Why is not having motor insurence a police matter?

[SnailyBoy]

Driving on the pavement, smoking in a car next to a child, in Northern Ireland, paying for sex, the sale of alcohol to a person who is already drunk .....

 

blasphemy

 

Have you got got a link so I can read more into it?

[El Cid]

I must admit I haven't renewed my insurance since it ran out last week.

Ill be sorting it at the end of next week though and luckily for me the roads I drive on have no ANPR cameras and I haven't seen a police car on them in years.

 

You are still as safe as you were last month, but you are breaking a monetary law.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2017 at 21:00 ----------

 

Have you got got a link so I can read more into it?

 

Do you dispute them all?

[SnailyBoy]

You are still as safe as you were last month, but you are breaking a monetary law.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2017 at 21:00 ----------

 

 

Do you dispute them all?

 

Dispute them? You made a claim, I just wanted to see what your evidence was to justify it.

[*_ash_*]

Before anyone starts I'm a fully insured driver, always have been and always will be.

 

I get that its vital to have an up to date MOT certificate as a matter of public safety, so its right the police enforce this, but I don't see why having insurance(with an a, unlike the title, DOH!) needs to be a police matter.

 

'Why is not having motor insurence a police matter?'

 

My question is (on this topic) - Why can private profit making companies dictate the charge of what is essentially a legal requirement?

 

-

 

I think I saw - but sure I'll be corrected - in AUS, they pay for a tax disc (or rego) and it includes 3rd party insurance.

 

Though I'm a fan of free-enterprise, and I generally don't like government run schemes, this is something that I would prefer.

 

I'm conned left-right and centre by this legal requirement because of my [now previous] employment.

[El Cid]

Dispute them? You made a claim, I just wanted to see what your evidence was to justify it.

 

Do you recall any of the crimes been in court; you do watch the news?

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2017 at 21:14 ----------

 

The police let the RSPCA deal with lots of animal related crime, I guess it saves the police/courts money.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2017 at 21:16 ----------

 

I think I saw - but sure I'll be corrected - in AUS, they pay for a tax disc (or rego) and it includes 3rd party insurance.

 

 

That sounds like a great idea, let everyone display their MOT, tax and insurance on their windscreen. Why hasn't that been thought of before

[SnailyBoy]

Do you recall any of the crimes been in court; you do watch the news?

 

Let me get this straight, you've come up with examples of laws that you claim the police choose not to pursue. You've based these examples on the lack of cases heard in court or on the news?

 

To answer your question, yes I watch the news.

Edited October 29, 2017 by SnailyBoy
Typo

[El Cid]

Let me get this straight, you've come up with examples of laws that you claim the police choose not to persue. You've based these examples on the lack of cases heard in court or on the news?

 

To answer your question, yes I watch the news.

 

I imagine you are an intelligent person, stop being difficult.

[SnailyBoy]

I imagine you are an intelligent person, stop being difficult.

 

Being difficult?

 

I'm trying to imagine how you come to a conclusion that (choosing your example of driving on the pavement), the police choose not to pursue it because you haven't heard it in a court or the news.

 

Help me out here.

Edited October 29, 2017 by SnailyBoy

[Mossway]

There’s a legal requirement to be insured.

The police are tasked to enforce it, otherwise people wouldn’t bother paying the policy fee,

Can’t see why the OP finds this concept so difficult !

[El Cid]

Being difficult?

 

I'm trying to imagine how you come to a conclusion that (choosing your example of driving on the pavement), the police choose not to pursue it because you haven't heard it in a court or the news.

 

Help me out here.

 

Rule 244 of the Highway Code states that you must not park fully or even partly on the pavement unless road signs permit it: in London, it’s an offence to park on the pavement, full stop.

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/features/driving-offences-you-didnt-know-were-illegal/

 

Driving on the pavement, this offence was introduced way back in time by the Highways Act 1835 (section 72) which states that is an offence is caused by: “driving on any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers“.

 

Highway Code Rule 145 states: “You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency“. Since January 1999 a fixed penalty notice can be issued which is handy because it makes if much simpler for the police to action. The offender get issued with a ticket with fine and points attached unless they appeal in which case it goes to court.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/5-6/50/section/72

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2017 at 22:05 ----------

 

There’s a legal requirement to be insured.

The police are tasked to enforce it, otherwise people wouldn’t bother paying the policy fee, Can’t see why the OP finds this concept so difficult !

 

Not a problem, but surely getting potentially unsafe vehicle without an MOT should be more of a priority, yet the police turn a blind eye to parked cars without an MOT.