Linux Format forums

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

Rhakios — Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:20 am

Author: Rhakios

Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 7:20 am

nelz wrote:

Sticking with stone tablets would have saved all the bitching about Unity and Gnome 3

Well, yes, we do have silicon-based ones now, iPad, webOS, Blackberry or Android?

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

nelz — Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:03 pm

Author: nelz

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:03 pm

Because it's bad enough that AD can issue test certificates?

Yes, I do prefer a text editor to LibreOffice. And I use a modular kernel, the Linux kernel isn't really monolithic, and hasn't been so for many years. It's some sort of hybrid now.

You don't display an MOT certificate, and it doesn't state that you have (or at least had) insurance.

Sticking with stone tablets would have saved all the bitching about Unity and Gnome 3

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

guy — Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:34 pm

Author: guy

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:34 pm

nelz wrote:

I see, so much the same as now, except instead of getting your insurance from an annoying nodding dog or opera singer, you buy it from Arthur Daley

If Arthur Daley is already approved to issue MOT certificates, why can't he sort out our cover notes as well?

Quote:

I'd rather stick with the "do one job and do it well" philosophy and buy my insurance from an insurance company and my MOT from a test centre.

But then you probably prefer separate text processor, spell checker and page layout tools to LibreOffice Writer. Why do you use a monolithic kernel instead of HURD?

Quote:

You could cut down on bureaucracy by having the test centre issue tax discs, but that would mean allowing blank discs out in the wild, I can't see that happening.

What, alongside those untamed blank MOT forms you mean? Almost as bad as stacking them up alongside ravaging books of postage stamps at my local Post Office.

Quote:

While some streamlining is always possible, the cost of implementing it will always outweigh any saving made when government departments are involved.

Imagine the implementation costs we'd have saved is we'd stuck with stone tablets, bronze chisels and sacrificial sheep.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

nelz — Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:04 pm

Author: nelz

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 11:04 pm

I see, so much the same as now, except instead of getting your insurance from an annoying nodding dog or opera singer, you buy it from Arthur Daley

I'd rather stick with the "do one job and do it well" philosophy and buy my insurance from an insurance company and my MOT from a test centre. You could cut down on bureaucracy by having the test centre issue tax discs, but that would mean allowing blank discs out in the wild, I can't see that happening.

While some streamlining is always possible, the cost of implementing it will always outweigh any saving made when government departments are involved.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

guy — Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:02 pm

Author: guy

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:02 pm

nelz wrote:

guy wrote:

I suppose a given policy may be linked only to a driver, but that would be unusual in the UK. But any given vehicle must have some kind of policy linked to it - you cannot obtain a license for it without the associated insurance cover note specifying said vehicle.

When did that change?

What I mean is, you need a cover note whose terms cover said vehicle implicitly if not explicitly (such as a hire company's blanket policy).

guy wrote:

Rather, it's the owner who subsidises the idiots. But then, since the owner is evidently prepared to let idiots drive it, that seems reasonable to me.

If the insurance was tied to the registration, as in the post to which I replied, then the owner is paying for the possibility of idiots driving it, even if he has no intention of even allowing them to sit in it.[/quote]
I did not tie the insurance to the registration but to the road tax and MOT. Those say nothing about who may drive the vehicle - the insurance policy reigns as supreme there as it does now. And nor did I say that the insurance fee would be a single national rate or cover a single set of circumstances - that's one reason the MOT centre needs to be an agency.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

nelz — Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:07 am

Author: nelz

Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:07 am

guy wrote:

When did that change? Admittedly, it's been many years since I held such a policy, but as long as the policy in my name covered the vehicle in my name, I was able to tax it, even if the policy said "any vehicle owned by the insured".

guy wrote:

Rather, it's the owner who subsidises the idiots. But then, since the owner is evidently prepared to let idiots drive it, that seems reasonable to me.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

guy — Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:46 pm

Author: guy

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:46 pm

nelz wrote:

Insurance can be linked to the driver, the vehicle or both, depending on your needs. The basic is one driver and one car, usually with cover for other drivers in "emergencies".

Quote:

The trouble with insuring the vehicle is that it takes no account of who is to drive it, so the safe/lucky drivers subsidise the idiots.

Rather, it's the owner who subsidises the idiots. But then, since the owner is evidently prepared to let idiots drive it, that seems reasonable to me. Hello white van man.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

nelz — Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:06 pm

Author: nelz

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 6:06 pm

Insurance can be linked to the driver, the vehicle or both, depending on your needs. The basic is one driver and one car, usually with cover for other drivers in "emergencies".

The trouble with insuring the vehicle is that it takes no account of who is to drive it, so the safe/lucky drivers subsidise the idiots.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

ollie — Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:21 pm

Author: ollie

Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:21 pm

OK, sorry - by combined I meant that having the 3rd party insurance was a requirement of registration and stayed with the registered vehicle. The optional comprehensive insurance is also tied to a vehicle but can be transferred (usually with extra cost ) to a new vehicle when you sell the "old" one. The UK TV shows seem to explain the insurance being tied to the driver, so people drive a car they aren't insured to drive.

We just use the colours as an easy way to differentiate to between documentation required to complete the registration process. We also have a "blue slip" for vehicles that have been out of registration. For vehicles modified beyond "manufacturers specifications" you also need an engineers certificate.

I know we have unregistered and uninsured vehicles on the road but it doesn't seem to be the same problem as the UK.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

Rhakios — Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:04 pm

Author: Rhakios

Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 8:04 pm

guy wrote:

In fact my current insurer offers just that.

So does mine, but with a surcharge
Interest rates being at an all-time low, it's cheaper to pay the lump sum.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

guy — Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:04 pm

Author: guy

Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 10:04 pm

Rhakios wrote:

That would work for private motors, but not for company vehicles on bulk insurance policies, where insurance renewal dates are not the same as MOT test/tax dates.
In fact, due to the fact that once-upon-a-time my car was insured for me by my employer, my MOT and insurance renewal dates do not coincide. Rather handy really as it spreads the cost out a little and means I didn't have to rush to get a cover note when my tax needed renewing. Which is pretty much irrelevant now as it is so easy to get it all done automagically on-line.

Yes there would need to be some changes to the way we do things, but nothing drastic. I suggested the MOT centre be the insurance agent, not the actual insurer. It would not be hard for example to take a company vehicle for its MOT and hand over the corporate policy number. Vehicles drop in and out of such policies all the time, this would be no different in that respect - just, the points at which a given vehicle drops in or out would change. Spreading the cost? I did mention easy terms. IMHO a monthly direct debit would be sensible - same way we pay for most services these days. In fact my current insurer offers just that.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

Rhakios — Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:03 pm

Author: Rhakios

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:03 pm

That would work for private motors, but not for company vehicles on bulk insurance policies, where insurance renewal dates are not the same as MOT test/tax dates.
In fact, due to the fact that once-upon-a-time my car was insured for me by my employer, my MOT and insurance renewal dates do not coincide.Rather handy really as it spreads the cost out a little and means I didn't have to rush to get a cover note when my tax needed renewing. Which is pretty much irrelevant now as it is so easy to get it all done automagically on-line.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

guy — Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:39 pm

Author: guy

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:39 pm

towy71 wrote:

It might be easier if your MOT certificate is the number plate, no MOT, insurance or tax no number plate

The registration number belongs to the vehicle for its lifetime (unless deliberately and somewhat laboriously changed). If a vehicle goes on-off the road a few times, keeping track of the "MOT plates" would be a nightmare.

Also, the SORN is useless unless you have a quick and easy external identification of vehicles that have been declared off road.

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

towy71 — Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:34 pm

Author: towy71

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:34 pm

It might be easier if your MOT certificate is the number plate, no MOT, insurance or tax no number plate

Re: UK SORN... ;'(

guy — Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:29 pm

Author: guy

Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 1:29 pm

guy wrote:

Of course, if you have a just and practicable way to combine ...

In reply to my own challenge:

The only transaction tied to a physical location is the MOT inspection. How about making the MOT counter an insurance agency and license issuing point? The license is conditional on both MOT and insurance, and there is no point having one or two without all three (but see SORN below).

You just take your motor along. They test, insure and license it, then take your cash in a single payment (or easy terms, grin) and issue a single mot/lIcense/cover note document, "credit card" sized. (Well, maybe two copies, one marked "display in vehicle", the other "keep in a safe place. Not valid on vehicle."). They pass cash back to the insurance provider and to the taxman as required. Job done.

If your car is off the road like Bazza's, you would still need to make a SORN declaration - paper, personal visit to MOT centre, or online. That would void its MOT and 3rd Party accident insurance too (but not fire/theft/comprehensive cover). Voiding an existing MOT means it needs retesting before going back on the road - which I think is reasonable but not currently required - and voiding existing 3rd Party insurance should mean a small cash refund, just like voiding an existing license today. Optional to keep up fire/theft/comprehensive cover while off the road.