Two Million And Rising

[Ianto.W.]

Originally Posted by steeljack

Are you trying to stir things up ???

he probably drives like he's steering a ship , sail before steam and all that

As we say in Yorkshire where I come from steeljack, "Im carring quiet" jambuttys gone to bed, and he stirred the pot well on this and the gay adoption thread, and he's a crammed beggar in the mornings

[chav1]

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

Thats probably to get rid of drivers steeljack was refering to, just joking jambutty keep those torpedoes stowed Seriously chav if you tried to do 60 through the trough you would certainly finish up in it.

lol if you can get to 60 because of fallen trees in teh way that is i had to shift 2 last week at 3 am in the mornig just to get past

got to admit though there are soem dollopers drive along the country roads at 15 mph and suddenly find teh accelorator when after 5 miles eventualy an overtaking oprtunity appears

[WillowTheWhisp]

The people who drive without tax tend to drive without MOT and insurance too. The threat to crush is there - it shoulf be followed through. Show them you mean business and let the rest of the law abiding drivers live in peace.

It's not always practical to 'car share' - what if you work for a small firm and there's only you travelling to it from where you live? What if you work odd hours? There may be other peole going to other jobs in the same direction but would an 8am to 4pm worker and a 9am to 5pm worker each want to add an extra hour to their working day in order to share transport? It's not practical to say sharing your car must be made compulsory.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by ***Mr D***

I would agree with you.

You can Get it.

http://www.eandl.co.uk/insurance/cycle

Is that 3rd party though or only for the bike itself?

[***Mr D***]

Originally Posted by Neil

Is that 3rd party though or only for the bike itself?

That would cover both.

If you click the link, click on Cycle Insurance under Rates & Premiums.

At the Top click Policy Summary, that lists all the covers provided.

It also includes replacement Hire, Recovery, Personal Accident - (be it only slight cover)

[Ianto.W.]

WillowTheWhisp, It's not practical to say sharing your car must be made compulsory.

Just got out of bed willow, i'll think of an answer when i've had another brew. Hang on a second, something has got to be done there are far to many status symbols on the road, what's wrong with walking and catching a bus/train,? that is what I did when I was working and still do now i'm not, to many folk have cars they do not need. Now i'm going to make my second brew.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by jambutty

I don’t know because my car is a Motability lease vehicle and it comes with tax and insurance paid........ When I returned my last car in April 2006 it had done 4,500 miles in 3 years and never been faster than 60 mph.

Motability is something else that needs major reform.

Why should you be given a car with free tax and insurance?
Why should it be replaced after only 4,500 miles?


As for your calculations on tax on fuel. Where do you get 35mpg from? My car is good for 45mpg. More if you sit at 60mph on the motorway.

I can agree, I think on the road tax on fuel.
The insurance on fuel is a daft idea. I could have as many crashes as I wanted and not have to worry about insurance. 17 year old lads could drive around in sports cars killing themselves and others.

The only nice thing about the whole idea is that I could have a car for each day of the week

Originally Posted by jambutty

Would you rather have your car damaged by a vehicle that does not have an MOT or one without insurance? If third party insurance was included in the cost of fuel you could make a claim.

Another confused statement by you. A condition of your insurance is that it is taxed and holds a current MOT. So no MOT means no insurance.

While we are talking about MOT's all cars should have one every year. This silly idea of not MOTing a new car for 3 years is stupid. You did 4,500 miles in 3 years. I was talking to a service engineer yesterday who does 90,000miles in 3 years.

90,000 miles with no MOT, daft isn't it?

[Ianto.W.]

There is going to be Torpedoes flying about left right and centre today ,I can't wait

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

There is going to be Torpedoes flying about left right and centre today ,I can't wait

Are you going to the meet tonight? If you are, I will bring you a new wooden spoon, you must have worn your old one out by now.

[***Mr D***]

Originally Posted by Ianto.W.

There is going to be Torpedoes flying about left right and centre today ,I can't wait

Did you serve time aboard a Sub? there seem to be a lot of torpedoes mentioned.

Motability is something else that needs major reform.

Why should you be given a car with free tax and insurance?
Why should it be replaced after only 4,500 miles?

Agree with you on this one, I bet a few mobility vehicle arnt even need by the person they are provided for.

As for your calculations on tax on fuel. Where do you get 35mpg from? My car is good for 45mpg. More if you sit at 60mph on the motorway.

Not bad, I only manage 35mpg on a motorway at a steady speed, round town more like 20mpg.

The insurance on fuel is a daft idea. I could have as many crashes as I wanted and not have to worry about insurance. 17 year old lads could drive around in sports cars killing themselves and others.

The only nice thing about the whole idea is that I could have a car for each day of the week

Totally daft, would never happen, who would underwrite such a risk. Any Car, any driver. the increase per gallon would have to be high.

To insure a car for one day would probably cost a average of £10.00 - 365 x 10 = £3650.00. on a none annual contract basis.

This would also undo all the work the industry is putting in a the moment with the MID. (Motor Insurance Database).

[harwood red]

just a note, anyone who has a motibility car is giving up their cash amount of £43.35 per week that is paid for their Disability living allowance high mobility rate so that is getting on for over £170 a month so I think that does help cover alot of the costs of the car

[jambutty]

he probably drives like he's steering a ship , sail before steam and all that

If that’s the best that you can do steeljack, then God help America. Oh! I get it! A lame attempt at taking the micky. It’s rather sad when someone doesn’t have the nous to take part in a serious discussion and can only resort to stupid remarks.

I’m not a crammed begger in the morning Ianto.W. Whatever gave you that idea?

I agree with WillowTheWhisp that car sharing is not the be all and end all solution primarily because many people have no option but to drive their car on their own. I’m one for a start. Do the advocates of car sharing suggest that I find me a passenger every time that I go out? Come on! Get real!

It is not the Motability car leasing scheme that needs reforming Neil it is the government department that hands out the Disability Living Allowance to anyone with athletes foot and worse. Or at least they used to. Things have tightened up a lot in recent years.

The Motability car leasing scheme enables people who qualify to be independent in their mobility. Would you deny someone that independence?

To qualify for the higher rate of DLA the applicant has to demonstrate severe walking difficulties. These are generally seen to be experiencing pain whilst walking or not being able to walk at all (like a lower limb amputee) or needing the assistance of someone else to walk. The distance is generally seen as about 50 yards. I think that there is also an age limit on first qualifying for DLA. Thus a 90 years old crippled with arthritis and barely able to stand let alone walk would not qualify for DLA. But I don’t know what that age limit is. To qualify for DLA an applicant has to go thorough medical tests as well as getting corroboration of their condition from their own doctor not just on the application form but also on an independent form that is sent to the doctor.

The Motability scheme allows recipients of the higher rate of DLA to use some or all of the 4 weekly allowance to lease a car and if they are prepared to they can add their own money to the allowance to lease a car that costs more than the full allowance.

The car is not replaced after 4,500 miles or any mileage. Now that is a stupid conclusion to come to Neil. The lease lasts for 3 years although there is a total mileage limit of 60,000 miles, I think it is. Anything above that amount incurs an extra charge per mile that has to be paid at the end of the lease. Like any car that is leased it comes taxed and insured, so we are not getting them FREE. They are paid for in the lease fee.

Your comments on insurance Neil do highlight a problem with multiple claims against one person. But as I have stated before, problems are there to be solved and not just dismissed out of hand and called daft. At least having a ‘daft’ idea is better than not having any ideas at all and just knocking other people’s attempts at finding a solution. In any case a so called ‘daft’ idea can and often does trigger a train of thought in someone else to come up with a different idea.

You seem intent on trying to put down my suggestions Neil but if you read my post carefully you will note or you should note that my calculations were just an example based on a countrywide average. In any average figure there will be highs and lows.

It seems that things have changed since the last time that I bought car insurance. Then I did not have to produce an MOT certificate to insure my car. I had to produce a valid MOT and Insurance to tax it though. Maybe you are getting confused in that if an insured car does not have a current valid MOT and a claim is made against it the insurance becomes invalid. The same would apply if it isn’t taxed.

When the MOT was first brought in the cars of the day were nowhere near as reliable as they are today. For a start off they had starting handles to crank the engine if the starter didn’t do its stuff. Nowadays you can get a manufacturer’s warranty for SEVEN YEARS.

However your argument that all cars should have an MOT after one year has some merit, although I would base the criterion for needing an MOT to be based on mileage AND time. I would suggest that a new car would need an MOT after 50,000 miles or three years whichever come first and thereafter at 10,000 miles intervals or one year, again whichever comes first.

Sorry to disappoint you Ianto.W. but the MOD won’t give me any more torpedoes. I’ll just have to use words instead.

It’s not only subs that have torpedoes ***Mr D***. Destroyers, Cruisers and even Battleships had torpedoes and not forgetting Motor Torpedo Boats better known as MTB’s. I don’t think that modern warships have torpedoes any more. With missiles they don’t need them.

Good win by the Rovers!

[tadah]

Yawn Yawn Yawn!

[jambutty]

If this thread is that boring, why do you read it tadah?

Or is this yet another puerile attempt to belittle a serious discussion?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by jambutty

It is not the Motability car leasing scheme that needs reforming Neil it is the government department that hands out the Disability Living Allowance to anyone with athletes foot and worse.

Yep that's what I meant, I know people who have received it when they should not. Ie a woman who supposedly could not walk very far who worked behind a bar in a pub

Originally Posted by jambutty

The car is not replaced after 4,500 miles or any mileage. Now that is a stupid conclusion to come to Neil. The lease lasts for 3 years although there is a total mileage limit of 60,000 miles, I think it is.

I now you meant 3 years, it just seems a waste of money to be replacing it after so little use. Pushing the lease to 6 years or 60,000 miles would make the lease cheaper and cost the government less money.

Originally Posted by jambutty

Maybe you are getting confused in that if an insured car does not have a current valid MOT and a claim is made against it the insurance becomes invalid. The same would apply if it isn’t taxed.

It means the same thing, no MOT or tax = no insurance.
When people are fined for not having tax or a valid MOT, they should also be fined for having no insurance.

Originally Posted by jambutty

However your argument that all cars should have an MOT after one year has some merit, although I would base the criterion for needing an MOT to be based on mileage AND time. I would suggest that a new car would need an MOT after 50,000 miles or three years whichever come first and thereafter at 10,000 miles intervals or one year, again whichever comes first.

Your 3 year old car could have as many defects as my 9 year old car. Lamps could be blown, tyres damaged, premature bearing failure etc etc etc.