Conference terri::cars_uk

    
    Anyone know the answer to this......
    
    My friend has a car (kept in a garage) on which the insuarance has
    expired. I'm insured 3rd party to drive any vehicle, so if I drive the
    car, that's ok, _but_ if I park the car in town - what is the
    situation? If I park it on my land, which is just a parking space
    directly in front of the house, but not separated from 'the highway' by
    any physical barrier, is the car 'uninsured'?
    
    Elaine
    
    Elaine

    My understanding on driving other peoples cars on your own insurance 
    is that the other car must itself be insured. The only way round this
    and to make driving it legal is to transfer your insurance to the other 
    car.

    Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but this is what I have heard.

  Mark

    
     Re -1.
       You are indeed correct. 
    
     To drive a car that belongs to another person, using your insurance
    the registered owner of the vehicle has to have adequate insurance
    cover. Failure to comply with these prerequisites will invalidate
    your 'drive any vehicle' cover and (if caught) you will be subject
    to prosecution.
    
      If it's only for a day or so, then most insurance companies will
    supply adequate cover (on a day to day basis) for a minimal charge.
    
    
     Hope this helps
    
      Alan.
    
    PS. get the owners WRITTEN consent before driving the car.
                                                              
    

    
    re -1, presumably by 'adequate' cover, you mean the legal minimum, 
    - third party, and single named driver. My insurance would then allow
    me to take that car out - with the owners permission - and still be
    covered for third party damage.

	Elaine, you've already got half a dozen cars of your own!

	-John

    
    
>>	Elaine, you've already got half a dozen cars of your own!
    
        I don't _need_ to drive this car - it was just that the car needs
    servicing, and it would be easier to do it at our house, than where it
    is. :-) 
    
    Elaine
    
    ps I only own three and a bike - (Derek and DEC own the other two!) 

But there's no space at your house to put it!.

Seriously though I often see notes 'signed' twice as below 

>.9

>    Elaine
>    
>    Elaine

from many different contributors. What particular utility/technique is it
that produces this effect.

-John

    
    re my original question - I phoned up th AA and was told that I could
    take the car out, and while I have control of the vehicle - it _is_
    coved third party - ie I can drive it into town and leave it in the car
    park etc. but I soon as I hand over responsibility for the car to it's 
    owner - it must be off the public road. 
    
    As with most 'drive anything' clauses, my cover while in charge of the
    car is the minimal third party only, no fire/theft etc. ....must
    remember to keep Derek out of it....  :-) :-)
    

    
    Elaine,
        the only real advise I can give now is to contact the local
    area traffic dept (can be found at any reputable police station).
    I say this because I know the police have a completely different
    view to this.
    
    
      Alan
    
    ps. I havn't got six points, for no insurance, on my licence.....
        but I know a man who has....
    

    IS there such a thing as a reputable police station then..???

    :-) :-) :-) :-)

    
    I've just spoken to the Police - and they back up what the AA told me -
    that while I have the car, if my insurance says I'm insured to drive it,
    then I can. I don't know what other Police Sections say, and without
    phoning them all up and getting a majority vote....... 
    
    Sounds like another one of these "you need tax to drive on the road,
    you need an MOT to get tax, the insurance co. says the car should be
    legal........." - the Police when asked say "go away, we don't want to
    know what you're doing" 
    
    
    
    

    When you drive this "other car", being that it is not insured by its
    owner, it will be covered by your insurance. At this time, the car
    your policy curently refers to will not be covered ... it is not 
    possible to have two cars covered on one policy at the same time
    (unless it is a special policy).

  Mark

    
    I'm not trying to be difficult but, my policy doesn't say anything
    about my own car then having to be taken off the public highway while
    I'm out in another car. I know I can't _own_ two cars on the same
    policy (unless it is a special), what would you do in the situation if
    another person was driving my car (properly insured) without my
    knowledge (eg Derek), and I just happened to be driving another car,
    I can't believe that my own car has to be taken off the public highway.
    
    Elaine

    I had a similar situation last week. My car was being repaired, and
    while it was, they lent me a car. This car was not insured by the
    garage for use on the road, so I had to transfer my insurance to it.
    During this time, my car was not covered by my policy, but was covered
    by the one of the garage.

    My policy also states that "I may drive any vehicle not owned by me
    or hired to me etc etc", but the thing I had to do was a temporary
    transfer to another vehicle. Had the car been insured by the garage for
    use on the road, this wouldn't have been necessary.


    I would have thought that the same applies in your case. Because the car is
    not insured for the road, you have to make a temporary transfer of policy
    to it to make it legal for road use. This makes your own car uninsured.

  Mark

    PS If you do intend to do this, I would suggest you get some sort of
    written information from the AA, just incase. Never trust insurance
    companies unless you have it in writing.

    
    Re -1, I could understand this if you wanted to have more than the
    'third party' only cover which is all you get when you drive another
    vehicle. But, what is the use of having this clause on your policy if
    you have to remove your car from the road if you get into another car
    to drive it? - excuse me while I just pop home and try to find
    somewhere else to park my car! I'm not saying you're wrong, and I agree
    wholeheartedly that 'verbal' info over the phone from insurance
    companies should always be backed up on paper - but, I'm going to check
    my full policy this evening, and see if there is any reference to the
    'insured' status of any vehicle I may drive.
    

    The use of the clause is to enable you to drive another car
    on an occasional basis, which is currently insured for use on 
    the road by someone else. This cover provided by the other person
    may not be suitable for you to drive, so you cover it on your policy.

    If you do it this way, your own vehicle remains insured.

  Mark

    
    I have not seen written down anywhere _any_ reference to the terms under
    which you are insured to drive another vehicle, ie occaisionally or
    otherwise. I would agree that, since the cover you have is minimal, it
    would be only sensible to get more cover if you were intending to drive
    the 'other' car regularly, but as far as the AA told be, there was no
    caveat about my car not being insured while I was in the other vehicle.
    
    Elaine

    I'm re-opening this topic to discuss a message delivered along with the
    new company car insurance documents.
    
    The good news is that the policy now covers all EC countries except
    italy, greece, and spain. Thus you do not need a green card for france
    germany etc.!
    
    However, it states "At the scene of an accident you are only required
    to exchange names, addresses, and registration numbers with the other
    parties involved unless the police are called."
    
    My question is: I thought sometime last year, or the beginning of this
    that the lawe changed and you must now also provide the name and
    address of your insurance company.
    
    Am I right?, anybody got the definitive answer?. I seem to remember a
    little slip stating this that came with my last car tax renewal. I'll
    check tonight.
    
    
    Richard

Which insurance company is this through? I had heard that other companies
(apart from GRE) were now giving full green-card cover with insurance policies.
Or is it just a lease-car deal?

Cheers,

Graham.

    Our company car insurance is through Zurich Insurance company.
    
    Rich

Re: .27

The various details (name, address, registration number and name of 
insurance company) only have to be given if requested, either by a police 
officer or a person having reasonable cause to ask for them (e.g. the
owner/driver of a vehicle involved in the accident).

If they are requested you are required by law to give them.  This has
always applied to all these items.  You are not required by law to ask for 
any of these details, however it is in your own interests to do so.

What I believe they (DEC's insueres) are saying is that they require you to
obtain the name, address and registration number of the driver of the other
vehicle(s).  They are not bothered with who the other vehicle's insurer is. 

If any accident involves injury to a person (or certain types of animal)
it must also be reported to the police, who will want all these details. 

jb

I might be in the wrong note here, but on French TV this lunchtime there
was a news item saying something like it is now possible to insure your 
car anywhere in Europe to drive in all countries, so you can pick the
cheapest. They then had some interviews with cameras stuck through the 
windows of various motorists who seemed to be moaning about the cost of
l'assurance. Has anyone else heard anything about this (I might have got
it a bit wrong 'cos my French isn't too hot and my 'interpreter' was only
half watching!)

Graham.

On a related note ...

I've just got my new insurance document and I was interested to see this
as the description of vehicles covered (Section 1):

"Any Private Type Motor Car the property of the Policy Holder or in his
custody or control"

Does this mean that I am covered to drive *any* car (i.e. I can get
myself taken off my girlfriend's insurance ?)?

I assume that even if the answer is 'yes' then the cover is only third
party.

I've tried phoning car fleet, but the response time is usually better via
this notesfile :-)  (Before I open a rathole that is not a dig at fleet !!)

Cheers,

    Derek.

RE: -.1

Do you mean all of Europe, or all of the EEC? This is very important for me,
'cos I'm about to register my UK registered VW Camper in Switzerland (I was
given one year's grace which is fast running out).

costs:

UK: Group 3. National Provincial. Fully comprehensive, 4 years no-claims, 
    protected no-claims discount. �160.

Switzerland: approx. Sfr 1600, with 7 years discount. (100% is Sfr 2,300).
             Sfr 1600 translates to something like �650 - four times as much!
	     It is more than my Golf GTI!

Any information gratefully received.

Cheers

Steve

    Re .32...thats an interesting question, I'd like to know also.  I guess
    it depends on who the Policy Holder is.  The form says Digital, so i
    guess it may only refer to cars 'controlled' by Digital...I dunno.
    
    Mikef

    re .32 and -1
    
    YEP! The policy holder is Digital so it's anything controlled or in
    ther control of Digital.
    
    
    HOWEVER the guys in my office think you are covered 3rd party to drive
    a car at a time, ie yours must be parked off the road and then you are
    covered third party.
    
    I rang fleet once, but they said speak to the insurance dept. I did and
    I think I got a trainee YTS on her first day, 'cos she thought I could
    only drive my car and no other Digital vehicles!! 
    
    I keep meaning to ring back sometime.......
    
    
    Greg

    
    
>    HOWEVER the guys in my office think you are covered 3rd party to drive
>    a car at a time, ie yours must be parked off the road and then you are
>    covered third party.
 

	My insurance - Not with Digital - says the same. I phoned up to clarify
	this, as we had just bought an un-insured landrover, and wanted to know
 	if we could drive it back under this clause.

	Situation : You can drive any other vehicle - 3rd party - as long as 
	it is ALSO insured in it's own right. 

	Where my car is - in the road, being driven by somene else - has 
	nothing to do with it.

	I would have thought that the same clause means the same thing - however
	that might be just a little too easy!

	Heather
	

    Heather,
    
    But in your insurance YOU are the policy holder, in our case DIGITAL is
    the policy holiday.....
    
    Greg

    
    Just rung digital insurance, because I needed to know as well.
    
    Digital insurance only covers Third Party.  All damage etc is covered
    by your cost centre.
    
    Anyone may drive your lease car with *your* permission.
    

    
    
    Recently a friend was involved in an accident which caused heaps of
    damage to her car.  Unfortunately she was only covered T.P.  The
    accident was primarily down to the other driver who was unaware of the
    correct method of rounding blind corners.  Normally, I would have
    expected my friend to be compensated by the other driver's insurance
    (after a few written prompts).  However, the other driver is insured
    with the same company (also TP) who say the accident was 50-50 thus
    minimising any payout to zero.  It makes me sick that they may get away
    with this.
    
    Can the panel recommend what type of further action (if any) my friend
    should take ?
    
    
    P.S.  Is it legal to drive barefoot ??
    
    
    Nev.

    
    If the other driver can be held to blame then the only option open to
    your friend is to contact the CAB, a solicitor or the insurance
    companies regulatory body (I think there's one, but I don't know what
    it is called!).
    
    I can't see an insurance company paying out against itself without
    some pressure being applied.
    
    Mark

    
>>    P.S.  Is it legal to drive barefoot ??
    
      Not in some parts of Northern Italy, (especially around the Garda
      Sea)  
    

It is illegal to drive barefoot in England.  Dunno about the rest of the UK
though...

Scott

Re .42>

>It is illegal to drive barefoot in England.  Dunno about the rest of the UK
>though...

       I've heard this before, and I must say I find it difficult to
       understand the logic behind this law.

       Can you provide a reference to the relevant statute?

       Ian.

�It is illegal to drive barefoot in England.  
    
    Do socks count ?
    
    What about flip-flops ?  They must be dangerous, but I bet they're allowed !
    
    J.R.
    
    PS-  I am not guilty of this - but I know people who are...

    
    Scott re-barefoot.
    
    Are you sure ?  (I hope so as the person who crashed into my friend was
    driving barefoot)
    
    Perhaps you could look up the statute as Ian suggested (I don't know
    where to look).
    
    
    Nev.

How about the AA or RAC?  My son is involved in such a claim at the moment, and
he's having the whole thing handled by the RAC for a fee of #20.  He was
insured TPFT, other driver pulled out of side-road while he was overtaking on
main road, and hit him head on.  Luckily no-one was seriously hurt, although 
both cars are write-offs.  Difficult question as he was overtaking near a road
junction, but it was night, country, wide dotted white lines on the main road,
and, most important, no warning signs for road junction anywhere.

As to driving barefoot, there isn't a law as such, but a good solicitor could
argue that there wasn't sufficient control and you'd therefore be guilty of
reckless driving, or similar charge.  Very grey area.  One point - if the
person was driving barefoot and their shoes were in the footwell, that could
constitute a dangerous driving practice, with suitable charges.  Get a lawyer!

Brian

    
    Why should driving barefoot give you less control than with shoes? I
    agree that if the shoes were in the footwell they may be considered a
    hazard.  I would think that starting to use foot wear as a factor in
    considering accidents could lead to an awful lot of 'grey' areas! Maybe 
    wellies aren't appropriate footwear in car 'A', but I don't think I
    would loose any 'sensitivity' of feel in the Landy, equally, in some
    cars, where the pedals are spaced far apart.
    
    Although I did have an accident where the person who caused it was
    wearing a plaster cast on his foot.............

    I've had a good look through the Highway code, and the only mention of
    footwear is to say that motorcyclists should wear sturdy boots.
    
    "Road Craft", on the subject of the accelerator pedal, says "Thin sole
    shoes are preferable if delicate control is to be achieved".
    
    I've never driven barefoot myself, but I know two people who always do.
    I can't really see a problem.
    
    Ian.

Re "Purring again":  bought another E-type, Brian?

Re barefoot:  I don't know the exact law, but I think there is one.  I think
it's to do with the risk of hurting your feet (eg stubbed toes) on the pedals
would disincline (via a sub-conscious reflex) you to do an emergency stop, etc.

Scott

    
    I'm sure my reflex to do an emergency stop would be much stronger than 
    worrying about stubbing my toe!
    
    I sometimes drive barefoot if I've been wearing high-heel shoes, I feel
    I've got better control without my shoes on! (And the passenger gets
    the shoes in his footwell :-) 

>>Re "Purring again":  bought another E-type, Brian?

Not yet!  Still looking ....

    If I am on my happy sunshine holidays, paddling in the sand and
    building castles in the sea, when I return to the car I remove my flip
    flops for driving; they are by their very nature insecure, and thus
    dangerous.
    
    The skin on the soles of my feet is fairly secure, and I feel totally
    in control, so I drive on such occasions in bare feet. I would be
    surprised if any lawyer could satisfy a court that there was any loss
    of control resulting.
    
    Re the knock for knock problem, if you are sure that you are not to
    blame for the accident, get a good lawyer and sue. Insurance companies
    tend to respect writs, but not much else.
    
    Steve

    To continue the developing rat-hole:
    
    I know that if I were to drive barefoot in my car, then my braking
    would be seriously impaired.  Because of the fairly high foot-pressure
    required to stop quickly (it's a Beetle), soles of some sort would be
    necessary for an emergency stop.  After all, a yard difference in
    stopping distance could be someone's life...
    
    Mat.
    *:o)
    

    Perhaps it is just me being dense, but how does the interpolation of a
    quarter of an inch of cow skin between human skin and pedal increase
    pedal pressure?
    
    Steve

The shoe sole spreads the reactionary force from the pedal over a larger area of
your foot, so there is less pressure on any particular point, hence it hurts
less and you can press harder.

Just imagine you had a needle-point for a brake pedal and you'll see the point
(no pun intended!)

Scott

    When I learnt to drive, I did a number of courses with the local Mobile
    Police. Their senior instructor always advised learners to try to
    practise in the same shoes to maintain the feel of the pedals or "if
    they were in any doubt, to take off their shoes and to drive
    bare-foot".
    
    When the Mobile Economy Rally used to be held, most drivers also went
    bare-foot, claimimg that the extra 'feel' could add 2 or 3 mpg to their
    driving.
    
    John Foulds 

    re:39
    
    There is such a thing as an Insurance Ombudsman. Apparently, mentioning
    that you've registered your complaint with him has miraculous effects
    on the insurance company. I guess the CAB will be able to put you in
    touch with him, or try your friendly insurance broker.
    
    Colin