AIBU to think the uninsured cars that are seized shouldn't be crushed?

[LividofLondon]

I'm not necessarily anti the owners losing them, but I think it's a dreadful waste for the cars to be crushed, and think they should be sold instead. The proceeds of the sales could then be used for good causes. I just really hate waste and although the metal can be recycled, what about the seats and plastic interior; what happens to all that?

I think a lot (most) of uninsured cars are pretty old and crap anyway.

I can see why it's best to scrap most of them.

Ah, OK, I did wonder if they were crushed because they had more value that way. But I've just seen some nice looking cars being crushed on my local news and thought "Noooo, sell them instead!". Of course they could have looked OK but been absolute duds I suppose.

I think they should be crushed and the metal sold for scrap with the proceeds being donated to the ABI to start a fund that divers the cost of Uninsured drivers, instead of the cost being passed onto those drivers who do pay for insurance.
I don't think the cars should be sold (unless they have a very high value) because the cost of storing them whilst they are waiting to be sold would be quite high and some of the owners would try to get the cars back by whatever loopholes there are in the current system.

'Covers the cost' (not divers)

Just because a car looks nice it doesn't mean it is. Years ago I went into the back of an Audi A6. My Fiesta was written off but there was minimal damage to the Audi. The driver of the Audi was arrested for drink driving, when the police phoned to update me a few days later, they told me the car had been siezed and was going to be crushed as it wasn't roadworthy.

I thought they sold some of them off at police auctions (the decent ones)

I'm against owners losing the cars. taking someone's personal property and destroying it doesn't sit right with me even if they didn't have insurance. Fine them for the insurance amount and maker thm get insurance instead

That's what they do but if the owners don't get insurance and claim the vehicle back then it will be disposed of. Sometimes the cost of insurance is greater than the value. But the owner does have the opportunity.

Karsyn- why should they get off so lightly? If they knock over and seriously injure a child whilst driving an uninsured vehicle who pays the compensation?
Every insured driver is paying around £50 extra each year on their premium to cover uninsured drivers so why should they just get a small fine and be told to get insurance?
There is no excuse for driving without insurance.
They know the rules and risks of not having insurance before they get in the cars and drive them uninsured.

I think the problem is uninsured cars pretty much by definition have not been regularly MOTd. So they could have been in serious accidents, or be 'cut and shuts', or have had dodgy parts fitted, etc.

I totally get where you're coming from - I hate waste too - but from a safety pov it's probably better to scrap them and get the value that way.

Karsyn - let's hope it's not you, your child, or your car they hit, eh

because of the endless push to buy new cars, most people in the UK have fallen for the 'new is good' myth. So older cars have almost no value even though they are often better built and more reliable.

blame our throwaway and not-very-smart society.

authorised disposal facilities recycle almost everything from a car. And there is no excuse for no insurance. If you can't meet the obligations of car ownership, your privileges get removed.

I think the cars should still be taken, but I think they'd get more money from recycling than crushing.

And fines for not having insurance are usually much lower than the cost of the insurance would have been. I know of some repeat offenders in my town

Which is why it's such a common thing.

One fine day we will abolish third-party insurance and pay damages out of a fund raised by a levy on petrol. Undodgeable.

There would be winners - high risk low mileage drivers - and losers - low risk high mileage drivers - but none of us would be supporting the Motor Insurers' Bureau as we do now. You know it makes sense.

Andrew: that would penalise disabled people who have motability cars very heavily. Motability cars include the insurance in the weekly rental fee so raising fuel costs significantly would be unfair to a vulnerable group of people.
It would also impact heavily on businesses, particularly haulage businesses and the cost would get passed on to consumers whether they drive or not.
It would be better to sell uninsured cars for scrap and the money paid directly to the motors insurance bureau and raise any other funds they need by fining uninsured drivers and the fine revenue also going to the MIB. Legal drivers should not be penalised for feckless uninsured drivers.

Yes: possibly some compensation to Motability drivers.

But legal drivers will always be penalised unless you design uninsured driving out as I suggest. I doubt if the sales proceeds of the scrapped cars would make a significant difference nor the fines either.

Until 1970 uninsured driving carried mandatory disqualification and perhaps it should again.

Until 1970 uninsured driving carried mandatory disqualification and perhaps it should again.

I would imagine that a lot of uninsured drivers are already disqualified. People who drive around without insurance have no regard for the law. A lot of people try to get around ANPR by insuring cars using false details (because they wouldn't get insurance at a normal cost, or at all, using their own details) Something needs to change. We need a better detection system.

Karsyn (interesting name for this thread!)
I had neighbours who were serial non-insurers, serial "can't afford new tyres" etc, but full of their "right" to own a car and "right" to drive, serial "driving when already banned and/or drunk" convictions.

what the heck do you think should happen to idiots like this, driving death traps round, not giving a damn about anyone at all? giving them a slap on the wrist and saying don't do it again does NOT work!

I say any short term inconvenience to them to stop them being on the roads is a good thing, moreover it may influence those who are not hardened criminals but just think they might try saving a few quid by not renewing their insurance etc, it might actually deter others from being so stupid and selfish.