Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Endorsements...

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

st3v3
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:21 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Endorsements... Reply with quote

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... Confused
____________________
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
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Stelmer
World Chat Champion



Joined: 31 Dec 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:27 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

They can get you for driving with no insurance on the MOT thing as it's void.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:27 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Re: Endorsements... Reply with quote

st3v3 wrote:
Why not?

Because MOT and tax both mean very little?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

iooi
Super Spammer



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:31 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

st3v3
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:41 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stelmer wrote:
They can get you for driving with no insurance on the MOT thing as it's void.
Can't.

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Motoring/Question233328.html
https://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_12

Insurance is the bare legal requirement, driving without TAX and MOT is punishable by fine. Nowhere (that I can find after an hour's searching) is it stated that either or both in conjunction with one another is an endorsable offense.
____________________
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
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:44 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

iooi wrote:
As such they should be more serious offences, and get punished in a diffrent way.

They're not serious offences so are treated as such. MOTs mean very little and tax discs are just a source of revenue for the DVLA.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

st3v3
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:47 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing 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). Laughing Rolling Eyes

I'm just making a point of how rediculous this is. Smile
____________________
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
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 19:59 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is ridiculous that you could be fined for not having a worthless piece of paper. Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

st3v3
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:00 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:
It is ridiculous that you could be fined for not having a worthless piece of paper. Thumbs Up
Meh, fair point. Thumbs Up
____________________
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
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ingah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:50 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:
It is ridiculous that you could be fined for not having a worthless piece of paper. Thumbs Up


Like say, a driving license? Wink

Point understood and agreed with insofar as the tax. But MOT, i can certainly see the need with the things some people are willing to drive (either due to severe mechanical apathy, or sheer lack of consideration for the lives of others). Then again if the vehicle IS MOT pass standard just without the MOT... Argh, can of worms Neutral
____________________
-- Ingah
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

yen_powell
World Chat Champion



Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:52 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Points for

Stopping on zigzags at a zebra or pelican (but only if caught by the police, council just give you a fine)

going the wrong side of a keep left bollard

jumping red traffic lights (including temporary ones)

crossing double white line systems (or half solid, half broken) (on two way roads only, not those iffy ones in one way tunnels)

No points for

riding without a crash helmet or driving without a seatbelt.
____________________
Blackmail is a nasty word........but not as nasty as phlegm!
XT1200Z and a DR350 in bits
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 20:57 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

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, 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.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

The Artist
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:29 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Laughing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Ingah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:32 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Wink

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 Wink

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Ingah
World Chat Champion



Joined: 10 Apr 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 21:36 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

allymoss wrote:

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.


They'd still have to pay (i think it's under the road traffic act?), but they can chase you for the damages. And they almost certainly would. So X pound for the rest of your life then (if they won of course, because at a guess i would try to argue that an honest and purely technical oversight without intention to deceive should not absolve them of their responsibilities - after all you did pay them!) Razz
____________________
-- Ingah
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

iooi
Super Spammer



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:48 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

The Artist
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:56 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

iooi wrote:
At the end of the day its this lot that cost the rest of us money in increased ins premiums.


Don't you mean those without insurance make premiums go up, nothing to do with tax and mot?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:15 - 01 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Wink

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

st3v3
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 01:14 - 02 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

So let's say;

A person newly acquires a car and insures it.
They then get it MOT'd and it fails on something trivial which is instantly re-booked for repairs = pass.

Later someone decides that no MOT, no TAX but insurance.
One has to come across an ANPR car to get caught, or be driving like such a nob that it's PNC'd, then they're given a fine.
Let's say one doesn't get caught driving round the whole evening and laughs in the face of sticking it to the man. Where's the sense in having an annual MOT and TAX disc?
____________________
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
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ste
Not Work Safe



Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 01:26 - 02 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

st3v3 wrote:
One has to come across an ANPR car to get caught

ANPR relies on unreliable databases. And it relies on the police to actually be paying attention to it. Which has the end result that it's far from watertight.

After all, if it was watertight then there wouldn't be nearly as many uninsured/untaxed/un-mot'ed vehicles on the roads.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

st3v3
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Karma :

PostPosted: 01:37 - 02 Mar 2010    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ste wrote:
st3v3 wrote:
One has to come across an ANPR car to get caught

ANPR relies on unreliable databases. And it relies on the police to actually be paying attention to it. Which has the end result that it's far from watertight.

After all, if it was watertight then there wouldn't be nearly as many uninsured/untaxed/un-mot'ed vehicles on the roads.
I'l say.....
____________________
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
View user's profile Send private message 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?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.12 Sec - Server Load: 1.23 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 121.67 Kb