|
|
| Author |
Message |
| st3v3 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 st3v3 Super Spammer

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :     
|
 Posted: 19:21 - 01 Mar 2010 Post subject: Endorsements... |
 |
|
What a joke.
I've been checking out the law (from curiosity) of what is and isn't endorsable, to what I can see, Insurance is a must but driving without tax and MOT aren't endorsable offences...
Why not?
I may build up a list actually of what is, and isn't here...  ____________________ Roger wrote: Women don't get damp for clingy puppies. Get some better happy pills, hit the gym & buy a medallion the size of a dinner plate. Job done |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Stelmer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Stelmer World Chat Champion

Joined: 31 Dec 2006 Karma :   
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Ste Not Work Safe

Joined: 01 Sep 2002 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 19:27 - 01 Mar 2010 Post subject: Re: Endorsements... |
 |
|
Because MOT and tax both mean very little? |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| iooi |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 iooi Super Spammer

Joined: 14 Jan 2007 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 19:31 - 01 Mar 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
Strange.
Only thing i can think of are that they are more related to a vehicle. As such they should be more serious offences, and get punished in a diffrent way.
Where as speeding and other endorsable offences are more tied to the person driving or a driving related and as such are tied to the licence. ____________________ Just because my bike was A DIVVY, does not mean i am...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| st3v3 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 st3v3 Super Spammer

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :     
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Ste Not Work Safe

Joined: 01 Sep 2002 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| st3v3 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 st3v3 Super Spammer

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :     
|
 Posted: 19:47 - 01 Mar 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
It's not right, of all the stupid laws we have, you can actually drive an insured vehicle on the road, without TAX & MOT and be sure you'll only pick up a £30 fine for each (pretty much per trip).
I'm just making a point of how rediculous this is.  ____________________ Roger wrote: Women don't get damp for clingy puppies. Get some better happy pills, hit the gym & buy a medallion the size of a dinner plate. Job done |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Ste Not Work Safe

Joined: 01 Sep 2002 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 19:59 - 01 Mar 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
It is ridiculous that you could be fined for not having a worthless piece of paper.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| st3v3 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 st3v3 Super Spammer

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :     
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Ingah |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Ingah World Chat Champion
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 Karma :   
|
 Posted: 20:50 - 01 Mar 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| yen_powell |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 yen_powell World Chat Champion

Joined: 22 Jun 2008 Karma :   
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Ste Not Work Safe

Joined: 01 Sep 2002 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| The Artist |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 The Artist Super Spammer

Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Karma :  
|
 Posted: 21:29 - 01 Mar 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
This topic could be argued from so many angles...
so here goes.
As you say Ste, MOT only shows what the vehicle is like on one day but say you have a vehicle with bald tyres and you don't need to MOT it, you are more likely to leave it than if you have an MOT coming up.
As for the insurance thing, I am sure if you hit a Bugatti Veyron and wrote it off somehow or it was your fault it was written off, then your insurance company will examine every single piece of evidence and if anything is out of line then your fucked and they won't pay out. I am sure my insurance says without MOT and tax it is void.
I got caught without tax and got a £42 fine but was expecting much worse. Still, tax this year has only cost me £57 in total.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Ingah |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Ingah World Chat Champion
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 Karma :   
|
 Posted: 21:32 - 01 Mar 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ste wrote: | All the MOT says is that on that one day, the vehicle was in a specific condition. So other than on that one day, the piece of paper doesn't really have any meaning. |
This is because things change on a day to day basis. Nothing to say you won't crash it the day after. And there is no sensible way to have the condition of the vehicle independently verified every day!
And the piece of paper does say that the vehicle WAS safe when it was checked. Not many people are going to get the MOT, and then intentionally wreck it again before they drive it
| Ste wrote: | Plus, you say you see the things people are willing to drive, that proves that the MOT system doesn't work. If those vehicles do have up to date valid MOTs then that's proof of how useless it is to certificate a vehicle for a year |
If you want to define it like that (a system "doesn't work" if anyone at all slips through the net) then i don't think many, if any of our human-designed systems actually work!
Think of it like this: Tomorrow the government abolishes MOTs (well it's a stupid thing to do, therefore believeable of them right?).
Do you think the % of dangerous vehicles on the road will have decreased or increased if this state of play were allowed to continue for 3/4 years? I know which the more likely outcome is
| Ste wrote: | and if they don't have MOTs then that shows that the lack of a piece of paper isn't doing anything to keep un-roadworthy vehicles off the road. |
"Isn't doing anything?" Generally speaking, ordinary, law-abiding folk will keep their old bangers off the road until they pass the MOT. Criminals and scumbags won't. It's the same with everything. The "system" is designed for the majority. So therefore the MOT is reducing the number of un-roadworthy vehicles on the road. The degree of success is obviously debatable (and i wouldn't want to even hazard a guess as to whether it's worth it or not).
But i do know people (the ordinary, law-abiding type) that would never actually check the safety of their car and nor pay for anyone to check it out of their own free will (short on readies all the time), but because of the MOT it's checked yearly. And this car would not be driven without MOT due to fear of punishment. Ergo, whether or not the punishment/enforcement (hell, even the lack of reminder system!) is effective enough, this particular car (and no doubt many many others) is not driven on the road in an un-roadworthy condition for years on end, before it killed someone. ____________________ -- Ingah |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Ingah |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Ingah World Chat Champion
Joined: 10 Apr 2009 Karma :   
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| iooi |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 iooi Super Spammer

Joined: 14 Jan 2007 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 22:48 - 01 Mar 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
One way to help stop the No tax, Mot mob could be that no matter what if caught then its straight to crusher. Instead of like now where its off to the compound.
No if, no buts. Its gone.
Would make many think twice about risking it.
I would also be installing the camera's that pick this up on many of the speed cams.
Then set up a whole dept that do nothing other than pick these scum off the roads.
At the end of the day its this lot that cost the rest of us money in increased ins premiums. ____________________ Just because my bike was A DIVVY, does not mean i am...... |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| The Artist |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 The Artist Super Spammer

Joined: 06 Jan 2008 Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Ste Not Work Safe

Joined: 01 Sep 2002 Karma :    
|
 Posted: 23:15 - 01 Mar 2010 Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ingah wrote: | Think of it like this: Tomorrow the government abolishes MOTs (well it's a stupid thing to do, therefore believeable of them right?).
Do you think the % of dangerous vehicles on the road will have decreased or increased if this state of play were allowed to continue for 3/4 years? I know which the more likely outcome is  |
If they just did that, then I'd agree with what the more likely outcome would be. There would need to be work done by the police to keep un-roadworthy vehicles off the roads along with proportionate punishments for those who use a dangerous vehicle on the roads. Lack of MOT isn't a problem, dangerous vehicles are the problem and that's what should be punished.
| Ingah wrote: | "Isn't doing anything?" Generally speaking, ordinary, law-abiding folk will keep their old bangers off the road until they pass the MOT. Criminals and scumbags won't. It's the same with everything. The "system" is designed for the majority. So therefore the MOT is reducing the number of un-roadworthy vehicles on the road. The degree of success is obviously debatable (and i wouldn't want to even hazard a guess as to whether it's worth it or not). |
It should be that people keep old bangers off the road until those bangers are roadworthy and safe. If roadworthyness was policed more, then more people would keep their vehicles roadworthy; criminals, scumbags and ordinary folk alike. An MOT certificate doesn't make a vehicle roadworthy for a year, especially when there are MOT testers who're friendly and turn a blind eye to problems.
| Ingah wrote: | But i do know people (the ordinary, law-abiding type) that would never actually check the safety of their car and nor pay for anyone to check it out of their own free will (short on readies all the time), but because of the MOT it's checked yearly. And this car would not be driven without MOT due to fear of punishment. Ergo, whether or not the punishment/enforcement (hell, even the lack of reminder system!) is effective enough, this particular car (and no doubt many many others) is not driven on the road in an un-roadworthy condition for years on end, before it killed someone. |
And their habits would be changed if vehicle roadworthyness was policed properly.
| iooi wrote: | At the end of the day its this lot that cost the rest of us money in increased ins premiums. |
Isn't it people that crash who're responsible for the increased premiums that everyone has to pay? Also to blame are solicitors who encourage people to claim for phantom whiplash, along with the public who encourage people to claim for everything possible (examples can be seen in pretty much any thread where someone has been involved in a crash with a fucking cager). |
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| st3v3 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 st3v3 Super Spammer

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :     
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 Ste Not Work Safe

Joined: 01 Sep 2002 Karma :    
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| st3v3 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
 st3v3 Super Spammer

Joined: 16 Oct 2006 Karma :     
|
|
| Back to top |
|
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 16 years, 43 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|