Currently to get a RFL the car has to be shown to have Insurance cover....
HJ Site:
Roads Minister Stephen Hammond has unveiled plans to scrap the insurance check carried out when buying a tax disc. The changes would make motorists’ lives easier by “getting rid of unnecessary red tape.” The proposal would make it possible for 600,000 extra motorists to tax online each year, and that seeking out an insurance ticket from bundles of paperwork before taxing at the post office would become a thing of the past.
This is madness, buying a RFL currently ensures the car has insurance either via an electronic check or seeing the Ins Certificate at the Post Office.
This is similar to plans to match Europe's MoT test every 2 years instead of every 12 months......at least with an annual MoT the car is roadworthy for at least 1 day in the year.
Last edited by: Falkirk Bairn on Thu 18 Oct 12 at 08:17
|
The full consultation is here:
www.dft.gov.uk/dvla/consultations.aspx
Given that there are now other checks enforcing the requirement for continuous insurance I can sort of see the rationale. The driver who's wilfully driving without insurance is probably not about to trot out and buy a tax disc.
OTOH one may not be able to tax on line today for an October 13 disc if the MIB database shows insurance expiry as say 25/10/12.
|
>> This is madness, buying a RFL currently ensures the car has insurance either via an
>> electronic check or seeing the Ins Certificate at the Post Office.
>>
I disagree. I think the proposal is eminently sensible. Long overdue.
Someone I know bought first car two months ago. Dealer had the free 7 day insurance scheme but the buyer did not meet the critieria. So buyer had to apply for insurance, wait for documents in the post, take Certificate to dealer to get car taxed, after which buyer could drive away. The process took 5 days, thanks to a speedy response by the insurance company.
If the dealer could have got the tax without the certificate, the buyer would have been able to drive away the car the instant the car was insured on the internet.
>> This is similar to plans to match Europe's MoT test every 2 years instead of
>> every 12 months......at least with an annual MoT the car is roadworthy for at least
>> 1 day in the year.
>>
Again I think that the plans to match EU MoT tests were again eminently sensible. However, they were ditched when the motor trade moaned about loss of income and employment. AFAIK, those plans have not been revived.
The "dangers" posed by the number of "un-roadworthy" cars on UK roads are imaginary. The vast overwhelming majority of accidents and injuries that arise on UK roads have nothing to do with the "roadworthiness" of cars. If road safety is a primary concern, having an MoT every year rather two years is the wrong target to focus on.
Just my two penworth.
|
It used to be that the visual sighting of a tax disc in the window of a car gave an indication of whether or not it was insured, where the only alternative was to give the driver a ticket to produce his documents at a police station.
Consequently a tax disc was a useful indicator.
Given that now a camera/computer partnership checks both insurance and tax from your number plate any time it sees your car, not just on the day you taxed it, where is the remaining value?
Seems sensible to me. Hardly madness.
|
" No FM2R
It used to be that the visual sighting of a tax disc in the window of a car gave an indication of whether or not it was insured, where the only alternative was to give the driver a ticket to produce his documents at a police station."
How so?
It only shows they had insurance on the day the VED was purchased, and we all know that most uninsured cars are because the person couldn't afford to or didn't want keep up the instalments and the insurer cancelled it.
|
Sooty, I'm not really clear what you're asking by "How so?".
However, when I said that it was an "indication", I meant just that. i.e. if its not taxed, it may well not be insured, worth a punt. If it is taxed, it means it was insured at that date at least.
And my point about the check is that even then it only showed that for one day, so what's its continued value in a world of ANPR cameras and insurance, RFL & MOT data bases?
Consequently, where is the "madness" in not checking it any more?
Or have I missed your point?
|
>> Again I think that the plans to match EU MoT tests were again eminently sensible.
>> However, they were ditched when the motor trade moaned about loss of income and employment.
>> AFAIK, those plans have not been revived.
Less convinced by that one. At least basic stuff like brakes, lighting, horn etc gets checked and rectified at MoT time. Cars might even get a service.
A biennial test would mean lots of cars going the whole two years without seeing a tech.
|
|
I think it was NC who provided a link, it showed there was only a tiny number of cars that had accidents because they were unsafe through something an MoT would pick up. I believe it compared cars within countries with a more basic 2 year test and those closer to our system. There was very little difference, I think it's more of convincing people it was safe rather than actually increasing road safety.
|
|
Probably even if you abolished all vehicle checks and the requirement for a vehicle to be roadworthy, most accidents would still be caused by driver error.
|
Govt madness on RFL Insurance checks - Bromptonaut
