I went with a friend the other day to look at a car they were interested in.
Didn't look to bad for a £500 run around, started and sounded fine but wanted to take it for a test drive.
Only thing is the car had no tax.
Under the garage owners instructions we took it for a quick test around the block.
Come back, friend happy brought the car and six months tax.
My friend changed insurance over. Job done all legal and above board.
My question is, if out for a test drive we was unlucky enough to have a tug from the police who's at fault.
The garage owner or me ?
At that point in time, I'm not the owner (the garage owner is) there is no tax on the car and who's insurance is covering the car ?
Sorry if its a stupid question but I have wondered about this.
I wouldn't buy any car without a test drive before parting with any cash.
The car, a Vauxhall tigra 1.6l with 66,000 miles. Nice runner
|
I wouldn't think twice in a situation like that. I've lost count of the illegal cars I've hurtled about in on the road, 55 years of them.
'All motorists are criminals by definition whether they like it or not.'
(A. Coussine, ages ago)
|
I would have expected a trader to have 'trade plates' to allow for untaxed cars to be run on the roads.
|
No trade plates. This was a 'back street garage' if you know what I mean.
I had to ask if the car had its v5 documents (which it did)
It was that shady
|
For what they are worth Lygonos. Most of the cars I've driven have been 'insured', for what it's worth.
In the unlikely event that you get pulled while decorously feeling out a potential buy, the BiB are highly likely to understand and send you on your way sucking their teeth a bit.
Those red and white trade plates are as likely to provoke a pull as to deter one, I seem to remember. The thing not to do is get sprauncy in front of the fuzz. That looks like cheek.
|
Those red and white trade plates are as likely to provoke a pull as to deter one.
Because they make you look like a Belgian?
|
>> I would have expected a trader to have 'trade plates' to allow for untaxed cars
>> to be run on the roads.
Which only covers the owner and employees of the garage. Providing one of them is in the car with you, then you're covered to drive it.
Being on good terms with the local garage that I use, whenever I've taken a car for a test drive that's had trade plates fitted, they've always told me that if I'm stopped just to tell the bobby that I work at the garage.
|
>> they've always told me that if I'm stopped just to tell the bobby that I work at the garage.
And if you have an accident and injure someone, the police will then go through the matter carefully and you will be in more caca then you know what to do with.
Don't do it. Make sure you have a DOC extension on your own policy, which is best, or insist to know how you will be insured when you drive the other car.
Might seem a fad and may even stop you test driving a car, but trust me, yesterday I was *very* relieved my car was insured, legal and above board.
And you can do little to avoid an accident that's not your fault, so its not like it is necessarily within your control to drive "carefully" and avoid incidents.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 28 Mar 14 at 10:07
|
>> and you will be in more caca then you know what to do with.
Not me, the garage, surely?
|
>> >> and you will be in more caca then you know what to do with.
>>
>> Not me, the garage, surely?
Both I suspect. You as uninsured and them for cause/permit.
|
>> and you will be in more caca then you know what to do with.
>
>Not me, the garage, surely?
You are uninsured. That is an absolute fact [in this scenario].
If there is a serious incident, everything gets investigated, the police are not likely to ignore the insurance issue nor the trade plate usage issue.
In the scenario you mentioned, the garage would grass you in a second and tell the Police that you understood that you were not insured and were misusing a trade plate.
Add that to any financial damages impact if you were at fault, and I'd call that "Caca profundo".
|
>>if I'm stopped just to tell the bobby that I work at the garage.
Lying to a policeman. Not very clever.
Of course, this thread seems to have mixed up insurance and tax. DOC essential (but be careful if your last car has been stolen, even if your insurance is still running it might not exist...). Who cares about no tax. If they stop you and want to fine you, then pay the fine.
|
>> My question is, if out for a test drive we was unlucky enough to have
>> a tug from the police who's at fault.
>> The garage owner or me ?
Both. Both can get done. You for driving, and the Garage for aiding and abetting.
|
|
If you were incredibly unlucky and got into an accident in that situation, would whatever insurance that was in place still be valid or would they be able to wiggle?
|
>>would whatever insurance that was in place still be valid or would they be able to wiggle?
Unclear because it would depend so much on the actual circumstances.
Probably they would be directed to pay by the Insurance body, but they would have the right to recover from those responsible.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 28 Mar 14 at 12:11
|
|
And there is a lot more to "trade plates" than just hanging them on the car-both in acquiring and using!!
|
I have driven both demonstrators on standard plates and used cars on trade plates, both from the same dealer where I am "known" and can take the cars for an unspecified time within reason (hours). This is without one of their employees in the car which I thought was a requirement to be legal. As AC says we are all criminals when driving at some time.
The lack of traffic plods can be useful. :-)
Last edited by: Uncle Albert on Fri 28 Mar 14 at 08:52
|
|
I may not live in what some people choose to call, ' the real world' but I am amazed/horrified by the attitude shown by some of the posts here. Follow the law, you can't just pick and choose which parts. Do what is right and there should be no fault and problems after. I find it incredible that people can almost boast about disregarding the law.
|
Main burden of 'No Tax' falls on the registered keeper although you could be liable for 'Fail to Display'.
Currently rolling out through the country is the power to seize untaxed vehicles just as un insured and no driving licence seizures are conducted. Gets expensive to recover the vehicle.
So in this case you could be walking back to the seller with some bad news.
They are really putting the screws on prior to getting rid of paper tax discs.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Fri 28 Mar 14 at 11:36
|
>> I may not live in what some people choose to call, ' the real world'
>> but I am amazed/horrified by the attitude shown by some of the posts here. Follow
>> the law, you can't just pick and choose which parts. Do what is right and
>> there should be no fault and problems after. I find it incredible that people can
>> almost boast about disregarding the law.
Scot, have you never ever broken the speed limit?
|
>> As AC says we are all criminals when driving at some time.
>>
>> The lack of traffic plods can be useful. :-)
>>
At least I knew I had insurance with DOC cover.
|
|
Yes, I have marginally broken speed limits on some occasions. I have never, and will never, claim or believe I'm perfect - far from it. Perfection is not really possible. However, there are different degrees of law breaking. I have never broken the speed limit in a built up area. I have never broken any other limit in adverse weather conditions. Yes, I make mistakes and try to learn from them. What I object to is a complacent acceptance. The more traffic police the better in my opinion. Although, as I've said previously, I would prefer to see them contribute more to education than retribution.
|
>>The more traffic police the better in my opinion
And in mine.
As a young idiot there were many times my driving behaviour was kept in check in areas where traffic police were known to hang out in lay-bys and farm entrances.
|
>> Yes, I have marginally broken speed limits on some occasions. I have never, and will
>> never, claim or believe I'm perfect - far from it. Perfection is not really possible.
>> However, there are different degrees of law breaking.
But scot, you claimed
" Follow
the law, you can't just pick and choose which parts"
Yet now you tell us there degrees of law breaking.
>>I have never broken the speed limit
>> in a built up area. I have never broken any other limit in adverse weather
>> conditions.
I have, often. You see I drive at limits I consider are safe and appropriate. Last weekend I shot through 30 mph areas at 40-45 mph. It was 05:00am, dry clear and safe. On the way back it was way below the 30mph speed limit, because the kids were coming out of school. Had I obeyed the letter of the law some of my driving would have been unsafe. I prefer the more responsible and intelligent approach to minding the law, not blind obedience.
And yes - we definitely need more traffic cops. Dump the cameras and bring back real bodies in uniform. Because they too follow the responsible and intelligent approach to enforcing the law.
|
No. I did not claim it was acceptable that I had broken the law. Surely someone driving at very high speeds is more dangerous than a marginal increase of the limit ? I agree with you that it is responsible to drive below the speed limit in certain situations. I do not make the mistake of thinking that the limit is the recommended speed and would do exactly the same regarding speed when you have reduced it.
Whilst I appreciate that you driving at that speed which was considerably above the limit may have been safe it still does not make it right. What if someone else had been setting off early and not expected someone driving at that speed ?
I totally agree with you about intelligent driving. Although certain aspects can be debated for a long time without agreement. All I have said is that there are speed limits and that is the law. When I received three points for minor speeding driving away from the town on a bright clear day I accepted that, although in my view, it had been perfectly safe it was a fair penalty. I've never had another one.
|
>> When I received three points for minor speeding driving away
>> from the town on a bright clear day I accepted that, although in my view,
>> it had been perfectly safe it was a fair penalty.
It was a fair penalty, in my view you got nicked and penalised for not paying attention in that you never saw the method of detection in sufficient time I would happily accept a speeding conviction for the very same reason, my fault for not seeing the ~ cop/van/camera/whatever ~
|
>> Surely
>> someone driving at very high speeds is more dangerous than a marginal increase of the
>> limit ?
Depends on the circumstances.
Wing Commander Andy Green has achieved 763 mph...
...32 mph past the local school at 0850 in the pouring rain could be lethal.
|
Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools!
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 29 Mar 14 at 18:55
|
>
>> However, there are different degrees of law breaking.
>>
"Follow the law, you can't just pick and choose which parts."
But you can pick and choose which degrees of law breaking you regard as more serious than others?
|
Yes : however, you accept breaking the law is, per se, wrong.
Shoplifting is breaking the law.
Armed robbery is breaking the law.
Murder is breaking the law.
Some degrees of law breaking are more serious. Surely that there can be a difference in degree is clear.
Last edited by: scot22 on Fri 28 Mar 14 at 16:28
|
Some laws and regulations, and many speed limits, are just begging to be broken by people of spirit.
It's OK not to be a villain or toerag but a bit pathetic never to have knowingly broken a law or regulation.
|
When I had a garage our motor trade policy (VERY expensive) fully covered test drives IF the punter had a driving licence and was him/herself insured. All employees were, of course fully covered.
I always used trade plates if there was no rent on the car - I had two sets, one for sales and one for service. The employee/accompanied requirement was a good reason to accompany the driver on a test drive.
Mind you it was astonishing how many folks bought cars, especially new ones, without a test drive.
OTT - It was the wife who made a "joint" buying decision 90% of the time!
|
|
A.C. I see no justification for your personal opinion and don't accept it. What is so wonderful about breaking the law ? Doesn't require any spirit, just lack of discipline and respect for society.
Last edited by: scot22 on Fri 28 Mar 14 at 16:40
|
Scot, some of us are born rebels and proud of it.
It was National No Smoking day a few weeks back and as always, I manage to have one lit in each hand just to show my feelings about it.
No-one was aware at the time but I felt 'I'd done my bit and there was life in the old dog yet',
I think you'll find most of us who subscribe to the Rebel bit are the ones who rarely have accidents or points on our licenses.
Pat
|
Time and a place though.
Of course I've driven too fast on a deserted road in good conditions, but that's not the time when its a problem.
Take my accident yesterday, for example. She was seemingly on the phone, jumped a red light and wasn't paying attention - that's what caused the accident, not her speed. However, had she been doing the limit of 30 rather than 40-50 I might have missed her, she might not have bounced off the lamp post so far etc. etc.
So we have limits.
Now, if someone breaks that limit but does not have an accident how do we assess whether that was reasonable given the conditions, the environment, other vehicles AND the level of attention and competence?
Do we trust some magistrate or, with respect, a policeman or someone else who wasn't actually there at the time to judge?
Or do we just say "That's the limit, don't break it"?
The speed limit should be strictly regarded as the absolute limit. With that should be the determination that the limit is reasonable for the road, not just the lowest the council could get away with.
In my opinion the issue to be addressed is the second, not the first.
|
>> A.C. I see no justification for your personal opinion and don't accept it. What is
>> so wonderful about breaking the law ? Doesn't require any spirit, just lack of discipline
>> and respect for society.
Scot, traffic laws are mostly for guidance, enforcement was only required because some people were not bright enough to accept the guidance at the appropriate moment. So when its appropriate, I ignore them.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 28 Mar 14 at 16:58
|
>> A.C. I see no justification for your personal opinion and don't accept it. What is
>> so wonderful about breaking the law ? Doesn't require any spirit, just lack of discipline
>> and respect for society.
No it's not clever to break the law for the hell of it, though it can be fun.
What's daft is not to do something reasonable, solely because it's illegal.
Where do you stand on throwing banana skins and apple cores over hedges, for example? Or having a pint after time?
The test drive thing of an untaxed car is one of those that one might take upon oneself, knowing the risk, but not advise anybody else to do. And if I did do it and I was stopped, I'd tell the truth.
Insurance wants a bit more thinking about. The real risk is not the one of being caught and fined, it's the one of being liable for a terrible accident and being sued for the costs. If you leave somebody brain damaged, needing lifetime care, and are judged to be at fault you could be losing your house if you have no insurance.
|
>> What is so wonderful about breaking the law ?
I didn't say it was wonderful. It's just that it's quite often the obvious thing to do, if only to show utter contempt for the law or regulation concerned.
You don't have to do it though scot22. The rest of us will do it for you.
|
>> Yes : however, you accept breaking the law is, per se, wrong.
I accept that it is breaking the law, that's all.
Some things are wrong and illegal
Some things are illegal but not wrong
Some things are legal but wrong.
|
Firstly, who decides that something deserves contempt ? No need to break the law on my behalf - I don't want it doing. There are democratic ways to change laws.
Secondly, I was not attempting to make a moral judgement.
Best Wishes to everyone and will not continue this rather futile line. None of it makes any difference to anything, in my view.
Last edited by: scot22 on Fri 28 Mar 14 at 18:28
|
legality of test driving a car from a trade garage - Armel Coussine
