Seatbelts in taxis is a huge deal. A couple of years ago I attended an RTC at 1am on New Year’s Day involving a taxi the driver was killed and both rear seat passengers not wearing seat belts suffered life altering injuries. The front seat passenger was wearing a seatbelt and pretty much walked away. Always belt up in a taxi.
As a retired taxi-driver myself I was always amazed at the number of passengers (all adults) that seemed to think that it would be me that gets the fine if they didn't belt up!
@@johnkeedwell5549 And Diana's bodyguard should have ensured she did wear her seat belt. He did and he survived - now he's even head of security at AstraZeneca.
I found out about #2 many years ago, and it was a bit of a shock that the company at the time had quietly removed that from my cover. It's now something I check with every policy, and I won't take a policy without it.
Re: MOT. I was on my way home from my last service, parked in a car park for something since I was already out, and there was an almighty *CLANG*. Drove right back to the garage and the guy surmised it was probably one of the suspension springs shearing. So yeah, just because it's been checked over doesn't mean it's not going to have a problem even 10 minutes later ;)
Indeed , however for a spring to be on the point of shearing , it would have exhibited serious cracking or corrosion ( unless you crashed through an almighty pothole ) . The MOT station can be in trouble if any defect is found on the date of the test , and for certain faults , such a body corrosion , for a period after the test since it can be stated that it must have been present at the time of the test .
Unfortunately there have been cases of unscrupulous garage operators swapping good components for worn ones so that firstly they can sell the good component as new to someone else (or back to the original owner) and secondly to get more business when the bad component fails. I’m not saying that this is the case here but if it is happening regularly then the local trading standards office will be interested (or at least should be)
I think the concept "its better to be sure than sorry is really true!", There are companies that will provide one or two day insurance at surprisingly affordable prices if you shop around.
Just to add to this, there is an app called cuvva. It saved me from getting my vehicle impounded when I (due to terrible judgement) drove without insurance (helping a friend move). I got 6 points, but at least was able to drive my vehicle home. The short-term policy would have cost me about £25, but ended up costing me around £200 through a fine Don’t think it won’t happen to you, it was an ANPR equipped police car.
The last one reminds me of when my insurance was cancelled as they had not received proof of my no claims (pre everything via email days) and I had nonidea until stopped by the police one morning. The police were great with me, a quick phone call from them to my insurer showed I wasn’t lying and took out another policy on the side of the road and was allowed to continue my journey. I now always check a couple of weeks after changing insurer to make sure they aren’t waiting for any other documentation from me so this doesn’t occur again
Exactly the same happened to me but unfortunately must have got some hard nut coppers who wouldn’t listen to anything I said. Took the car and got 6 points.
@@julianday That was unfortunate and to be honest, I was expecting the same when they said my vehicle wasn't insured. As usual, it is the luck of the draw as to what the police decide to do - as covered with the speeding element of this video. I would've hoped that they would've seen that it wasn't you that cancelled the policy but it was an administrative / clerical error and could be rectified at the road side.
Had something similar, they just cancelled it without notice or motivation. It was only after I noticed the monthly withdrawals didn't add up to when I was insured. Luckily never got pulled over or got in any incident. Eversince I check everything at least once a month. Insurance companies, banks, utility companies, accountants, none can be trusted at face value. If they can screw you over, they will.
@@StefanVeenstra They should be held to account , but the law looks after them. They close ranks to look after their own as well. When this happened to me they ignored everything I was trying to tell them and left me miles from home.
One interesting thing this did throw into the world was the question around “Have you ever had a policy cancelled or special terms imposed?” For three years I answered yes and when explained the insurance companies changed it to no. Their choice, their decision, not mine. If anything came back then I could honestly answer with the truth that I told the truth
It's worth mentioning that even if your insurance allows you do drive someone else's vehicle with their permission, the car must also be insured by that other person, and that part of your insurance will generally only provide third-party cover even if you have a fully comprehensive policy (so you're not covered if you bend it and it's found to be your fault). Also, that vehicle must be roadworthy and with an MOT unless driving for the purpose of attending a pre-booked MOT test.
Good shout. I've just checked my own policy, and while I wasn't surprised to see that I'm covered to drive other vehicles, I was surprised to find the clause "There must be a valid insurance policy in force for the other car you're driving."
@chrisross1703 You would need to have insurance to drive, and often that would be purchased from the hire company for the duration of the hire. However, you could insure separately if you wanted. Insurance via hire companies varies greatly in cost-effectiveness according to company and local laws, so it pays to do your research.
Always had a thing about having correct Insurance. After changing Insurance Company, I always use the ask MID database which will confirm your vehicle is insured. NB, it can take 2-3 days for your new In8surance to show on this database. So always carry a copy of your new Insurance Certificate with you in the meantime in case you get stopped by the Police for having no Insurance!
The speeding one caught me out - will stay right on the correct mph (or better still just below it) from now on. Have also checked about a medication I've been on for many years, but I take a small amount only at night and the sleepiness wears off naturally by morning, so now I know where I stand with that. Thanks! 🙂
My Sat Nav (Garmin 50), nags me with Three dings if I happen to go over the limit by1 to 2 MPH. It also warns me of any cameras, fixed or mobile. Question for the Barrister.: If it is deemed illegal to flash other drivers to warn them of a portable speed camera, how come Sat Navs warn you as you approach one.? I would have thought to flash someone is helping to keep them to the speed limit for safety, not deprive the force of income in fines. Why is the Sat Nav OK to warn you, but not other drivers.?
@@G1ZQCArtwork BBB has dealt with this in a previous video. The answer is *YES.* ...technically. although some forces believe anything that slows drivers down (including warning about speed traps) is a good thing and would prefer to miss out on the opportunity to fine a speeder than attend a potentially fatal RTC.
@@G1ZQCArtwork Read your highway code for advice on use of your horns and lights. Flashing your lights should only be done to make someone aware of your presence (other than perhaps in an emergency). I suspect a variation of this is used as a means to prosecute people flashing others to warn them of speed cameras. There were no speed cameras in my days in the police so I'm not sure if a specific offence has been created since. It would be quite in order for a passenger in a car to wave at an oncoming driver to warn them of a speed camera. A driver might be prosecuted for not being in full control of his vehicle by removing his hands from the steering wheel to do the same. In other words, your sat nav is doing nothing wrong warning you of a speed camera, it's doing something that breaks a different specific law which is probably the offence people are prosecuted for.
When picking my daughter up from school, yes I drive as she goes to school near her mums and I'm the other side of the city, but every time cars park on the raised pedestrian crossing. Not o ly is it dangerous, illegal but proves people are not upto date with the highway code.
As far as I'm aware you don't need an MOT certificate if travelling to and from an MOT testing station. I live in Manchester and I use one in Cornwall and one near John o'Groats.
You have to have a booking, otherwise any one caught could just lie and say they were on their way to one. In any case you're car must still be roadworthy. With regard to MOT
Its difficult to believe that anyone thought (or thinks) the last one would be true. Even overseas students as I'm pretty sure overseas insurance works the same way as ours.
Nope is diffrent, i know in austria, providing my sister ex austrian bf was not pulling my leg. That you insure your car and you get the reg plate from.your insurance company, then the car is insured aslong as the plate is on the car, if you dont pay its up to the insurance company to come out and get it, as long as its on your car even if you have not paid your insured, he said others in the villiage where he was from would hide their cars in the forest to stop them taking the plates back.
It was true until 2015! S147 RTA 1988 covered it in 1, 4 and 5. When you bear in mind how little attention people pay to more obvious changes in rules of the road, something as hidden as that can easily remain in the brain until it is proved wrong at the roadside.
I had a policy with Adrian Flux that didn't have the 'with the permission of the owner' qualification. I thought that would be handy if I took up a career in TWOCing.
From memory, and the law may have changed over the years, but the 'with the permission of the owner' on an insurance document is basically a reminder as, if you are caught driving someone else's car whilst you have no insurance, the owner has two choices; he either admits to allowing you to drive his car without you being insured (an offence) in which case he dobs himself in it or, he states you stole the car in which case he dobs you in it.
@@RedHotscot Yeah, I suspect there would have been a 'not stolen' bit in the T&Cs. That policy though was unusual in that it didn't exclude the Nurberg Ring. I checked that with them. They said if I wanted to take a 25 year old Defender round the track good luck with that.
@@coachhousechambers2047 There would have been a 'Race and Rally' clause in it though, so if you did prang it on the Nurburgring they wouldn't have paid out.
I was told last year that I wasn’t able to drive friends cars on my insurance, I promptly checked my fully comp insurance again, and it says as I am requested that I am insured for any other car not belong to me. I checked because I made sure I had this inclusion five years ago when I started the insurance.
You have to check EVERY year Same goes for Protected No Claims cover ('though that is now dilluted in cover) And that applies even IF you stay with the SAME insurer. You can't trust them a millimeter
A friend had a similar clause , called his insurance company to double check and then they asked him why he needed to borrow the car and after explaining they specifically refused permission!
In fact there is another situation where it is perfectly legal NOT to wear a seatbelt: if you are driving or a passenger in a classic car where no seatbelts were ever fitted (and where seatbelts have NOT been retrospectively fitted). it might not necessarily be wise but it is perfectly legal. I have owned many classic cars where there were never any seatbelts. In some you could fit some for safety but in most they were never designed with suitable anchorage points. Car seatbelts were not invented until 1946 and the modern 3 point belt was invented in 1959.
How about invalid insurance due failing to keep vehicle in roadworthy condition. Small print. Note basic insurance company practice to get out of liability.
Regarding children it's 12 or over with a minimum height of 135cm, didn't realize passengers in taxies needed seat belts; What about busses, don't they come under the same rule?
I've now gone back to a insurance broker after doing my car insurance on line for years. Why? Because I can ask questions face to face about the insurance companies that they recommend. Trust no one!
Great, informative videos ie hadn’t realised all the different approaches to the law from Joe Public. Having attended a speed awareness course (not 100+ mph) realise serious implications & surprised that ignored by so many. Thanks for the info
If it's like Aus, then the car's rego includes state-provided third-party insurance so you pay the fee and you can immediately drive off. You can then buy insurance plans to cover your own car and expenses. I think it's quite a good system, it would cut down uninsured drivers a lot and being a state-provided fixed fee for the compulsory part it would help stop the ripoff that's rampant in the car insurance industry. Personally I believe it's ridiculous that a product is compulsory by law, but your only option for that product is from an oligopoly of providers who are rigging the market. If it's compulsory the state should provide it.
@@ricequackers Well, I always believe the reason that they get away with it is because "someone" from the state has their sticky little fingers in the the private sector pie, anything state run would be fairly price capped and under a lot more scrutiny than a private run company, if it was state run the money would circulate back into society rather than build up in a few greedy individuals bank account benefiting no one except supplying themselves with yachts and champagne, and no doubt a few back handers for you know who
10% excess The taxi seat belt one. The MOT one does cause some reflection because we need to remember if it's not road worthy, it's not road worthy...end of.
I was unaware that insurance policies no longer covered you to drive other peoples vehicles. It makes it awkward when selling your vehicle privately, how is someone going to be able to test drive the vehicle if they are not covered?
There is a profliferation of companies offering cover for an hour. Which they may well use to get it home anyway. I would never let a buyer drive even if they do have other vehicles on their policy, as that is almost always limited to third party only.
short term insurance . Besides DOC ( driving other cars ) is still provided on many policies and available on request . I once had a policy which covered me fully comprehensively on ANY vehicle .
#8 > Check your Insurance covers you for your commute to your place of work, as many Policies for Social, Domestic and Pleasure do not cover this, and is now often a extra addon option to your policy!
Quite a few people don't realise that they must inform their own insurance company if they have an accident in a company vehicle, If you do not they can cancel your insurance, or worse after you have another accident they will then tell you you didn't inform them about your previous accident, and so you have invalidated your insurance, I have had quite a few accidents while working for councils for three I was not even moving, but in every case told my insurance my premium never changed and was always told thank you for information about the the accident, which thay were already aware of, ps remember all insurance companies are linked to a database, they will know through your companies insurance provider
Not aware of the tracking thing, I know if the insurer asks the question and you say it's fitted when it isn't or it's factory fitted and you don't use it that it may be an issue, but on a car with no tracker fitted or where you have stated no tracker fitted on the policy I don't think you need it
I volunteer with the local police doing speed checks on a 30mph road and they do not take action unless you’re doing more than 36mph. They give the slight leeway for inadequacies on the speed gun and speedometer. Some other forces could be more but as mentioned I wouldn’t want to test those theories.
@@RedHotscot who ever is seen doing 36 or above is dealt with for that speed. If I see someone doing 35mph no action is needed. The fastest I’ve seen on a 30 in a built up area is 65mph…
Re driving other cars cover - I always check this is on my certificate of insurance . However , one thing to be aware of , and most policy booklets and/or insurance certificates are silent on this matter , is that many insurers now require that the other car is also insured in its own right . If your own documents are silent on the matter , then you could argue that there was nothing to state that you could not drive an otherwise uninsured car ( and British jurisprudence in general allows that anything is legal unless it is prohibited ) , but it is a risky matter ; especially when temporary insurance is cheap and easy to arrange . This arose for me after my daughter changed her car and the old one was left on my drive for a couple of months , during which the vehicle was not insured , before putting the car up for sale I decided to put a full year's MOT on it , so I had to take it for a test . While my own insurance , in theory , covered me to take the car to the garage , it was a very grey area , so I obtained temporary cover for one hour at a cost of something like £10 ; then again to bring the car back before putting it up for sale with a new MOT . I could , of course , have simply asked the garage to collect the car and deliver it back after the test , but that would doubtless have cost more .
AND that if you have to or more drivers covered on the same vehicle's insurance policy it is now exceptionally rare that any driver other than the named policy holder is covered to drive a vehicle belonging to someone else (with their permission). Come to that it typically MUST be the same TYPE of vehicle car / car, van /van etc.. It used to be all were covered. Now quite often no one is covered to drive other vehicles.
@@Farweasel This is true, 3 of us are named on each others policies yet only myself and my sister have DOC which neither of us really need. Naming two drivers actually reduced my renewal significantly 😂
@@Farweasel I've never seen a policy that covers *all* named drivers, to drive other vehicles. All the policies I've seen (including my own) have always stated "The *policyholder* may also drive ............................"
@@chrisb_rc "Naming two drivers actually reduced my renewal significantly" This is particularly true, in the case of a young/inexperienced policyholder. Adding a parent, or other older family member (provided they have a good driving record), will often knock quite a bit off the premium.
I’m quite surprised that people think that last one about insurance is a thing…. Car insurance is dear. Wouldn’t we all just do that if that was allowed??
The speedo on a car uses the revolutions of the road wheel to get the speed of the vehicle, tyres start life with around 8mm of tread depth and have to be changed by 1.6mm. This wear causes the speedo calibration to change over the life of a tyre, I thought this was the reason a tolerance was allowed.
The worst thing with seatbelts is when parents wear their seatbelt but don’t put the kids belts on. Children should alway be belted in for their safety.
I was not aware of the requirement in #2. This is something I need to check. I was aware that this was the case if you are insured for a business vehicle.
@@TheOriginalDaveJ It's getting harder to find. That is always the make or break clause as to whether I'll insure with someone. Very often now it's not available.
@@TheOriginalDaveJ And as long as you are over a certain age. Used to be 21, then it increased to 25 and I think it now floats between 25 and 30 depending on the insurer. No guarantee though so always good to check and check again
Always worth checking. Many years ago, I presumed that to be the case...turns out it wasn't. Always check the policy for it, and always check the renewal notices. The companies aren't averse to changing the terms (which nobody reads) and then washing their hands when it goes pear shaped.
Co-Codamol 30/500 only not allowed to drive if you become drowsy; the same with the one I don't like to take, it has some nasty side effects (including coughing up blood): Dihydrocodine Tartrate 60mg (don't recommend the 2x dose unless you like Air in your stomach)
True. But IF its a quiet day and Plod runs your number through & sees you don't have an MoT expect to be stopped so best be sure its going to PASS the MoT.
@@nidgem7171 It doesn't have to pass the MoT. You can still drive it to an MoT station and back without MoT just as long as the fail isn't for something dangerous and you still have the current MoT certificate.
There is also no restriction on how far away the pre-booked MoT test [station] happens to be. [If one has to go to Court] Also, one can make a 'reasonable' deviation of route for things like, fule, sustenance, etc. This allows for the possibility of not being able to obtain an MoT booking at the time, at one's nearest test centre, as an example. Plus, one can drive without the vehicle having been issued with a registration number. The same provisos apply as above. In all circumstances, however, one must have current. valid insurance for that vehicle..and the MoT or test must be pre-booked. This rule also applies if the MoT tester requires one to take one's vehicle to a public weighbridge for weighing, so that the tester can calibrate their brake testing equipment.
However the vehicle must be insured but (I've heard) that some policies are not valid if the vehicle does not have an MOT. So this is something to check.
When my Girlfriend picked up her new Disability car the showroom guy told us I was also on the Insurance, a few days later when she was unable to drive due to migraine I started to drive us home instead, we were stopped no a routine traffic stop and informed that I was not insured and I was done.
@@RedHotscot You are added on the insurance and don't receive any written confirmation straight away. The guy took my details and my girlfriends at the same time then confirmed we were both on the insurance.
I think an important point to know is that with the drive any other vehicle is even if you are insured it is not normally fully comprehensive it tends to be THIRD PARTY ONLY.
With firms like temp-cover (no affiliation ) out there no excuses, I did this on my phone with the last vehicle I bought and was insured from before I’d left the location. Good to see the 10%+2 thing put to bed. This started as a recommendation during an ACPO conference I’m led to believe and grew legs with some folk taking that as this making it gospel.
One downside, which hopefully over the last decade they have resolved. I had temp cover for a weekend to collect my mum from the airport in her own car; the police then pulled me over for being a man when the car is insured for a woman. If I hadn't had a printed copy of the policy with me, they would have arrested me etc. The database their number plate recognition linked to did not have access to the Temp Cover database. This was 2011, so as I said, I hope they have resolved it. They pulled me over on Vauxhall Bridge so I had rubberneckers staring at me like a criminal as they had me out the car. Very annoying.
@@kanedaku Unless it's changed from years ago when I was a cop (which I doubt) you are required by law to carry with you, your driving licence, insurance and MOT certificate (if the vehicle requires one) when driving a vehicle. It is of course impractical so the courts and the police agreed on a seven day grace to produce your documents at a police office on issue of a 'producer' (HORT1 as it was known long ago, at least in Scotland). Not so much of an issue now as computerisation allows the update of insurance and MOT conditions to be interrogated by the PNC (Police National Computer) although I have no idea if it's even called that any longer.
@@RedHotscot I'm in England, and I've never carried my MOT certificate in my car, ever. Never been asked for it in the 20-odd years of driving either. Secondly, in 2011 their database WAS computerised, however they could not find my insurance details, so they WERE going to arrest me, as I have described. No producer offered, as their database supposedly had all details, but they backed down when I showed them the temporary insurance document (and I'm either guessing they knew that temporary policies were not on their database, or possibly he admitted it after seeing the document).
If I remember correctly, back in the 70's and 80's there was a leeway of 3% over the speed limit. This was to accommodate possible inaccuracies in the speedometer and the width of the indicator needle. However I think that the speedometer was supposed to be absolutely accurate at 30MPH. Of course I may be wrong but I never thought 10% was a thing.
No, this is not true. Speedos are allowed to over-read by 10%, but not allowed to under-read. As dashcams have GPS, therefore are more accurate than a speedo, you can compare the two readings. On my car, when the speeedo reads 32mph, the dashcam indicates 30mph, when the speedo reads 70mph, the dashcam reads ~67mph. Assuming the dashcam is accurate this shows my speedo under-reads by 3-6% depending on the actual speed, so my speedo is legal. Of course, the dashcam isn't an approved speed indicator and speeds recorded on a dashcam may or may not help in the event of legal proceedings.
The 10% was introduced due to the analogue Speedo being inaccurate, where as the digital being very accurate. Apparently it is up to police in what ever county they serve to use the 10% or not. Personally I think it is a good thing and should be standard in the UK
The speedometer can indicate up to 10% over the actual speed ( from 25mph upwards ) but never any less than the actual speed . While speedometers are required to begin registering 'something' from 15mph , there is no specification for accuracy below 25mph - this makes enforcement of speed limits below that speed very questionable indeed and renders 20 mph limits advisory at best .
@@derekheeps8012 Where on earth do you get this rubbish from? What is the allowance for speedometer tolerances in a minimum speed limit? Exactly the same as it is in a maximum speed limit.
@@laceandwhisky why would a digital display speedo with a mechanical source (eg gearbox drive) be any more accurate than an analogue speedo? They both rely on the mechanical activity of the car.
Regards speeding, and your speedo on your vehicle. If you change the wheel and tyre ratio on you vehicle and you don't follow the recommended tyre sizes for bigger wheels it will throw the accuracy of your speedo out.
@@stevesmith7530 one of the reason I keep mine as standard now. Had bigger wheels put on professionally buy a reputable company that took care of everything. Told my insurance company but they said the wheels would no longer be covered in any loses if the car was stolen. So I keep it original now. Less headache.
@@265Gunner it also means you're not struggling uphill with an overgeared motor, straining the drive train, or over-revving an undergeared motor. I see the first two all the time in the off road community, for what is practically zero gain in the real world, its just the image.
@@stevesmith7530 I'm interested to understand what particular regulation that 'offence' falls under. The fact is, putting on different wheel/tyre combinations is not the same as maliciously tampering with your speedometer. Not that the police or courts care whether you screw up your speedo, it's only yourself you are kidding. If you're speeding, you're speeding no matter what your speedo says. I never checked an offenders speedo in my career. As for notifying your insurer, some insurers might not demand it.
Any one in UK who thinks mot is a waste of time should watch some of the u tube sites from America , just came in, the client says, and look at the condition of some of the vehicles on American roads, because there is no national law on vehicle road worthy 😂🤣 but happy to be told otherwise by someone from USA
another one to watch out for is driving over the mileage limit set by your insurance. I have sort of fallen foul of this my self - thankfully I wasn't charged but I was told I had to renegotiate the terms of my insurance. I had driven 70k miles that year for work, but my insurance covered me for only 50k. As the car and insurance were both arranged through my employer it was tricky to sort out, and both them and I were responsible according to the police/insurance company. That being said one way to LOWER the cost of your insurance is to talk to them about your mileage, now im disabled and retired my mileage is less than 5k per year - and I saved about 20% by limiting my mileage on my insurance to less than 10k.
we have never had a problem with that, we have two cars and because of corona and the home office the milage halved, so we emailed the insurance company and adjusted the limit to 4000 miles, we called to ask about exceeding the limit and he said no problem if you do more than 4000 we just move you into the next level next year and visa versa
Unless it is a limited mileage classic car policy , where you agree your mileage up front , normal policies can only ask you to ESTIMATE the mileage you will cover , and cannot penalise you if the estimate is off .
My LV= insurance covers me to drive any other vehicle TPO but - very usefully - gives me fully comprehensive insurance on any car loaned to me by a garage working on my own car. They also give my wife (who is a named driver on my policy) fully comprehensive insurance on that loan car too. I checked! However if our classic car (insured with another company) is in for work any loan car is TPO on my daily driver insurance. Classic car insurance doesn’t seem to give fully comprehensive (or even TPO) insurance on other cars. Don’t know why…
No , it is valid for a year , and any defects found on the date of the test can be reported to DVSA and the station will be required to explain how a pass was issued .
@@derekheeps8012 I didn't say it was invalid, I said it was worthless because a fault can appear the minute you drive it that MIGHT make the car unsafe to drive. You cannot drive around with a known fault and say it was OK as it passed an MOT 3 months ago.
Great, interesting video. I was most surprised by the ridiculous idea that people think their insurance is valid if they stop paying for it. What do they think is the situation if they stop paying for their PCP? It is the same! Also, trying to convince people that their insurance doesn't necessarily cover third-party driving someone else's car is ridiculously difficult to do. No one believes this.
Until 2015 as long as you possesed a certificate, you were insured. The law required the returning of cancelled certificates, and to not do so was an offence.
If you not now Wiring a seatbelt these days with the way people drive you must be very brave myself I’ve had a couple of minor accidents in the past because of someone else’s bad driving and because we had our seatbelt on we walked away with just a few bruises
Didnt realise that my fully comp insurance does not cover me for another vehilce as 3rd party basis. last time i had to do so i checked and was covered but may not be now as i am with a different insurance company
A further caution is that, 'Driving Any Other Vehicle' hasn't existed - apart from some rare policy exemptions - for decades. My original policies in the eighties covered me to drive any VEHICLE that I was licensed to drive. This cover was gradually brought down to, " Any Car Or Motorcycle " and then finally, " Any Car ". Car Cover (DOC) also doesn't generally include vans or pickup trucks but would cover SUV's.
Love your channel & vids.. But.. 6min50sec you say the need to provide documents under 163 of Road traffic act. NO. 163 - Police have power to stop a person driving a vehicle etc. Obtaining details/documents comes under Section 165. Keep it up.. . . . . P.S. I am subscribed 😊
The one about driving other peoples vehicle surprised me. I checked I'm OK. One question which arose recently for me was the question of child seats in taxi's. Am I permitted to take a child in a taxi without a seat? I wouldn't want to normally but when absolutely necessary for the child's welbeing ?
I use cruise to maintain my speed at the limit - when conditions permit. (Not sure why, my cruise needs to be set at 31 for 30, and +1 for all other speeds. Maybe for countries where the rule is stricter). I use the cars own speedometer, referenced with my satnav and the occasional roadside indicator to ensure my cruise is set correctly. SO MANY other drivers tailgate me, seeming angered that I am not travelling at 35 etcetera, I'm guessing, which I in turn find very aggravating.
I drive with the cruise control in my vehicle set to 32mph (and +2 for other speeds), whereupon my satnav shows 30 and the warning signs on the lamp posts show 29. I think all inbuilt speedos register a higher than actual value so that the manufacturer won't be sued if a driver is prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit when the speedo showed that he was at or below the limit. Better to drive at an indicated 30 and an actual 29 rather than an indicated 30 and actual 31 (or whatever).
@@stuartofblyth Since the car detects the speed by how fast the wheels turn small variations in tyre size, which will change due to ambaint pressure, temperature tyre wear and just manufacturing tolerances a car's speedometer just can't be that acurate. If they wanted something acurate they'd probably have to go with something like a scaled up computer mouse.
In the UK, the Regs say a speedometer can over read by 110% +6.25 mph, but NEVER under read. So at 30, it can show between 30 and 39.25. At 70, between 70 and 83.25. Stops the manufacturer being sued, and basically gives no excuse when clocked.
How can people believe that last myth, that simply having an insurance certificate is enough? Is it not plain and simple common sense that the certificate is no longer valid if you cancel the insurance policy?
Because it used to be the case . Another change is that insurers seem now to be able to summarily cancel cover without giving any notice . It always used to be the case that they had to give written notice of 10 or 14 days before cancelling : this was because the insured party may be travelling away from home , with their car , and unaware that their insurance had been cancelled . There is now a presumption that everyone has access to email etc , even whilst on holiday and , although patently not true for many , that an email sent to the insured party is all that is required . I still know a couple of elderly people who don't have computers , smartphones or even an email account .
I guess legitimate expectation is no defence re the 10%+2mph limit on the basis that it is a criminal matter? Or can you challenge the CPS decision to prosecute that way?
Might be a silly question, but you describe failure to wear a seat belt as a criminal offence. If I was asked by, say, an employer, if I had a criminal record, would I have to declare speeding offences etc. Hypothetical , obviously.
Speeding is a fixed penalty offence these days, unless it's considered dangerous in which case it can be included as a factor. If driving isn't part of your job description, why would it concern them anyway?
none of these came as a surprise to me, but maybe that's because I'm a senior citizen with 50 years experience behind the wheel and posses a good deal of nous, sadly lacking in far too many folk these days 🙂
The unfortunate thing is that when laws are changed, people are not automatically informed. So while common sense is good, there can be plenty that has changed legally in the last 50 years of motoring law; maybe have a read of the latest highway code too.
Absolute 0 on speed limiting is absolute 0 logic. It's nearly impossible to achieve that. Not only do speedos show inaccurate speed out of the factory, but even if you calibrate it to perfect 0 inaccuracy, it will work only for some time, enough to get tyres a bit more worn and you lose your absolute zero.
@@paulcollyer801 your suggestion is just makes no sense. I have two sets of wheels, winter and summer. Different size, different tyre diameter. So watch time I replacing them also need to calibrate my speedo? Not even going to do so. I'mhappy to drive as it is and within all the time I drive without doing so in many countries, never got ticket. Probably everyone understands that the absolute zero is just stupid idea.
Hi Daniel, number 6 you said you would need to show a receipt or garage invoice saying the repairs are done, could you not repair your car yourself as I have always repaired my own cars and made absolute sure they are roadworthy and safe for the mot.
You can, but then have to get the vehicle examined at a MOT station (not a full MOT) and get the tester to confirm the work has been completed satisfactorily.
@babboon5764 I sold my last car Feb if 2022. I drove the car 500 miles between the last mot and previous, the car was an expensive garden ornament so after 30 years of driving I finally hung up my keys for the last time. That's for now and if something happens, if the price of ubers cost more than owning my own car again I might consider buying another car. London is a very expensive place to drive so paying for an uber is normally nothing compared to parking and ulez charge payments let alone the general cost of running a car too. I think I will stay a non car family for the time being anyway
My answer to that one (lights) is 'Oh, thanks, i checked them this morning, got a set in the boot wanna hang around while i swap it?' normally bit busy for that....:-) You'd have a bit of bother with much else but a litre of water for screen as well. But take a look around weekly, fix stuff before mot, not just for it
Not mot is like a £300 fine. But no insurance is 6points and a fine. Surely having a mot is a lot more important then insurance. I think the punishments should be swapped between mot & non-insurance. That is just my opinion
Not having an MOT may or may not mean anything in terms of the condition of your car, it might be fine just not checked. Worst that can happen is it costs you to put it right, driving it in an unsafe condition is a separate thing & can carry way bigger penalties. No insurance matters in the event of an accident, it's serious because that wrecked school bus & the compensation for the injured & killed kids falls on the driver, so the driver better have insurance to cover paying it out. So no, they have it exactly the right way round.
To be honest I can't believe that in the UK a driver can be on the road without their driving licence, it is an offence here in NZ to not be able to produce it immediately if the police request it. While insurance is not compulsory here, (something else I struggle with), but it is not necessary to carry the vehicles registration or WoF certificate (road tax and MoT) as the police and parking officers have access to Motochek which will provide all the relevant information. My device scans the bar code on the licence label or I can type in the plate number to access the relevant information.
Believe it - because it is true . Police can access your licence details at the roadside , including the photo , so there is arguably no need for it , but they can still issue you a HO/RT-1 requiring you to produce your documents at a police office within seven days .
I was unaware of the tracking one too. I suppose that only comes into account if a tracking system is fitted. As for the drugs one, your GP, hospital doctor and chemist will advise you against driving while taking certain medication that can affect your driving ability.
i thought that was Audi drivers?? unless it's the BMW drivers who don't indicate and the Audi drivers just like to stick to your car's backside like glue? if so.. what do the the Mercedes drivers do or rather don't do? 😛
Dan, thanks for blowing these myths out of the water. It is amazing how much BS is out there. That last one is rdiculous. I know that some comprehensive policies don't automatically cover you to drive other cars so I check my policies carefully to make sure it is included. I fix other peoples' cars (family and friends only to provide me with more content for my own channel. I'm not a professional mechanic.) so having cover to drive other peoples' cars is essential for me to be driving legally.
Babies must be transported in a baby seat but what is the law if you have to collect a child and you have no seat available. As in an unexpected situation.
You don't have to produce documents under sect 163 . Sect 163 only gives the police the power to stop you they need cause under section 164 or 165 to force you to produce documents.
I think that you can only drive a third party car on your own insurance if it is actually insured in its own right as well but if you go online and log into your insurance policy you can actually temporarily change over your own insurance to another car while its being repaired if you have one on loan which gives you full comprehensive (if you have it) and third party fire and theft.
My understanding is the "Third Party" in insurance terms is the insurer, you being the second party, and an injured party (car, driver, passenger, pedestrian, property etc.) being the third party. The minimum under law is that in the event of an incident the third party is covered as a minimum requirement. In other words, if the incident is found to be your fault the first party (the insurer) will pay to recompense the injured (third) party. Fire & theft and fully comprehensive insurance are entirely at the discretion of an agreement between you and your insurance company to have your damages additionally covered. It is not a legal requirement. It has nothing to do with what car you drive.
Dan you're not obliged to produce any documents if your stopped under 163 163Power of police to stop vehicles. (1)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer]. (2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer]. (3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence. They would need either 164 / 165 then you would need to produce documents
@@paulcollyer801 under 163 just entitles the officer (in uniform) to stop you nothing else in order for him to ask you for licence insurance etc he needs to use either 164 or 165 check it out you can read it for yourself just google it
@Paul Collyer Not quite right. 164 for license, or DOB if no licence is produced. 165 requires insurance docs., name and address of driver and name and address of owner of vehicle. But basically, 163 - 165 covers all the bases.
The problem with Myth 4 is that unless you have a calibrated speedo, you can only assume the speed you are doing. Under the Construction and Use Regulations the speedo accuracy can be = actual +or-10% so at a required 30mph your speedo on a classic vehicle i.e. pre-EU directive can read 27-33mph, on an EU Directive car i.e. most modern ones the tolerance is +10, -0mph i.e. 33-30mph. It is utterly unreasonable that the law deals in absolutes here because even calibrated speedos have a tolerance and they have to be re-calibrated periodically to get somewhere close. For Chief Constables to say they will have a zero-tolerance to speeding is a nonsense. Myth 6. You do not need an MOT certificate if you own a classic motor vehicle that is exempt from road tax i.e. one that is 40+ years old. That means any vehicle built/registered before April 1982, as of today 2nd Jan 2023. So that classic Escort Mk1 RS2000 does not require an MOT (it does have to be fit for use on the road). There is no requirement to my knowledge that requires repairs to a defective vehicle to be carried out by a local garage so long as the repairs are carried out promptly i.e. you can do it yourself. I certainly wouldn't trust Halfords say, to change my wiper blades.
Your thoughts on the speedos are irrelevant. If your Speedo is reading 30 you are doing 30. The instance that it may or may not be 10% out is of no consequence
Re-myth 6 and your observations? Regardless of whether a vehicle is MoT -exempt [not on 40 Y O vehicles] it still has to be roadworthy in every respect. This is the important bit of the Law which too may people don't quite get. Re-myth 4? The C&U regs will say a speedo must not under-read. [In addition to the 10% rule, but for new cars there is a complicated formula stated, which doesn't quite work to the 10% bit..which applied to older vehicles] Therefore one only has to rely on required observation of the speedo to not exceed the speed limit. Every driver/rider has a choice. The CPO guidelines are simply that, for enforcement purposes. Let's face it, the Court system would collapse if zero tolerance is applied, and every offender elected to have their day in Court. But then, exceeding the speed limit is an entirely selfish act.
@@Bobblenob Au contraire. If your speedo is reading 30 you could be travelling at 33mph at which point you are above the speed limit. And as Dan says that is a traffic offence, hence why there has to be a tolerance in the way that the law is implemented.
@@alastairqueen7973 The reason that the Govt dropped the requirement for MOTs on the older vehicles was that the MOT became too complicated to administer and beyond the ability of the testers to attempt to administer it fairly. This is because the MOT is now beyond a mere safety check but includes emissions and a plethora of EU derived directives that could not apply to the older vehicles. The official spin was that classic cars were looked after to roadworthy standard that from what I have observed is naive BS. Most coppers are simply not qualified to make an informed and expert opinion on the road worthiness of a vehicle above the basics and then what will fail an MOT might be difficult to prosecute - I've had this conversation with a police vehicle inspector. That then leaves the situation that roadwortiness is not straight forward as it sounds.
"Under the Construction and Use Regulations the speedo accuracy can be = actual +or-10%" the reference for this would be? ECE Regulation 39 states: 5.3. The speed indicated shall not be less than the true speed of the vehicle. At the test speeds specified in paragraph 5.2.5 above, there shall be the following relationship between the speed displayed (V1) and the true speed (V2). 0 ≤ (V1 - V2) ≤ 0,1 V2 + 4 km/h It seems you're spouting bollocks
You and drive to and from a pre-arranged MOT, even if the vehicle has failed, but now the appointment must be recorded in writing with certain details. "All appointments made for vehicles without a current MOT certificate must be recorded in writing. The record must include the vehicle's registration mark (VRM), the date and time of the appointment and the name of the person making it. This record must be kept for at least 3 months after the date of the appointment."
@@RedHotscot Indeed. Your vehicle must meet the 'minimum standards of roadworthiness". So that's the full requirements of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations and Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations. It might be worth doing a video on the different requirements of the RTA, the MOT, and compliance with insurance. For example, you can have lights that are totally road legal, but for an MOT any replacement lamps must be type approved by the manufacturer. If not it's a fail, even if they're otherwise legal. And insurers may decline cover even if something is both road legal and MOT legal if they consider it to be a declarable modification. Some companies even had dash cams as notifiable mods. That must have been annoying. "See, the dash cam footage shows it wasn't my fault." "Cool, unfortunately, because you fitted the dash cam you're not insured."
@4:58 = Not a criminal offence for first time but a penalty offence which varies, then a repeat offence maybe criminal. Hope you don't mind me fine tuning there :-D
Read the label on the packet. Other than that, there are few limits. If you are affected by a paracetamol it's up to you to decide whether you are fit to drive.
@@Chris66able Cops are not employed to be nice. They have a job to do. Stopping idiots when they are speeding distracts them from catching real criminals.......
As regards driving someone else's car on your insurance. Doesn't there car have to be insured by them firstband the cover for driving theirs drops down to thrid party liability only. That's what it says on mine. Just checking if it's the same across the board
Correct cos the insurance that covers would be the one that covers that car not the second driver so logically you gotta rely on that car being insured to be used
Is it correct that if you take your car for an MOT before the expiry of the current MOT and it fails, you can't use it (other than back from the MOT) as it no longer has a current MOT.
Only if the defect is marked DANGEROUS . A new test does not affect the validity of the previous certificate which remains in force . Check online and you will find the vehicle still has a valid MOT . This is why you can take the vehicle for an early test , to have any minor defects corrected before the current certificate expires .
You can't leave keys in the car or your insurance can be cancelled automatically, my little sister was arrested for DUI while she wasn't drinking because her oldest son called the ambulance because he wanted pills we were going somewhere after a rainy,and w e fishtailed and spined out of control, and hit someone while spinning, and finally stopped, she drank the night before but it was on the breath monitor, and was arrested I almost arrested because I tried to talk to the Highway patrol officer and he told me to step back , I did I was so upset in seeing her get arrested while fatso was loaded up on the ambulance her son I hope those pills was worth it.😡🤬
She must have had a skinful the night before if it registered on the breath monitor. I assume "fatso" was a victim of your sisters drunk driving. Other than that, your post barely makes sense. Were you drunk posting?
Yes, as long as you've checked that all the details are correct, but that would apply to a paper document equally. Probably best to download it to your computer so you actually have your own copy. It just happens that I did that today as I needed my insurance policy schedule to get a resident permit. The online version didn't actually have my address on it, so I had to scan my paper copy in, which did, as the permit required this. I always get the paper copy sent through the post just in case, but as far as proving you're insured the online document is sufficient.
This one will surely catch a few drivers out, (Source=citizens advice) "The law says that you must normally have at least third party motor insurance if you drive or own a vehicle. You must also have insurance if you leave it parked on the street, on your driveway or in your garage"
If you have declared your vehicle as SORN (Statutory Off Road Notice) it does not have to be insured if it's on private land such as your driveway or garage. Obviously if you've declared SORN, you can't park it in a public place such as on the street.
NO - insurance is only required if the vehicle is used or kept on the public highway : it is NOT required if the vehicle is used or kept on private property . It is also not a requirement to have insurance , or even a driving licence , merely to OWN a vehicle - the owner is not necessarily the user or registered keeper - and in fact need not even be a person - a vehicle can be the property of a company .
You still need to have insurance, and the MOT test must be pre-booked with the test centre. (In other words, you can't just drive to the shops and if questioned say you were going to get an MOT.)
@@GodmanchesterGoblin I thought as much but it's always best to make sure. Still, isn't your insurance void without a valid MOT even in those circumstances?
Seatbelts in taxis is a huge deal. A couple of years ago I attended an RTC at 1am on New Year’s Day involving a taxi the driver was killed and both rear seat passengers not wearing seat belts suffered life altering injuries. The front seat passenger was wearing a seatbelt and pretty much walked away. Always belt up in a taxi.
As a retired taxi-driver myself I was always amazed at the number of passengers (all adults) that seemed to think that it would be me that gets the fine if they didn't belt up!
Ask Harry what he thinks about wearing seat belts
Also Princess Diana was not wearing a seat belt...
@@johnkeedwell5549 And Diana's bodyguard should have ensured she did wear her seat belt. He did and he survived - now he's even head of security at AstraZeneca.
@@mda5003 i mean you try making your rich employer wear a seatbelt i get laughed at by my sister when i wear a seatbelt try making your boss use it
I found out about #2 many years ago, and it was a bit of a shock that the company at the time had quietly removed that from my cover. It's now something I check with every policy, and I won't take a policy without it.
Re: MOT. I was on my way home from my last service, parked in a car park for something since I was already out, and there was an almighty *CLANG*. Drove right back to the garage and the guy surmised it was probably one of the suspension springs shearing. So yeah, just because it's been checked over doesn't mean it's not going to have a problem even 10 minutes later ;)
Indeed , however for a spring to be on the point of shearing , it would have exhibited serious cracking or corrosion ( unless you crashed through an almighty pothole ) . The MOT station can be in trouble if any defect is found on the date of the test , and for certain faults , such a body corrosion , for a period after the test since it can be stated that it must have been present at the time of the test .
Unfortunately there have been cases of unscrupulous garage operators swapping good components for worn ones so that firstly they can sell the good component as new to someone else (or back to the original owner) and secondly to get more business when the bad component fails. I’m not saying that this is the case here but if it is happening regularly then the local trading standards office will be interested (or at least should be)
I think the concept "its better to be sure than sorry is really true!", There are companies that will provide one or two day insurance at surprisingly affordable prices if you shop around.
Just to add to this, there is an app called cuvva.
It saved me from getting my vehicle impounded when I (due to terrible judgement) drove without insurance (helping a friend move). I got 6 points, but at least was able to drive my vehicle home.
The short-term policy would have cost me about £25, but ended up costing me around £200 through a fine
Don’t think it won’t happen to you, it was an ANPR equipped police car.
its roughly £30 a day
I couldn't even manage stairs when on tramadol, let alone drive 🤣
Tramadol Eyes is a real thing 😂 I swear I couldn't even read at times.
The last one reminds me of when my insurance was cancelled as they had not received proof of my no claims (pre everything via email days) and I had nonidea until stopped by the police one morning. The police were great with me, a quick phone call from them to my insurer showed I wasn’t lying and took out another policy on the side of the road and was allowed to continue my journey.
I now always check a couple of weeks after changing insurer to make sure they aren’t waiting for any other documentation from me so this doesn’t occur again
Exactly the same happened to me but unfortunately must have got some hard nut coppers who wouldn’t listen to anything I said. Took the car and got 6 points.
@@julianday That was unfortunate and to be honest, I was expecting the same when they said my vehicle wasn't insured. As usual, it is the luck of the draw as to what the police decide to do - as covered with the speeding element of this video.
I would've hoped that they would've seen that it wasn't you that cancelled the policy but it was an administrative / clerical error and could be rectified at the road side.
Had something similar, they just cancelled it without notice or motivation. It was only after I noticed the monthly withdrawals didn't add up to when I was insured. Luckily never got pulled over or got in any incident. Eversince I check everything at least once a month. Insurance companies, banks, utility companies, accountants, none can be trusted at face value. If they can screw you over, they will.
@@StefanVeenstra They should be held to account , but the law looks after them. They close ranks to look after their own as well. When this happened to me they ignored everything I was trying to tell them and left me miles from home.
One interesting thing this did throw into the world was the question around “Have you ever had a policy cancelled or special terms imposed?” For three years I answered yes and when explained the insurance companies changed it to no. Their choice, their decision, not mine. If anything came back then I could honestly answer with the truth that I told the truth
It's worth mentioning that even if your insurance allows you do drive someone else's vehicle with their permission, the car must also be insured by that other person, and that part of your insurance will generally only provide third-party cover even if you have a fully comprehensive policy (so you're not covered if you bend it and it's found to be your fault). Also, that vehicle must be roadworthy and with an MOT unless driving for the purpose of attending a pre-booked MOT test.
Good shout.
I've just checked my own policy, and while I wasn't surprised to see that I'm covered to drive other vehicles, I was surprised to find the clause "There must be a valid insurance policy in force for the other car you're driving."
This is almost always the case unless you are a police officer or have a trade policy
So if I don't have a car (so no insurance) I can't drive someone else's car (e.g. a hire car)?
@chrisross1703 You would need to have insurance to drive, and often that would be purchased from the hire company for the duration of the hire. However, you could insure separately if you wanted. Insurance via hire companies varies greatly in cost-effectiveness according to company and local laws, so it pays to do your research.
Always had a thing about having correct Insurance. After changing Insurance Company, I always use the ask MID database which will confirm your vehicle is insured. NB, it can take 2-3 days for your new In8surance to show on this database. So always carry a copy of your new Insurance Certificate with you in the meantime in case you get stopped by the Police for having no Insurance!
The speeding one caught me out - will stay right on the correct mph (or better still just below it) from now on. Have also checked about a medication I've been on for many years, but I take a small amount only at night and the sleepiness wears off naturally by morning, so now I know where I stand with that. Thanks! 🙂
My Sat Nav (Garmin 50), nags me with Three dings if I happen to go over the limit by1 to 2 MPH. It also warns me of any cameras, fixed or mobile.
Question for the Barrister.:
If it is deemed illegal to flash other drivers to warn them of a portable speed camera, how come Sat Navs warn you as you approach one.?
I would have thought to flash someone is helping to keep them to the speed limit for safety, not deprive the force of income in fines.
Why is the Sat Nav OK to warn you, but not other drivers.?
@@G1ZQCArtwork
BBB has dealt with this in a previous video. The answer is *YES.* ...technically. although some forces believe anything that slows drivers down (including warning about speed traps) is a good thing and would prefer to miss out on the opportunity to fine a speeder than attend a potentially fatal RTC.
@@ianl1052 Not seen it, I will have to look for it.
@@G1ZQCArtwork Read your highway code for advice on use of your horns and lights. Flashing your lights should only be done to make someone aware of your presence (other than perhaps in an emergency). I suspect a variation of this is used as a means to prosecute people flashing others to warn them of speed cameras. There were no speed cameras in my days in the police so I'm not sure if a specific offence has been created since.
It would be quite in order for a passenger in a car to wave at an oncoming driver to warn them of a speed camera. A driver might be prosecuted for not being in full control of his vehicle by removing his hands from the steering wheel to do the same.
In other words, your sat nav is doing nothing wrong warning you of a speed camera, it's doing something that breaks a different specific law which is probably the offence people are prosecuted for.
When picking my daughter up from school, yes I drive as she goes to school near her mums and I'm the other side of the city, but every time cars park on the raised pedestrian crossing. Not o ly is it dangerous, illegal but proves people are not upto date with the highway code.
As far as I'm aware you don't need an MOT certificate if travelling to and from an MOT testing station. I live in Manchester and I use one in Cornwall and one near John o'Groats.
You have to have a booking, otherwise any one caught could just lie and say they were on their way to one. In any case you're car must still be roadworthy. With regard to MOT
@@altvamp Yea I Know....... I book mine seven days in advance to give me time to get there.
Its difficult to believe that anyone thought (or thinks) the last one would be true. Even overseas students as I'm pretty sure overseas insurance works the same way as ours.
Nope is diffrent, i know in austria, providing my sister ex austrian bf was not pulling my leg.
That you insure your car and you get the reg plate from.your insurance company, then the car is insured aslong as the plate is on the car, if you dont pay its up to the insurance company to come out and get it, as long as its on your car even if you have not paid your insured, he said others in the villiage where he was from would hide their cars in the forest to stop them taking the plates back.
It was true until 2015! S147 RTA 1988 covered it in 1, 4 and 5. When you bear in mind how little attention people pay to more obvious changes in rules of the road, something as hidden as that can easily remain in the brain until it is proved wrong at the roadside.
I had a policy with Adrian Flux that didn't have the 'with the permission of the owner' qualification. I thought that would be handy if I took up a career in TWOCing.
From memory, and the law may have changed over the years, but the 'with the permission of the owner' on an insurance document is basically a reminder as, if you are caught driving someone else's car whilst you have no insurance, the owner has two choices; he either admits to allowing you to drive his car without you being insured (an offence) in which case he dobs himself in it or, he states you stole the car in which case he dobs you in it.
@@RedHotscot Yeah, I suspect there would have been a 'not stolen' bit in the T&Cs. That policy though was unusual in that it didn't exclude the Nurberg Ring. I checked that with them. They said if I wanted to take a 25 year old Defender round the track good luck with that.
It was a great policy as it also covered off-road accidents; albeit 3rd party only.
@@coachhousechambers2047 There would have been a 'Race and Rally' clause in it though, so if you did prang it on the Nurburgring they wouldn't have paid out.
I was told last year that I wasn’t able to drive friends cars on my insurance, I promptly checked my fully comp insurance again, and it says as I am requested that I am insured for any other car not belong to me. I checked because I made sure I had this inclusion five years ago when I started the insurance.
You have to check EVERY year
Same goes for Protected No Claims cover ('though that is now dilluted in cover)
And that applies even IF you stay with the SAME insurer.
You can't trust them a millimeter
A friend had a similar clause , called his insurance company to double check and then they asked him why he needed to borrow the car and after explaining they specifically refused permission!
In fact there is another situation where it is perfectly legal NOT to wear a seatbelt: if you are driving or a passenger in a classic car where no seatbelts were ever fitted (and where seatbelts have NOT been retrospectively fitted). it might not necessarily be wise but it is perfectly legal. I have owned many classic cars where there were never any seatbelts. In some you could fit some for safety but in most they were never designed with suitable anchorage points. Car seatbelts were not invented until 1946 and the modern 3 point belt was invented in 1959.
You can also remove the seatbelt when reversing and a mechanic may travel unbelted when searching for a noise in the vehicle.
How about invalid insurance due failing to keep vehicle in roadworthy condition. Small print. Note basic insurance company practice to get out of liability.
Regarding children it's 12 or over with a minimum height of 135cm, didn't realize passengers in taxies needed seat belts; What about busses, don't they come under the same rule?
I've now gone back to a insurance broker after doing my car insurance on line for years. Why? Because I can ask questions face to face about the insurance companies that they recommend. Trust no one!
Great, informative videos ie hadn’t realised all the different approaches to the law from Joe Public. Having attended a speed awareness course (not 100+ mph) realise serious implications & surprised that ignored by so many. Thanks for the info
just the one about tracking.......but none of my vehicles have trackers fitted anyway
Our cousin who emigrated to New Zealand was shocked when he found out that car insurance there isn't compulsory 😮
If it's like Aus, then the car's rego includes state-provided third-party insurance so you pay the fee and you can immediately drive off. You can then buy insurance plans to cover your own car and expenses. I think it's quite a good system, it would cut down uninsured drivers a lot and being a state-provided fixed fee for the compulsory part it would help stop the ripoff that's rampant in the car insurance industry.
Personally I believe it's ridiculous that a product is compulsory by law, but your only option for that product is from an oligopoly of providers who are rigging the market. If it's compulsory the state should provide it.
@@ricequackers Well, I always believe the reason that they get away with it is because "someone" from the state has their sticky little fingers in the the private sector pie, anything state run would be fairly price capped and under a lot more scrutiny than a private run company, if it was state run the money would circulate back into society rather than build up in a few greedy individuals bank account benefiting no one except supplying themselves with yachts and champagne, and no doubt a few back handers for you know who
There is a basic level of insurance provided by the state when you register the vehicle .
@@ricequackers One can self-insure
@@derekheeps8012 I think that only applies to Australia, not New Zealand, hopefully a Kiwi will pop along and let us know either way 🧡
10% excess
The taxi seat belt one.
The MOT one does cause some reflection because we need to remember if it's not road worthy, it's not road worthy...end of.
Section 163 of the road traffic act is only the power to stop you, it's 164 and 165 that require you to give details
I was unaware that insurance policies no longer covered you to drive other peoples vehicles. It makes it awkward when selling your vehicle privately, how is someone going to be able to test drive the vehicle if they are not covered?
The seller would have to do the driving.
There is a profliferation of companies offering cover for an hour. Which they may well use to get it home anyway. I would never let a buyer drive even if they do have other vehicles on their policy, as that is almost always limited to third party only.
short term insurance . Besides DOC ( driving other cars ) is still provided on many policies and available on request . I once had a policy which covered me fully comprehensively on ANY vehicle .
@@derekheeps8012 that i the level of cover that I had come to expect when living in the UK.
#8 > Check your Insurance covers you for your commute to your place of work, as many Policies for Social, Domestic and Pleasure do not cover this, and is now often a extra addon option to your policy!
Quite a few people don't realise that they must inform their own insurance company if they have an accident in a company vehicle, If you do not they can cancel your insurance, or worse after you have another accident they will then tell you you didn't inform them about your previous accident, and so you have invalidated your insurance, I have had quite a few accidents while working for councils for three I was not even moving, but in every case told my insurance my premium never changed and was always told thank you for information about the the accident, which thay were already aware of, ps remember all insurance companies are linked to a database, they will know through your companies insurance provider
Make sure you keep a record/recording of telling them. Just encase it is not added to your file correctly.
@@nua1234 normally i would email . never had a problem
Not aware of the tracking thing, I know if the insurer asks the question and you say it's fitted when it isn't or it's factory fitted and you don't use it that it may be an issue, but on a car with no tracker fitted or where you have stated no tracker fitted on the policy I don't think you need it
I volunteer with the local police doing speed checks on a 30mph road and they do not take action unless you’re doing more than 36mph. They give the slight leeway for inadequacies on the speed gun and speedometer. Some other forces could be more but as mentioned I wouldn’t want to test those theories.
What is the motorist charged with when doing 37mph? I presume 31mph.
@@RedHotscot who ever is seen doing 36 or above is dealt with for that speed. If I see someone doing 35mph no action is needed. The fastest I’ve seen on a 30 in a built up area is 65mph…
Re driving other cars cover - I always check this is on my certificate of insurance .
However , one thing to be aware of , and most policy booklets and/or insurance certificates are silent on this matter , is that many insurers now require that the other car is also insured in its own right .
If your own documents are silent on the matter , then you could argue that there was nothing to state that you could not drive an otherwise uninsured car ( and British jurisprudence in general allows that anything is legal unless it is prohibited ) , but it is a risky matter ; especially when temporary insurance is cheap and easy to arrange . This arose for me after my daughter changed her car and the old one was left on my drive for a couple of months , during which the vehicle was not insured , before putting the car up for sale I decided to put a full year's MOT on it , so I had to take it for a test . While my own insurance , in theory , covered me to take the car to the garage , it was a very grey area , so I obtained temporary cover for one hour at a cost of something like £10 ; then again to bring the car back before putting it up for sale with a new MOT . I could , of course , have simply asked the garage to collect the car and deliver it back after the test , but that would doubtless have cost more .
It's also worth noting that DOC extensions only give *3rd party* cover.
AND that if you have to or more drivers covered on the same vehicle's insurance policy it is now exceptionally rare that any driver other than the named policy holder is covered to drive a vehicle belonging to someone else (with their permission).
Come to that it typically MUST be the same TYPE of vehicle car / car, van /van etc..
It used to be all were covered. Now quite often no one is covered to drive other vehicles.
@@Farweasel This is true, 3 of us are named on each others policies yet only myself and my sister have DOC which neither of us really need.
Naming two drivers actually reduced my renewal significantly 😂
@@Farweasel I've never seen a policy that covers *all* named drivers, to drive other vehicles.
All the policies I've seen (including my own) have always stated "The *policyholder* may also drive ............................"
@@chrisb_rc "Naming two drivers actually reduced my renewal significantly"
This is particularly true, in the case of a young/inexperienced policyholder.
Adding a parent, or other older family member (provided they have a good driving record), will often knock quite a bit off the premium.
@@BedsitBob 35yo driving many years but didnt have own car so ncb was lost. 👍
1:00 the vehicle must also be insured by a policy holder I believe too
The other one that can catch older people out is that Car TAX doesn’t carry over to a new owner.
I’m quite surprised that people think that last one about insurance is a thing….
Car insurance is dear. Wouldn’t we all just do that if that was allowed??
The speedo on a car uses the revolutions of the road wheel to get the speed of the vehicle, tyres start life with around 8mm of tread depth and have to be changed by 1.6mm. This wear causes the speedo calibration to change over the life of a tyre, I thought this was the reason a tolerance was allowed.
The worst thing with seatbelts is when parents wear their seatbelt but don’t put the kids belts on.
Children should alway be belted in for their safety.
I was not aware of the requirement in #2. This is something I need to check. I was aware that this was the case if you are insured for a business vehicle.
Usually a fully comp policy covers you to drive any vehicle 3rd party 'with the owners permission'
@@TheOriginalDaveJ That's what I thought.
@@TheOriginalDaveJ It's getting harder to find. That is always the make or break clause as to whether I'll insure with someone. Very often now it's not available.
@@TheOriginalDaveJ And as long as you are over a certain age. Used to be 21, then it increased to 25 and I think it now floats between 25 and 30 depending on the insurer. No guarantee though so always good to check and check again
Always worth checking. Many years ago, I presumed that to be the case...turns out it wasn't. Always check the policy for it, and always check the renewal notices. The companies aren't averse to changing the terms (which nobody reads) and then washing their hands when it goes pear shaped.
Co-Codamol 30/500 only not allowed to drive if you become drowsy; the same with the one I don't like to take, it has some nasty side effects (including coughing up blood): Dihydrocodine Tartrate 60mg (don't recommend the 2x dose unless you like Air in your stomach)
You can drive it on the road without an MOT (or Road Tax), if you are taking it to a *pre-arranged* MOT.
True. But IF its a quiet day and Plod runs your number through & sees you don't have an MoT expect to be stopped so best be sure its going to PASS the MoT.
@@nidgem7171 It doesn't have to pass the MoT. You can still drive it to an MoT station and back without MoT just as long as the fail isn't for something dangerous and you still have the current MoT certificate.
There is also no restriction on how far away the pre-booked MoT test [station] happens to be. [If one has to go to Court]
Also, one can make a 'reasonable' deviation of route for things like, fule, sustenance, etc. This allows for the possibility of not being able to obtain an MoT booking at the time, at one's nearest test centre, as an example.
Plus, one can drive without the vehicle having been issued with a registration number. The same provisos apply as above. In all circumstances, however, one must have current. valid insurance for that vehicle..and the MoT or test must be pre-booked. This rule also applies if the MoT tester requires one to take one's vehicle to a public weighbridge for weighing, so that the tester can calibrate their brake testing equipment.
However the vehicle must be insured but (I've heard) that some policies are not valid if the vehicle does not have an MOT. So this is something to check.
@@stegra5960 There may be something in the small print but it would depend on just how unroadworthy is the vehicle.
Driving other cars also requires that car to be insured & that insurance is Third Party Only
Myth number 8
It’s ok to watch a CZcams video without subscribing
Sure is I don’t want people to know I get free legal advice 😎
When my Girlfriend picked up her new Disability car the showroom guy told us I was also on the Insurance, a few days later when she was unable to drive due to migraine I started to drive us home instead, we were stopped no a routine traffic stop and informed that I was not insured and I was done.
The motto being, never trust a salesman. Read your documentation.
@@RedHotscot You are added on the insurance and don't receive any written confirmation straight away. The guy took my details and my girlfriends at the same time then confirmed we were both on the insurance.
I think an important point to know is that with the drive any other vehicle is even if you are insured it is not normally fully comprehensive it tends to be THIRD PARTY ONLY.
With firms like temp-cover (no affiliation ) out there no excuses, I did this on my phone with the last vehicle I bought and was insured from before I’d left the location.
Good to see the 10%+2 thing put to bed. This started as a recommendation during an ACPO conference I’m led to believe and grew legs with some folk taking that as this making it gospel.
One downside, which hopefully over the last decade they have resolved. I had temp cover for a weekend to collect my mum from the airport in her own car; the police then pulled me over for being a man when the car is insured for a woman. If I hadn't had a printed copy of the policy with me, they would have arrested me etc. The database their number plate recognition linked to did not have access to the Temp Cover database.
This was 2011, so as I said, I hope they have resolved it. They pulled me over on Vauxhall Bridge so I had rubberneckers staring at me like a criminal as they had me out the car. Very annoying.
@@kanedaku Unless it's changed from years ago when I was a cop (which I doubt) you are required by law to carry with you, your driving licence, insurance and MOT certificate (if the vehicle requires one) when driving a vehicle. It is of course impractical so the courts and the police agreed on a seven day grace to produce your documents at a police office on issue of a 'producer' (HORT1 as it was known long ago, at least in Scotland). Not so much of an issue now as computerisation allows the update of insurance and MOT conditions to be interrogated by the PNC (Police National Computer) although I have no idea if it's even called that any longer.
@@RedHotscot I'm in England, and I've never carried my MOT certificate in my car, ever. Never been asked for it in the 20-odd years of driving either.
Secondly, in 2011 their database WAS computerised, however they could not find my insurance details, so they WERE going to arrest me, as I have described. No producer offered, as their database supposedly had all details, but they backed down when I showed them the temporary insurance document (and I'm either guessing they knew that temporary policies were not on their database, or possibly he admitted it after seeing the document).
If the 10% +2 MPH guidance is in use by some Constabularies, then how can it be a 'myth'?
If I remember correctly, back in the 70's and 80's there was a leeway of 3% over the speed limit. This was to accommodate possible inaccuracies in the speedometer and the width of the indicator needle. However I think that the speedometer was supposed to be absolutely accurate at 30MPH. Of course I may be wrong but I never thought 10% was a thing.
No, this is not true. Speedos are allowed to over-read by 10%, but not allowed to under-read. As dashcams have GPS, therefore are more accurate than a speedo, you can compare the two readings. On my car, when the speeedo reads 32mph, the dashcam indicates 30mph, when the speedo reads 70mph, the dashcam reads ~67mph. Assuming the dashcam is accurate this shows my speedo under-reads by 3-6% depending on the actual speed, so my speedo is legal. Of course, the dashcam isn't an approved speed indicator and speeds recorded on a dashcam may or may not help in the event of legal proceedings.
The 10% was introduced due to the analogue Speedo being inaccurate, where as the digital being very accurate. Apparently it is up to police in what ever county they serve to use the 10% or not. Personally I think it is a good thing and should be standard in the UK
The speedometer can indicate up to 10% over the actual speed ( from 25mph upwards ) but never any less than the actual speed . While speedometers are required to begin registering 'something' from 15mph , there is no specification for accuracy below 25mph - this makes enforcement of speed limits below that speed very questionable indeed and renders 20 mph limits advisory at best .
@@derekheeps8012 Where on earth do you get this rubbish from?
What is the allowance for speedometer tolerances in a minimum speed limit?
Exactly the same as it is in a maximum speed limit.
@@laceandwhisky why would a digital display speedo with a mechanical source (eg gearbox drive) be any more accurate than an analogue speedo? They both rely on the mechanical activity of the car.
Regards speeding, and your speedo on your vehicle. If you change the wheel and tyre ratio on you vehicle and you don't follow the recommended tyre sizes for bigger wheels it will throw the accuracy of your speedo out.
Putting your speedo out of the tolerances specified is an offence, and the change of wheel/tyre combination needs to be notified to insurers too
@@stevesmith7530 one of the reason I keep mine as standard now. Had bigger wheels put on professionally buy a reputable company that took care of everything. Told my insurance company but they said the wheels would no longer be covered in any loses if the car was stolen. So I keep it original now. Less headache.
@@265Gunner it also means you're not struggling uphill with an overgeared motor, straining the drive train, or over-revving an undergeared motor.
I see the first two all the time in the off road community, for what is practically zero gain in the real world, its just the image.
Correct , and you can also fall foul of your insurers if you fail to declare any modifications to the vehicle .
@@stevesmith7530 I'm interested to understand what particular regulation that 'offence' falls under. The fact is, putting on different wheel/tyre combinations is not the same as maliciously tampering with your speedometer. Not that the police or courts care whether you screw up your speedo, it's only yourself you are kidding. If you're speeding, you're speeding no matter what your speedo says. I never checked an offenders speedo in my career. As for notifying your insurer, some insurers might not demand it.
Any one in UK who thinks mot is a waste of time should watch some of the u tube sites from America , just came in, the client says, and look at the condition of some of the vehicles on American roads, because there is no national law on vehicle road worthy 😂🤣 but happy to be told otherwise by someone from USA
another one to watch out for is driving over the mileage limit set by your insurance. I have sort of fallen foul of this my self - thankfully I wasn't charged but I was told I had to renegotiate the terms of my insurance. I had driven 70k miles that year for work, but my insurance covered me for only 50k. As the car and insurance were both arranged through my employer it was tricky to sort out, and both them and I were responsible according to the police/insurance company.
That being said one way to LOWER the cost of your insurance is to talk to them about your mileage, now im disabled and retired my mileage is less than 5k per year - and I saved about 20% by limiting my mileage on my insurance to less than 10k.
we have never had a problem with that, we have two cars and because of corona and the home office the milage halved, so we emailed the insurance company and adjusted the limit to 4000 miles, we called to ask about exceeding the limit and he said no problem if you do more than 4000 we just move you into the next level next year and visa versa
Unless it is a limited mileage classic car policy , where you agree your mileage up front , normal policies can only ask you to ESTIMATE the mileage you will cover , and cannot penalise you if the estimate is off .
@@derekheeps8012 exactly that Derek ,we have a good insurance company ,have had them for 20 odd years
Nothing like a bit of wishful-thinking to land one in hot water.
My LV= insurance covers me to drive any other vehicle TPO but - very usefully - gives me fully comprehensive insurance on any car loaned to me by a garage working on my own car. They also give my wife (who is a named driver on my policy) fully comprehensive insurance on that loan car too. I checked!
However if our classic car (insured with another company) is in for work any loan car is TPO on my daily driver insurance. Classic car insurance doesn’t seem to give fully comprehensive (or even TPO) insurance on other cars. Don’t know why…
Classic Car insurance is different from mainstream insurance , at a much lower price and also does not build NCD .
It is important to note that the MOT is a worthless piece of paper the moment you step into the vehicle and drive away from the MOT centre.
No , it is valid for a year , and any defects found on the date of the test can be reported to DVSA and the station will be required to explain how a pass was issued .
@@derekheeps8012 I didn't say it was invalid, I said it was worthless because a fault can appear the minute you drive it that MIGHT make the car unsafe to drive. You cannot drive around with a known fault and say it was OK as it passed an MOT 3 months ago.
Great, interesting video. I was most surprised by the ridiculous idea that people think their insurance is valid if they stop paying for it. What do they think is the situation if they stop paying for their PCP? It is the same! Also, trying to convince people that their insurance doesn't necessarily cover third-party driving someone else's car is ridiculously difficult to do. No one believes this.
Until 2015 as long as you possesed a certificate, you were insured. The law required the returning of cancelled certificates, and to not do so was an offence.
If you not now Wiring a seatbelt these days with the way people drive you must be very brave myself I’ve had a couple of minor accidents in the past because of someone else’s bad driving and because we had our seatbelt on we walked away with just a few bruises
Thanks for reminding me I wasn't subscribed. I did click the sub button and the bell one. Cheers!
Didnt realise that my fully comp insurance does not cover me for another vehilce as 3rd party basis. last time i had to do so i checked and was covered but may not be now as i am with a different insurance company
A further caution is that, 'Driving Any Other Vehicle' hasn't existed - apart from some rare policy exemptions - for decades. My original policies in the eighties covered me to drive any VEHICLE that I was licensed to drive.
This cover was gradually brought down to, " Any Car Or Motorcycle " and then finally, " Any Car ".
Car Cover (DOC) also doesn't generally include vans or pickup trucks but would cover SUV's.
Love your channel & vids.. But..
6min50sec you say the need to provide documents under 163 of Road traffic act. NO.
163 - Police have power to stop a person driving a vehicle etc.
Obtaining details/documents comes under Section 165.
Keep it up..
.
.
.
.
P.S. I am subscribed 😊
The one about driving other peoples vehicle surprised me. I checked I'm OK. One question which arose recently for me was the question of child seats in taxi's. Am I permitted to take a child in a taxi without a seat? I wouldn't want to normally but when absolutely necessary for the child's welbeing ?
There is an exemption for situations where a child has to be unexpectedly transported .
I use cruise to maintain my speed at the limit - when conditions permit. (Not sure why, my cruise needs to be set at 31 for 30, and +1 for all other speeds. Maybe for countries where the rule is stricter). I use the cars own speedometer, referenced with my satnav and the occasional roadside indicator to ensure my cruise is set correctly.
SO MANY other drivers tailgate me, seeming angered that I am not travelling at 35 etcetera, I'm guessing, which I in turn find very aggravating.
They need to find a 40 road they can do 50 on
I drive with the cruise control in my vehicle set to 32mph (and +2 for other speeds), whereupon my satnav shows 30 and the warning signs on the lamp posts show 29. I think all inbuilt speedos register a higher than actual value so that the manufacturer won't be sued if a driver is prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit when the speedo showed that he was at or below the limit. Better to drive at an indicated 30 and an actual 29 rather than an indicated 30 and actual 31 (or whatever).
@@stuartofblyth Since the car detects the speed by how fast the wheels turn small variations in tyre size, which will change due to ambaint pressure, temperature tyre wear and just manufacturing tolerances a car's speedometer just can't be that acurate. If they wanted something acurate they'd probably have to go with something like a scaled up computer mouse.
I get tailgated all the time when doing the speed limit. Especially dangerous when trucks do it.
In the UK, the Regs say a speedometer can over read by 110% +6.25 mph, but NEVER under read.
So at 30, it can show between 30 and 39.25.
At 70, between 70 and 83.25.
Stops the manufacturer being sued, and basically gives no excuse when clocked.
I find it completely mind boggling that anyone would think those seven “myths” are real. They’re just common sense.
Another good one is an out of date picture on your driving licence, if it is out of date, the licence is not valid.
My sister still has her original paper licence with no photo
How can people believe that last myth, that simply having an insurance certificate is enough? Is it not plain and simple common sense that the certificate is no longer valid if you cancel the insurance policy?
But common sense ain't so common anymore. The dummies are growing in numbers.
Because it used to be the case .
Another change is that insurers seem now to be able to summarily cancel cover without giving any notice . It always used to be the case that they had to give written notice of 10 or 14 days before cancelling : this was because the insured party may be travelling away from home , with their car , and unaware that their insurance had been cancelled .
There is now a presumption that everyone has access to email etc , even whilst on holiday and , although patently not true for many , that an email sent to the insured party is all that is required . I still know a couple of elderly people who don't have computers , smartphones or even an email account .
Also lease vehicles (motability for one) you can’t drive even if you have cover to drive other vehicles
I guess legitimate expectation is no defence re the 10%+2mph limit on the basis that it is a criminal matter? Or can you challenge the CPS decision to prosecute that way?
I've always said the MOT is not worth the paper it's written on.
Paper certificates stopped when the pandemic began
If you're under 25 your chances of cover for driving over vehicles is about nil. Be aware that this will be third party only if you have this cover.
Might be a silly question, but you describe failure to wear a seat belt as a criminal offence. If I was asked by, say, an employer, if I had a criminal record, would I have to declare speeding offences etc. Hypothetical , obviously.
Speeding is a fixed penalty offence these days, unless it's considered dangerous in which case it can be included as a factor. If driving isn't part of your job description, why would it concern them anyway?
@@RedHotscot I was being picky about the difference between a 'traffic' offence and a 'criminal' offence
none of these came as a surprise to me, but maybe that's because I'm a senior citizen with 50 years experience behind the wheel and posses a good deal of nous, sadly lacking in far too many folk these days 🙂
The unfortunate thing is that when laws are changed, people are not automatically informed. So while common sense is good, there can be plenty that has changed legally in the last 50 years of motoring law; maybe have a read of the latest highway code too.
The 3rd party vehicle thing is true unless you get caught regardless as all insurance companies do not want to pay anything
Absolute 0 on speed limiting is absolute 0 logic. It's nearly impossible to achieve that. Not only do speedos show inaccurate speed out of the factory, but even if you calibrate it to perfect 0 inaccuracy, it will work only for some time, enough to get tyres a bit more worn and you lose your absolute zero.
Which is why it's a speed limit, not a speed suggestion 🤔
@@paulcollyer801 speedo calibration with new tyres every time? :)
@@The-Nil-By-Mouth it doesn't change the fact that it nearly impossible to drive that idealy. Even small factors can increase or decrease the speed.
@@paulcollyer801 with all the respect, not trying to insult you, however, read your comment till you notice how stupid it is.
@@paulcollyer801 your suggestion is just makes no sense. I have two sets of wheels, winter and summer. Different size, different tyre diameter. So watch time I replacing them also need to calibrate my speedo? Not even going to do so. I'mhappy to drive as it is and within all the time I drive without doing so in many countries, never got ticket. Probably everyone understands that the absolute zero is just stupid idea.
0:20 You need to have both Insurance and an MOT for the road to be on a road??
Hi Daniel, number 6 you said you would need to show a receipt or garage invoice saying the repairs are done, could you not repair your car yourself as I have always repaired my own cars and made absolute sure they are roadworthy and safe for the mot.
Probably not - The purpose is to make it awkward & costly for driving around with one headlight etc..
You can, but then have to get the vehicle examined at a MOT station (not a full MOT) and get the tester to confirm the work has been completed satisfactorily.
@babboon5764 I sold my last car Feb if 2022. I drove the car 500 miles between the last mot and previous, the car was an expensive garden ornament so after 30 years of driving I finally hung up my keys for the last time. That's for now and if something happens, if the price of ubers cost more than owning my own car again I might consider buying another car. London is a very expensive place to drive so paying for an uber is normally nothing compared to parking and ulez charge payments let alone the general cost of running a car too. I think I will stay a non car family for the time being anyway
You could always write out your own bill of repair.😊
My answer to that one (lights) is 'Oh, thanks, i checked them this morning, got a set in the boot wanna hang around while i swap it?' normally bit busy for that....:-)
You'd have a bit of bother with much else but a litre of water for screen as well.
But take a look around weekly, fix stuff before mot, not just for it
The taxi driver seatbelt exception sounds crazy. Why is that?
self defence and frequency of use
Can't believe people generally believe these...
Not mot is like a £300 fine. But no insurance is 6points and a fine. Surely having a mot is a lot more important then insurance. I think the punishments should be swapped between mot & non-insurance. That is just my opinion
Not having an MOT may or may not mean anything in terms of the condition of your car, it might be fine just not checked.
Worst that can happen is it costs you to put it right, driving it in an unsafe condition is a separate thing & can carry way bigger penalties.
No insurance matters in the event of an accident, it's serious because that wrecked school bus & the compensation for the injured & killed kids falls on the driver, so the driver better have insurance to cover paying it out.
So no, they have it exactly the right way round.
To be honest I can't believe that in the UK a driver can be on the road without their driving licence, it is an offence here in NZ to not be able to produce it immediately if the police request it.
While insurance is not compulsory here, (something else I struggle with), but it is not necessary to carry the vehicles registration or WoF certificate (road tax and MoT) as the police and parking officers have access to Motochek which will provide all the relevant information. My device scans the bar code on the licence label or I can type in the plate number to access the relevant information.
Believe it - because it is true . Police can access your licence details at the roadside , including the photo , so there is arguably no need for it , but they can still issue you a HO/RT-1 requiring you to produce your documents at a police office within seven days .
NO. you cannot drive without a licence. Thats why you get a provisional.
The tracking of vehicles and insurance and the anti-depressant drug limits were surprising.
I was unaware of the tracking one too. I suppose that only comes into account if a tracking system is fitted. As for the drugs one, your GP, hospital doctor and chemist will advise you against driving while taking certain medication that can affect your driving ability.
Myth 8 - BMW drivers can indicate.....😀
BMW's have indicators?
i thought that was Audi drivers?? unless it's the BMW drivers who don't indicate and the Audi drivers just like to stick to your car's backside like glue? if so.. what do the the Mercedes drivers do or rather don't do? 😛
@@insane.pringle They dont have measurable penises
Dan, thanks for blowing these myths out of the water. It is amazing how much BS is out there. That last one is rdiculous. I know that some comprehensive policies don't automatically cover you to drive other cars so I check my policies carefully to make sure it is included. I fix other peoples' cars (family and friends only to provide me with more content for my own channel. I'm not a professional mechanic.) so having cover to drive other peoples' cars is essential for me to be driving legally.
Babies must be transported in a baby seat but what is the law if you have to collect a child and you have no seat available. As in an unexpected situation.
There is an exemption for that
You don't have to produce documents under sect 163 . Sect 163 only gives the police the power to stop you they need cause under section 164 or 165 to force you to produce documents.
How do you get the car to an mot garage if the car doesnt have an mot. I thought that you could drive it to a prearranged mot?
I think that you can only drive a third party car on your own insurance if it is actually insured in its own right as well but if you go online and log into your insurance policy you can actually temporarily change over your own insurance to another car while its being repaired if you have one on loan which gives you full comprehensive (if you have it) and third party fire and theft.
My understanding is the "Third Party" in insurance terms is the insurer, you being the second party, and an injured party (car, driver, passenger, pedestrian, property etc.) being the third party. The minimum under law is that in the event of an incident the third party is covered as a minimum requirement. In other words, if the incident is found to be your fault the first party (the insurer) will pay to recompense the injured (third) party.
Fire & theft and fully comprehensive insurance are entirely at the discretion of an agreement between you and your insurance company to have your damages additionally covered. It is not a legal requirement. It has nothing to do with what car you drive.
Dan you're not obliged to produce any documents if your stopped under 163
163Power of police to stop vehicles.
(1)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer].
(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer].
(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.
They would need either 164 / 165 then you would need to produce documents
@@paulcollyer801 under 163 just entitles the officer (in uniform) to stop you nothing else in order for him to ask you for licence insurance etc he needs to use either 164 or 165 check it out you can read it for yourself just google it
@Paul Collyer Not quite right. 164 for license, or DOB if no licence is produced.
165 requires insurance docs., name and address of driver and name and address of owner of vehicle.
But basically, 163 - 165 covers all the bases.
The problem with Myth 4 is that unless you have a calibrated speedo, you can only assume the speed you are doing. Under the Construction and Use Regulations the speedo accuracy can be = actual +or-10% so at a required 30mph your speedo on a classic vehicle i.e. pre-EU directive can read 27-33mph, on an EU Directive car i.e. most modern ones the tolerance is +10, -0mph i.e. 33-30mph. It is utterly unreasonable that the law deals in absolutes here because even calibrated speedos have a tolerance and they have to be re-calibrated periodically to get somewhere close. For Chief Constables to say they will have a zero-tolerance to speeding is a nonsense.
Myth 6. You do not need an MOT certificate if you own a classic motor vehicle that is exempt from road tax i.e. one that is 40+ years old. That means any vehicle built/registered before April 1982, as of today 2nd Jan 2023. So that classic Escort Mk1 RS2000 does not require an MOT (it does have to be fit for use on the road). There is no requirement to my knowledge that requires repairs to a defective vehicle to be carried out by a local garage so long as the repairs are carried out promptly i.e. you can do it yourself. I certainly wouldn't trust Halfords say, to change my wiper blades.
Your thoughts on the speedos are irrelevant. If your Speedo is reading 30 you are doing 30. The instance that it may or may not be 10% out is of no consequence
Re-myth 6 and your observations? Regardless of whether a vehicle is MoT -exempt [not on 40 Y O vehicles] it still has to be roadworthy in every respect. This is the important bit of the Law which too may people don't quite get.
Re-myth 4? The C&U regs will say a speedo must not under-read. [In addition to the 10% rule, but for new cars there is a complicated formula stated, which doesn't quite work to the 10% bit..which applied to older vehicles]
Therefore one only has to rely on required observation of the speedo to not exceed the speed limit.
Every driver/rider has a choice. The CPO guidelines are simply that, for enforcement purposes. Let's face it, the Court system would collapse if zero tolerance is applied, and every offender elected to have their day in Court. But then, exceeding the speed limit is an entirely selfish act.
@@Bobblenob Au contraire. If your speedo is reading 30 you could be travelling at 33mph at which point you are above the speed limit. And as Dan says that is a traffic offence, hence why there has to be a tolerance in the way that the law is implemented.
@@alastairqueen7973 The reason that the Govt dropped the requirement for MOTs on the older vehicles was that the MOT became too complicated to administer and beyond the ability of the testers to attempt to administer it fairly. This is because the MOT is now beyond a mere safety check but includes emissions and a plethora of EU derived directives that could not apply to the older vehicles. The official spin was that classic cars were looked after to roadworthy standard that from what I have observed is naive BS.
Most coppers are simply not qualified to make an informed and expert opinion on the road worthiness of a vehicle above the basics and then what will fail an MOT might be difficult to prosecute - I've had this conversation with a police vehicle inspector. That then leaves the situation that roadwortiness is not straight forward as it sounds.
"Under the Construction and Use Regulations the speedo accuracy can be = actual +or-10%" the reference for this would be? ECE Regulation 39 states:
5.3. The speed indicated shall not be less than the true speed of the vehicle. At the test speeds specified
in paragraph 5.2.5 above, there shall be the following relationship between the speed displayed (V1)
and the true speed (V2).
0 ≤ (V1 - V2) ≤ 0,1 V2 + 4 km/h
It seems you're spouting bollocks
You and drive to and from a pre-arranged MOT, even if the vehicle has failed, but now the appointment must be recorded in writing with certain details.
"All appointments made for vehicles without a current MOT certificate must be recorded in writing. The record must include the vehicle's registration mark (VRM), the date and time of the appointment and the name of the person making it. This record must be kept for at least 3 months after the date of the appointment."
You can't drive anything on the road in a dangerous condition e.g. no brakes, whether to or from an MOT test.
@@RedHotscot Indeed. Your vehicle must meet the 'minimum standards of roadworthiness". So that's the full requirements of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations and Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations.
It might be worth doing a video on the different requirements of the RTA, the MOT, and compliance with insurance.
For example, you can have lights that are totally road legal, but for an MOT any replacement lamps must be type approved by the manufacturer. If not it's a fail, even if they're otherwise legal. And insurers may decline cover even if something is both road legal and MOT legal if they consider it to be a declarable modification.
Some companies even had dash cams as notifiable mods. That must have been annoying. "See, the dash cam footage shows it wasn't my fault." "Cool, unfortunately, because you fitted the dash cam you're not insured."
@@KravKernow Oh I posted that under my civvy account. In any event, it's just a comment not legal advice!
Nothing new in that , has been the case for years .
@@RedHotscot obviously
@4:58 = Not a criminal offence for first time but a penalty offence which varies, then a repeat offence maybe criminal. Hope you don't mind me fine tuning there :-D
Hi, where would one find the limits of quantities of legal drugs?
Read the label on the packet. Other than that, there are few limits. If you are affected by a paracetamol it's up to you to decide whether you are fit to drive.
I knew them all. However I didn’t know until you mentioned it a few eeeks ago - you have to dismount a bicycle on a Zebra crossing.
It was taught as part of the course for the National Cycling Proficiency test .
A friend who was traffic police said the first test drivers had to pass was the Attitude Test. Failing this could seriously ruin one's day.
That's a bit rich considering the vile attitude some Coppers have.
@@Chris66able Cops are not employed to be nice. They have a job to do. Stopping idiots when they are speeding distracts them from catching real criminals.......
@@RedHotscot They are, they are meant to conduct themselves in a professional manner, most don't..As for catching real criminals that's hilarious !
As regards driving someone else's car on your insurance. Doesn't there car have to be insured by them firstband the cover for driving theirs drops down to thrid party liability only. That's what it says on mine. Just checking if it's the same across the board
Correct cos the insurance that covers would be the one that covers that car not the second driver so logically you gotta rely on that car being insured to be used
It depends on the terms of your policy - some insurers require this - others don't .
@@derekheeps8012 nope
You can also drive without an MOT or tax if the car is registered as Historic. Must be insured and roadworthy though.
You still have to apply for road tax, even thou it's free! If you don't, it will invalidate your insurance!
@@terrystratford1235 yes , forgot to add that.
Good point.
Is it correct that if you take your car for an MOT before the expiry of the current MOT and it fails, you can't use it (other than back from the MOT) as it no longer has a current MOT.
yes
Yes
Only if the defect is marked DANGEROUS . A new test does not affect the validity of the previous certificate which remains in force . Check online and you will find the vehicle still has a valid MOT . This is why you can take the vehicle for an early test , to have any minor defects corrected before the current certificate expires .
You can't leave keys in the car or your insurance can be cancelled automatically, my little sister was arrested for DUI while she wasn't drinking because her oldest son called the ambulance because he wanted pills we were going somewhere after a rainy,and w e fishtailed and spined out of control, and hit someone while spinning, and finally stopped, she drank the night before but it was on the breath monitor, and was arrested I almost arrested because I tried to talk to the Highway patrol officer and he told me to step back , I did I was so upset in seeing her get arrested while fatso was loaded up on the ambulance her son I hope those pills was worth it.😡🤬
She must have had a skinful the night before if it registered on the breath monitor. I assume "fatso" was a victim of your sisters drunk driving. Other than that, your post barely makes sense. Were you drunk posting?
Is an online insurance document valid
Yes, as long as you've checked that all the details are correct, but that would apply to a paper document equally. Probably best to download it to your computer so you actually have your own copy. It just happens that I did that today as I needed my insurance policy schedule to get a resident permit. The online version didn't actually have my address on it, so I had to scan my paper copy in, which did, as the permit required this. I always get the paper copy sent through the post just in case, but as far as proving you're insured the online document is sufficient.
The insurance for cars have changed a lot they are after for more money to the ripped off motorist
With my policy i can drive other peoples cars, as long as their car is insured, and i'm then only covered 3rd party.
No car is insured. It is only drivers who are insured.
This one will surely catch a few drivers out, (Source=citizens advice) "The law says that you must normally have at least third party motor insurance if you drive or own a vehicle. You must also have insurance if you leave it parked on the street, on your driveway or in your garage"
If you have declared your vehicle as SORN (Statutory Off Road Notice) it does not have to be insured if it's on private land such as your driveway or garage. Obviously if you've declared SORN, you can't park it in a public place such as on the street.
NO - insurance is only required if the vehicle is used or kept on the public highway : it is NOT required if the vehicle is used or kept on private property . It is also not a requirement to have insurance , or even a driving licence , merely to OWN a vehicle - the owner is not necessarily the user or registered keeper - and in fact need not even be a person - a vehicle can be the property of a company .
@@nickhirst999 A vehicle can be kept off road without SORN if it has never been licensed since the SORN system began - it is exempt .
What about driving to get an MOT if your current MOT has expired?
You still need to have insurance, and the MOT test must be pre-booked with the test centre. (In other words, you can't just drive to the shops and if questioned say you were going to get an MOT.)
@@GodmanchesterGoblin I thought as much but it's always best to make sure. Still, isn't your insurance void without a valid MOT even in those circumstances?
@@RawPhoenix To be honest, I would need to check.
Can you still drive without insurance if you are secured against third party claims with deposit of a some of money at the supreme court
You can self insure if you have the means
@@derekheeps8012 no. it was repealed.