coffeeking, I’ll remind you of your initial reply to me

Car must be insured and you must be insured to drive it on the road. I thought this was taught in driving 101? You can’t drive an uninsured car (in the UK) on your own 3rd party insurance, and your 3rd party insurance is void if you do – it’s your responsibility to ensure the car is insured AND you’re insured to drive it.

Not only didn’t I do ‘driving 101’, what with me being English, it appears you can’t provide a single legal reference as I requested to confirm your claim.

Not only didn’t I do ‘driving 101’, what with me being English, it appears you can’t provide a single legal reference as I requested to confirm your claim.

I’m missing your point. You are aware the numbering system of most UK university degree classes (from which the “101” reference is taken) also follows the same format – i.e. Elec 101 is a year 1, basic electronics course…?

No, I don’t currently have the time to read through all the legal documents to prove the point. Do you? Go for it. (by the way, the latest amendments to the RTA online are not the current law, it’s not been updated yet).

FYI from direct.gov:

“If you’re the registered keeper of a vehicle, it must be insured at all times.”

i.e. the *owner* must have an insurance policy covering it. Your “drive other cars” policy extension only covers cars not registered to you.

You are aware the numbering system of most UK US university degree classes (from which the “101” reference is taken)

FTFY.

FTFY.

All the UK ones I’ve worked at have numbered them [in technical subjects at least] Subj 1XX with 101 being the super simple introduction for first years. Some courses are referred to by other names but on internal documents they tend to be coded as such. The reference was taken from the US courses but the UK is roundly similar, arguing over the details is pointless anyway as it’s an accepted term in the UK and anyone with half a brain knows what it means regardless of where they were educated.

Lots of confusion here.

Prior to the recent SORN change, the driver had to be insured in order to drive. Contrary to other people’s anecdotal information, when I’ve had “other vehicle” entitlement on comprehensive insurance policies it’s provided third party cover for any vehicle I drive; the only restriction being that it’s not a vehicle I own. I’ve never seen any clauses requiring any other policies to be present in order for this to be applicable. Ie, insurance is required to use a vehicle.

The new law states that insurance is now requred in order to own a vehicle. All vehicles must either be insured by their registered keeper or be declared SORN.

Bloody ‘ell Cougar, why wait so long to inject all the clarity that’s needed 🙂 That’s how I understood it as it was.

So you’re confirming the law has changed?

Just to add a little grenade… you can get garage insurance as well which is for the vehicle and no driving but adding that is just me being a bit mischevious 🙂

arguing over the details is pointless anyway

and

I don’t currently have the time to read through all the legal documents to prove the point.

One would suffice. Otherwise the “facts” you present in such a condescending matter are merely “things you made up.” See the subtle difference here?

So you’re confirming the law has changed?

Is anyone claiming it hasn’t? Hang on, let me dig up some sources.

Cougar – Member

So you’re confirming the law has changed?

Is anyone claiming it hasn’t?

Lots of people are claiming lots of things including making it up as they go along.

I was really asking ‘has the law been recently changed’? as my understanding of the current state was as you outlined. I wasn’t doubting your comment.

I was really asking ‘has the law been recently changed’?

In which case, your answer is “yes, it has.” Sorry, I didn’t think you were doubting anything, I just thought maybe I’d missed something here. Anyway.

From the horse’s mouth, this is DirectGov’s (typically simplified) explanation of your new responsibilities.

Insurance on DirectGov

This is good too. This explains the new law in comparison to the old (and gives it a name):

Continuous Insurance Enforcement

Obviously, I haven’t got time to go through all the legal documents… (-:

Just realised I wasn’t clear on something back there.

With reference to anecdotal evidence, I wasn’t saying necessarily that people with other experiences were incorrect. Just that there’s no law requiring it; it’s down to the individual policy to make whatever random restrictions they like. For instance, there’s a common belief that you’re entitled to drive other vehicles automatically if you have fully comp insurance, but I’ve had FC policies where this has explicitly not been the case.

you can get garage insurance as well which is for the vehicle and no driving but adding that is just me being a bit mischevious

I’ve not come across this but I suspect it’s purely an accidental damage policy; ie, if your garage roof falls in, they’ll cover repairs to your car. I’m speculating here though.

If it’s in the garage and not declared SORN, then its registered keeper will still require third party insurance.

sorting through the wheat and the chaff of this thread (alot of chaff being my own) this has genuinely enlightened me. which is rare for stw!.

Garage insurance = fire & theft only. I used to get for when my bike was, errrrr, garaged during the winter.