number plate recognition cameras) and there really was very little chance of getting caught. The system simply had to be changed as it was getting out of control.

I've no problem with cars being crushed. Most of the time they let the drivers get out first anyway.

>>
To say it's okay for drivers to go around uninsured;
<<

Oh, FFS. Are you actually listening to what I am saying? How many times!!! I haven't said it's ok or good for people to not have insurance. I don't think that. What I'm saying is that it's unfair to crush someone's car because they don't have insurance, and that there are disadvantaged sections of society who would be unfairly affected by such a law.

Which apparently isn't even what happens

>>
Get caught driving without insurance and your premium will sky-rocket when you next try to insure a car. Given that the fine for driving without insurance was less than the premium in the first place, the pressure was to become a repeat offender. Combine this with the fact that there are less and less police on the roads (until the introduction of number plate recognition cameras) and there really was very little chance of getting caught. The system simply had to be changed as it was getting out of control.
<<

Really? Because the little bit of reading I just did suggested that many cars are getting towed away for things like parking illegally. And the numbers of cars getting confiscated seemed high.

>>
I've no problem with cars being crushed. Most of the time they let the drivers get out first anyway.
<<

I'm sure the people popping up at the top of google who've had their car crushed illegally or mistakenly and not been compensated will really appreciate that

That's the one SWL

Of course the benefit system is not foolproof or even particularly helpful, and there will always be a small number of vulnerable people who need more help than they get, even in an ideal world, but when things are that bad, there are places to go and things one can do to help oneself... Like asking for help, telling your doctor you need more help/cant cope etc, not wanting to ask for help is STILL not an excuse for breaking the law when the law is there to protect the innocent/law-abiding..

I was listening to a programme about the inappropriate taking and eventual crushing of cars... Which is why I mentioned that a period of impounding while documents can be verified and reasonable appeal system is necessary. But swift justice tends not to be fair, there HAS to be time allowed for it to work properly otherwise miscarriages undermine the system.

I like the idea of a 14 day period to produce documents.

I'm not on the breadline, nor do I live in UK, but I do live in a very badly served (by public transport) village, and I work 40kms away in a nearly-not-served-at-all by public transport industrial park.

leaves the house when the rest of us get up, in his car (because of the lack of public transport to where he lives) and I see #1 Gruesome to the bus stop, and take #2 Gruesome to school on my way to work (guess what? no bus to the junior school).

I drive a rickety old car, and believe me, something like an exhaust falling off (last month) can dent our precariously balanced finances. I generally anticipate an average of EUR 100 per month to maintain my rickety old car. (I can't afford a new one, and I'm trying to get a thousand EUR together for when mine or car gives up the ghost)

long preamble: here's the point.

If some uninsured anti-social (poor or not) eejit caused damage to my car that I'd have to cover out of my own pocket (I have 3rd party insurance - fully comp isn't worth it for my ancient wagon). That would send my finances into some sort of tailspin but I'd probably manage (the chap who fixes my car lives in my village - sometimes a village is useful - he lets me pay when I can)

If my car got written off - my family (with the exception of #1 Gruesome and her free bus - would be in severe difficulties. I'm the main breadwinner.

And I'd be asking if I could operate the crusher myself

Talking of environmental issues (I like to start a post with a false premise), isn't crushing cars kind of unjustifiable given the enormous amount of energy that went into building them?

Not sure why everyone can't understand kea's point here: obviously any fixed financial deterrent is going to hurt poor people more than rich people.

In Finland, you get a speeding fine dependent on your income. Not long ago, someone got a £116,000 speeding fine:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3477285.stm

Even that was peanuts to the guy that got it though...

of course we get her point - and in the normal course of events I'd be 100% with her. But in this case (and I have said I prefer the 14 day chance to get some docs together) I think that a fairly severe penalty is ok.

Actually, I like the idea of scaling penalties to what people can afford. They do that over here too for lots of things.

Scaling penalties to what people can afford is stupid. You have to scale penalties to what they *can't* afford for them to have any impact. That's kind of the point.

RF

Good point. Otherwise it would just be revenue generation.

Not that this government would ever consider such a thing

Absolutely not...and I look forward with keen anticipation to the abolition of APT when the Chancellor announces his new tax on aircraft in the budget.

Actually, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

RF

My comment is from a UK perspective only regarding insurance.
Those without insurance usually don't have car tax nor a valid MOT which makes their car a potential danger to other road users and pedestrians alike. Whats more, the penalty of having the car confiscated and crushed is not severe enough, the offender should be prosecuted and banned from driving for minimum 12mths especially those involved in accidents resulting in death or injury. They should go to jail on manslaughter charges or causing actual bodily harm if they have no insurance.It's a premeditated offence, the offender knows if involved in such an accident the innocent will suffer as usual with no recourse to compensation except via criminal injuries compensation IF there's a prosecution. 3rd party cover is a basic minimum requirement, no excuse for not having it. Can't afford it? take the bus or walk.
I saw some comments earlier about disabled people and being on fixed income etc. If someone is registered disabled and on disability benefit then they can usually get a Motability Car, all tax, insurance etc paid for, they just have to put fuel in. Even if the disabled chooses to have their own car they can get tax exemption which means they can use that money to insure the car.
What I'm saying is, there is NO excuse for anyone to be on the road uninsured, untaxed or not MOT'd.

>> banned from driving for minimum 12mths <<

Strangely, this particular penalty never seems to work with the kind of people who've already broken 3 other laws by turning the key in the ignition.

I like SWL's earlier idea...sometimes we let them out of the car before it gets crushed.

RF

>>Strangely, this particular penalty never seems to work with the kind of people who've already broken 3 other laws by turning the key in the ignition.<<

Exactly. As they've been driving illegally anyway, having no licence makes sod-all difference so they get straight back in the car and carry on as normal until they get caught again, which - given current levels of traffic policing - could easily be never. Taking the car away seems to be the only motoring punishment in the UK that actually works.

It also seems much fairer to me than a fixed financial penalty - if you can't be trusted with a car, we'll take it from you, rich or poor, and regardless of the value of the car.

Incidentally, we've only had cars for the last 0.05% of our 200,000-year history. In the rest of that time nearly *everyone* lived remotely, there were no buses, trains or Tesco-online-grocery delivery vans, no internet and no phones. Anyone who claims that they *need* a car is just not trying hard enough.

I think I agree with you Dave. Basically a car is some kind 'missile' . And because human flesh has to cross the road, or cycle, or motorcycle on it, without the protection of a metal box around it, we should be just as strict with the licencing of car ownership as we are with firearms. So for example if someone legally owns or has access to a rifle, eg farmer, or sportsman, we take it away from them if they do anything remotely dangerous with it, such as not storing it in a properly locked and safe gun box or whatever it is called.

Sometimes the 'nanny state' needs to get very strict indeed, and almost become 'police state' when it involves things which when used irresponsibly, can easily kill or maim.

Just to be clear, I am not comparing storage of a gun with storage of a car. I am comparing doing something dangerous with each of them.

For those who support it: What is the idea behind crushing people's cars? Is it punitive? A deterrent? Or just a way of making it difficult for (poor) people to drive again when they break the rules?

Dave,

"Incidentally, we've only had cars for the last 0.05% of our 200,000-year history."

Oooh, what a great start to an argument, anyone have any more?

We've only had universal suffrage for the last 0.04% of our 200,000-year history...

We've only had electricity for the last 0.13% of our 200,000-year history...

We've only had penicillin for the last 0.04% of our 200,000-year history...

We've only had Jebus for the last 1% of our 200,000-year history... (actually, I quite like that one)

Fanny,

"Sometimes the 'nanny state' needs to get very strict indeed, and almost become 'police state' when it involves things which when used irresponsibly, can easily kill or maim."

Is this the 'fanny state'? Count me out please. I'd rather run the risk of getting shot or killed by a car than live in a police state.