Near Miss of the Day 414: Driver overtaking cyclist at speed almost hits another head-on

Bez on his excellent Beyond the Kerb did a peice on the economies of not bothering to get motoring insurance.  I tried to find it but cannot right now.  He seemed to propose (and Bez, I think really would like drivers to fulfill their legal obligations and get insurance and drive better too) that because there was very little chance of getting caught, seeing the reduction in roads and traffic policing, that the poor driver, because of the way the system has been set up, could save quite a bit of money by not getting insurance.  If they were caught the fine was often derisory and not even the amount of one single years insurance.  With a extra few points which would put their insurance up, but what does that matter, they are not going to bother getting that.

It does need to be looked at, maybe with the governments upcoming review of traffic laws and sentencing.

ktache wrote:

Bez on his excellent Beyond the Kerb did a peice on the economies of not bothering to get motoring insurance.  I tried to find it but cannot right now.  He seemed to propose (and Bez, I think really would like drivers to fulfill their legal obligations and get insurance and drive better too) that because there was very little chance of getting caught, seeing the reduction in roads and traffic policing, that the poor driver, because of the way the system has been set up, could save quite a bit of money by not getting insurance.  If they were caught the fine was often derisory and not even the amount of one single years insurance.  With a extra few points which would put their insurance up, but what does that matter, they are not going to bother getting that.

It does need to be looked at, maybe with the governments upcoming review of traffic laws and sentencing.

Fortunately it is very easy to be caught without insurance and it incurs a significant cost. I know this because I was caught, not intentionally, driving without insurance. One Sunday I had just bought a car from a used dealer and incorrectly assumed our multi car policy from Admiral would cover the journey home under a 3rd party allowed to drive any  car. These policies only allow this for the policy holder and not any additional named drivers, and require the car to be fully comp insured by the current owner (i.e. Not a trader). Anyway I was pulled over, the copper informing me his car camera and computer did the check automatically and alerted him as I passed him in the layby. He also said these same cameras are at petrol stations and on some traffic cameras. Car impounded. Requires special insurance to retrieve (virtually all normal insurance doesnt enable you to retrieve car from impound) and you need the police station local to the pound to stamp a retrieval authorisation. £400 cheapest insurance. £175 per day for impound. £250 fixed penalty. 3 points on licence. IN10  code means less choice for insurance and its generally 50% dearer for 1st year after offence, taking 4yrs before insurance cost returns to normal.  A costly, stupid mistake on my part and I definitely would recommend reading the small print in your policy before assuming you are insured.

The most recent google hit has about 1 million, or roughly 4% of driver uninsured.  Though a guess of course as they are driving illegally.

Police Interceptors (Catchin' wrong'uns (in cars)) generally tells me it's 10%.

You seemed to be unlucky and got caught, and you seem generally honest so it costs you.  The dishonest ones push up every honest persons costs.

Little scrote drives a cheap car, doesn't get caught for a few years, saves money, car gets seized, bit of a fine, not even one years 3rd party, few points, doesn't bother getting car back, just buys another crap car, no MOT, what does it matter, little scrote will drive without a licence.  Just gets more points.  If they are proper dodgy they will just clone someones legal number plate.

But it's those cyclists that are a  real danger on our roads.

Cycling rates never get to 4% of vehicles, so there are more uninsured drivers, driving completely illegally than there are cyclist on our roads at any one time.

Except a few weeks back, when the roads were so quiet...

ktache wrote:

If they are proper dodgy they will just clone someones legal number plate.

High time this was clamped down on. I see illegal (heavily tinted) number plates openly advertised, and much in evidence on the street. Obviously it's not hard to get plates made up by unscrupulous sellers and neither party is troubled by the police. I'm sure cloned plates are just as easy from similar sources.

The irony for me is that I rarely use a car, and probably if I had to would manage life without one. The lockdown has given insight into what that life could be if more people cycled than drove and I have loved it.

On the strength of what you're describing, that sounds - for once - like it should have been a case of "mind how you go, Sir."  Most of us would be mortified to be stopped by the police. 

I thought the whole idea when SORN was introduced was that you had a binary choice, either pay VED or take the car off the road. So why is the third option still tolerated? Clamp it or tow it. Not for revenue collection, but because of the correlation with other driving offences. Whilst they are at it, DVLA could rescind the rights to any cherished registration seen to be heavily smoked/tinted.

HoarseMann wrote:

If that's the B3114, it's got a 50mph limit and that car was doing nearly 70mph with lots of vulnerable road users about.

I do hope it was more than a warning letter.

Yep, B3114.

Sriracha wrote:

If you'd been riding two abreast like the ones ahead...

Well that's one advantage of solo riding - you make a smaller target.