What complete tosh. Its not difficult at all to prove/decide who owns a car

Please take off the tin foil hat, and step away from the internet.

If you bought your car, you own it (unless its on finance in some cases)

And the evidence to support this?

And the evidence to support this?

Surely the Brits have a centralised register for financial interests in serially-numbered collateral like vehicles? No?

maybe i’ll start one up. call it something like Vehicle Licencing Agency or if i keep a record of drivers too maybe the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency.

It’s a bit long though, maybe it could be shortened?

Right, I missed that the guy has fessed up to drink driving. In that case he’s admitted a crime and should take the punishment.. Like someone said before it started getting all hypothetical a coupla pages ago are we gonna start differentiating between someone with a £500 car and a £23k one? I don’t think so.
David, fair play to you for sharing your story, hope nobody has to go through an experience like you’ve had to but I know that won’t be the case. To me it puts all the hypothetical scenarios into context. Although I don’t know you and can’t begin to understand what you went through I’m sorry for your loss.

Oh aye, just read on BBC that Audrey Baxter of the same named soup co has been done for drink driving after taking her partner to hospital by car after drinking and being over the limit.. Seems about right to me.

I’m sure that’s what I’d be thinking in retrospect, but most/many of us drink and most of us at some stage or other do so beyond safe driving limits knowing we do not need to drive. I hope I never get put in that sort of situation whereby I have no choice but to take to my car over the limit. As many have pointed out that should be never.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-16425064

well… at least we now know what would happen if you did. 🙂

EDIT Doh! too slow

Seriously ?

After I replied, I actually thought you may have been joking? But clearly you weren’t.

The same as everything else I own.

I bought it, so I own it. I have an invoice to prove I bought it.

The “registered keeper” can be the same person as the “owner” (as in my case)

Or (as in the case of my brother) the “owner” is the Company he works for.
And he is the “registered keeper”
.
.
.
When I get my insurance there is a section on the form that asks

“who is the owner of the vehicle”
And
“who is the registered keeper of the vehicle”

If the tin foil hat myth is true, anyone who puts down anything other than “no idea” as the owner, has voided their insurance by giving false information.

They should be fined (alot) and banned (for a long time) but they have to still insure and tax their car which they are not allowed to sell for the duration of their ban. Then at the end of their ban the car should be crushed in front of them and they should have to pay for the crushing and the disposal of the car.

Another aspect to consider is surely the drunk driver should be made liable for ALL damage caused if in a crash. Presently, the insurance companies pay for this, with the exception of the drink drivers car. Its incidents like this that push up insurance premiums.

Perhaps this is another incentive to reduce drunk drivers?

The best incentive would be to make it much more likely that you are caught which means random breath tests / roadblocks testing everyone / much tougher enforcement – its the risk of getting aught not he level of punishment that acts as deterrent by and large

Seriously ?

After I replied, I actually thought you may have been joking? But clearly you weren’t.

The same as everything else I own.

I bought it, so I own it. I have an invoice to prove I bought it.

The “registered keeper” can be the same person as the “owner” (as in my case)

Or (as in the case of my brother) the “owner” is the Company he works for.
And he is the “registered keeper”
.
.
.
When I get my insurance there is a section on the form that asks

“who is the owner of the vehicle”
And
“who is the registered keeper of the vehicle”

If the tin foil hat myth is true, anyone who puts down anything other than “no idea” as the owner, has voided their insurance by giving false information.

Who said anything about your documentation, I was saying that there is NO government database of car owners, only keepers. Its not difficult to understand.

Surely the Brits have a centralised register for financial interests in serially-numbered collateral like vehicles? No?

Nope.

And also remember if the deterrent is too great then a DD is less likely to stop and could cause greater damage plus if you ban someone for life its most likely they’ll just carry on driving in unlicensed/uninsured vehicles.

Not agreeing with anything and I’ve never driven over the limit, just pointing out what will happen.

Perhaps cars should be fitted with breathalysers, like Nationa express coaches, where the driver has to breathe into a tube, before the vehicle will start, this was brought in after they had a few major accidents with drunk drivers, driving their coaches.

The best incentive would be to make it much more likely that you are caught which means random breath tests / roadblocks testing everyone / much tougher enforcement – its the risk of getting aught not he level of punishment that acts as deterrent by and large

And you’d be happy with the extra time lost on your journeys, would you? A random stop could easily put another 20 mins on your journey, you only need two or three a week before deciding they’re more trouble than they’re worth. The Guardia Civil have it down to a fine time wasting art. Or is this another case of screwing many to catch a few?

Just an addition with regard to the insurance side of things, when it all happened her insurance became null and void and an organisation called The Motor Insurance Bureau stepped in, they settled the claim without arguement and payed up, we were told that they would seek full reinbursement from the lady concerned in as much as baliffs and seizing of property, not sure if this is still the case, but this is what happened for us. Oh and because it isnt contested it didn’t take as long as long as you’d of thought.

Interesting example, given it wasn’t on the road, hence he couldn’t be prosecuted for cycling whilst drunk.

On the contrary, in Oz (which is the country I’m talking about applying DUI laws to bikes), he’d not only be prosecuted for DUI, but also for using a vehicle in an unauthorized area (i.e. not a road). They’d probably throw trespass on the railway at him for good measure.

As I said, to a lot of people over here, drink-cycling is seen as just as bad as drink driving, for the reasons I outlined previously.

not every one in this world is a pussy, if some one killed you’re loved one what would you do.. probably nowt but cry like a fag.

With illiterate homophobic gun-wielding simpletons like you around, I’m sure the world is a much better place… 🙄

Zokes – its amazing how things changes – when I was in aus 30 years ago distances in the bush would be measured in cartons – as in a slab of beer and the bush roads were lined with stubbies and cans – drink driving was commonplace and accepted you just drank a can and chucked the empty out of the window and grabbed another when you got thirsty

On the contrary, in Oz (which is the country I’m talking about applying DUI laws to bikes)

Except the incident was in the UK, not Oz. Off you go, find an example either in Oz, or on the road in the UK.

Off you go, find an example either in Oz, or on the road in the UK.

Why? I was highlighting a perhaps bizarre law here, and the perception of the non-cycling community of it. That perception being exactly the same as the majority have shown towards DUI in cars up there ^^^

Regardless of whether it has a basis in terms of how often these incidents occur, are you honestly telling me that the hypothetical situation I outlined couldn’t happen? And if it could happen, perhaps laws put in place to try to prevent such an eventuality aren’t such a bad thing; and are regarded as such by the non-cycling, or cycling and non-drinking community?

Alternatively, maybe it never happens because there are strict laws against it, and they act as an effective deterrent? 🙄

Also, are you saying that the drunk rider who nearly caused a train to derail shouldn’t be charged with more that a 30 quid fine for being drunk in charge of a bike? Or should there be stricter laws to act as a deterrent?

TandemJeremy – Member

Zokes – its amazing how things changes – when I was in aus 30 years ago distances in the bush would be measured in cartons – as in a slab of beer and the bush roads were lined with stubbies and cans – drink driving was commonplace and accepted you just drank a can and chucked the empty out of the window and grabbed another when you got thirsty

I think all the change has demonstrated is that it wasn’t the drink that was the major factor in the appalling driving in this country!!!

probably wading in a bit late, but if the law allows the car to be seized and/or crushed, the worth of the car is irrelevant surely, you can’t say “oh well, it’s a nice car, we’ll let you off with that, but the guy with the shit box Micra loses his”

easy answer just ban alcohol. what good does it do anyway?

this will be alot cheaper then tj’s idea of a roadblock every 20 feet 🙄 which considering the police havent got the resources to investigate burglary is the stupidest thing ive seen him write

Surely the Brits have a centralised register for financial interests in serially-numbered collateral like vehicles? No?

Nope.

Yeah, I know. I’m teasing you lot (in a niche way, I admit).

Alternatively, maybe it never happens because there are strict laws against it, and they act as an effective deterrent?

You could try and find out whether such hypotheticals ever happen over here where there is no strict law against it (and no, that train clip doesn’t count).

The punishment should be exactly what is handed out by the court. If they decide someone should be hit with a £23k fine then they should hit them with that, they could then sell the car if needed to pay it.

Including the car in the punishment just doesn’t work. You then get completely variable fines based on if it’s their car, how much the car is worth and how much value it is to them.

And crushing a car that could be nearly new, come on, that is an absolute waste of resources. What suddenly makes that car scrap metal? It’s the driver’s fault, not the car.

In no way do I think the punishment is enough at the moment, especially for second time bans. One chance is enough, people can make a mistake, think they are ok or make a really bad decision but after doing that once they shouldn’t get a second chance to have their licence back. Also agree that the first time punishment needs more financial impact but that has to come down to judging cases individually – ie means testing to make it hurt across the board.

That’s a problem with the courts and the fines/bans they hand out, not something that can be sorted by scrapping perfectly servicable motors.

Prison and then a means tested financial penalty? As I said earlier what sort of punishment do you think is sufficient, I can honestly say that originally I was upset about the punishment handed down to her, now I tend not to worry about it, just the knowledge that she has to spend the rest of her life carrying around the knowledge of what she did with her.

You could try and find out whether such hypotheticals ever happen over here where there is no strict law against it

Why? If you’re not capable of seeing how a drunk cyclist swerving could cause an accident for a driver, I think it’s probably you who needs to spend the time thinking.

(and no, that train clip doesn’t count).

On the contrary, it is good evidence that there should be stricter penalties for cycling under the influence, whether you’re on the road or not.

To use your ‘logic’, perhaps there’s no need for penalties for breaking the speed limit in a car? I mean, most people do it at some point, but as a percentage of actual infringements (or even those who are caught), the numbers of deaths actually caused are minimal.

Bring back the stocks, stick them in there for a week, bet they don’t do it again