were saying :
Yes, I do. It's criminals who see no problem in breaking the law.
No, the only thing that matters is whether they are the sort of person who will drive without insurance. That is a serious offence. Many people on low incomes will not do that. Many people with sufficient incomes will.
Didn't do it very well, did you?
Gladly.
As is your further propensity for not reading replies to your posts then bullpooting that they've never been made.
Doesn't it just?
You really should stop talking to yourself, y'know.
So he can't afford to drive. Time for the bicycle. What other costs of driving is he skimping on? Servicing? MOT? Tyres? Brakes?
Depends how badly I need to use it. But I will never drive without insurance.
Because, of course, only brand new cars are lower than group 11.
Does that affect whether he can afford to run it?
Of course it will.
Run some online quotes comparing the premium for a group 11 car (such as an Origami 216) and a group 1 or 2 car (such as an original Fiat Panda or a Ka or a Renault 4)
Sorry - I should have said why people drive without insurance. Honest people don't pay insurance, but don't drive.
BBC1 Traffic Cops 48I'll get around to replying to the rest when I have more time, but this bit made me laugh *so* much, I...
"Far many other factors"? Yes, having a poo driving record is one of the biggest.
It's what puts premius up.
Like people with a pooload of claims?
The truth is unfair?
Simple. Put the premiums up.
The whole proposal doesn't make sense.
They've not had insurance to claim against, therefore they can't HAVE any NCD. Because they haven't proved themselves to be competent, safe and low- risk.
Like your mate with his Rover. But that's, apparently, unfair because he can't afford it.
