UK SORN... ;'(

Non-computer-related chit-chat

Moderators: ChrisThornett, LXF moderators

Postby guy » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:02 pm

Agree with nelz. A car is intended to be driven, and an unnervingly large number of unlicensed/uninsured/unsafe cars are being driven around. The age of the car does not change that but it did provide a loophole that was being exploited - hence the need to close said loophole.

When you buy online with a credit card your ID is assumed stolen unless you can provide some assurance (by filling in an online form) that you do have the card. I'll bet you don't complain about that.

You don't want stoled credit cards in circulation. What, you are happy to see unsafe and uninsured cars on the roads just as long as they are old enough?
"Klinger, do you know how many zoots were killed to make that one suit?" — BJ Hunnicutt
User avatar
guy
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1100
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:07 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Postby Bazza » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:41 pm

Hi PCNetSpec...

> I just don't agree that people should be required to state they *aren't*
> breaking the law...

> I see a SORN as another small but significant erosion of the
> presumption of innocence.

+1

QOTW.
73...

Bazza, G0LCU...

Team AMIGA...
User avatar
Bazza
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:16 am
Location: Loughborough

Postby Ram » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:49 pm

As a guess I'd say that more cars are parked on the road than in drive ways or garages. By filling out a SORN you have stated that the vehicle off the road. Where you will be proved guilty if said vehicle is found park up in some back alley.

lubuntu LXDE 13.10 running on AMD Phenom II*4; ASUS Crosshair III Formula MB; 4 GB Ram.....
User avatar
Ram
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1684
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 9:44 pm
Location: Guisborough

Postby nelz » Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:50 pm

Bazza wrote:Hi PCNetSpec...

> I just don't agree that people should be required to state they *aren't*
> breaking the law...

> I see a SORN as another small but significant erosion of the
> presumption of innocence.

+1


Presumably, you are both against compulsory registration of road vehicles? After all, if we are supposed to be able to trust people to do the right thing with their lethal metal boxes. This is not about presumption of innocence, it is about regulating the use of dangerous equipment.

Remember, the car is registered for road use. If you don't want to deregister it, it is reasonable to presume that it is still intended for road use.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Postby PCNetSpec » Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:23 pm

Surely the fact that you haven't paid road tax/insurance on it, has legally de-registered it for road use... anything after that is a presumption that you are breaking the law.

After all it isn't illegal to own a car that isn't meant for road use, as long as it isn't on the road.

I *may* even agree with a regulation that requires a single de-registration, and having to re-register it for road use (though I can't see this is necessary)... but as it stands, the SORN *presumes* you are using it illegally unless you make a legal declaration you are not... hence their ability to penalise.

ANY law that has the ability to penalise without proof of wrong doing... or worse will even penalise if you can prove innocence, in my opinion is just wrong.

Accepting these small erosions of our rights is a slippery slope... just my opinion.
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby nelz » Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:38 pm

Of course not, it is still registered, it still has a registration number and is still legal for road use under certain circumstances (you can drive an untaxed and untested car to and from a pre-booked MOT test).

The fact is that cars are dangerous things, untested ones far more so. Owning one carries certain responsibilities and one of those is to inform the authorities is it has been taken out of use temporarily so that they need not bother, at our expense, checking up on you. A SORN helps you because it is a clear statement that the vehicle is off the road and you will not use it.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Postby PCNetSpec » Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:43 pm

A car that is on the road illegally can be a VERY dangerous thing... I fully agree... and anyone caught using one illegally should be prosecuted.

Of course I'm not:-
...happy to see unsafe and uninsured cars on the roads just as long as they are old enough?

that's just a daft question.

That doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't have to make a legal declaration that you *aren't* using it illegally.

Where else do you have to do that... or where else would you accept that ?

When you are driving to a test centre etc. you are using it legally... how does that apply to this discussion ?

[EDIT]

...so that they need not bother, at our expense, checking up on you

Why should the authorities need to check up on you unless they are presuming that you're breaking the law ?
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby Bazza » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:26 am

Hi nelz...

> Owning one carries certain responsibilities and one of those is
> to inform the authorities is it has been taken out of use temporarily
> so that they need not bother, at our expense, checking up on you.

Erm, am I missing something here?
Mine has been off of the road for 22 years, that is bordering on
permanently, NOT temporarily, taken out of service don't you think?

It looks as though changing the law recently is just as PCNetSpec
says, "presume" you are guilty until YOU can prove otherwise.

> A SORN helps you because it is a clear statement that the vehicle
> is off the road and you will not use it.

But it was already off of the road, and they knew/know it, so why
change the law to antagonise relatively honest citizens?

Probably to get easy money for their coffers...

I'm with PCNetSpec on this one.

Common sense should apply but as towy71 says:-

"Politicians have a common sense by-pass......"

Says it all really...
73...

Bazza, G0LCU...

Team AMIGA...
User avatar
Bazza
LXF regular
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:16 am
Location: Loughborough

Postby nelz » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:34 am

Bazza wrote:Erm, am I missing something here?
Mine has been off of the road for 22 years, that is bordering on
permanently, NOT temporarily, taken out of service don't you think?


If it's permenently off the road, de-register it, that's what you do with scrapped vehicles.

Bazza wrote:But it was already off of the road, and they knew/know it, so why
change the law to antagonise relatively honest citizens?

Probably to get easy money for their coffers...


Ah, so what you're really complaining about is not the need to advise the authorities of the status of your vehicle but the cost of doing so. I was under the impression there was no charge for a SORN.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Postby nelz » Fri Jul 22, 2011 7:37 am

PCNetSpec wrote:That doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't have to make a legal declaration that you *aren't* using it illegally.


You are doing no such thing, since you could still be driving it with a SORN. All you are doing is informing them of the vehicle's status. That is part of the responsibility of ownership.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." (Albert Einstein)
User avatar
nelz
Site admin
 
Posts: 8553
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Warrington, UK

Postby PCNetSpec » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:30 am

Symantics... you and I both know the reason is to keep illegal vehicles off the road... so it IS a declaration that you aren't using/storing it illegally.

It isn't a declaration of whether the car has been scrapped... that was already function of the log book.

Why else would they need to know its "status" ?

Obviously, "status" = on road illegally, or off road legally.

I repeat, you shouldn't have to declare you are NOT breaking the law.

It is the responsibility of the authorities to catch/punish people who *are* breaking the law, not to hassle/punish those that aren't, or haven't been proven to be... the SORN is just another attempt to move the goal posts.
Last edited by PCNetSpec on Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby AndyBaxman » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:44 am

PCNetSpec wrote:I just don't agree that people should be required to state they *aren't* breaking the law... I see a SORN as another small but significant erosion of the presumption of innocence.


That's a ridiculous conclusion. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Its merely a new requirement for the owners of vehicles to comply with. You could equally argue that the requirement to have your car MOT'd is a presumption that you are driving an unsafe vehicle.
Bomb #20: "Let there be light"
User avatar
AndyBaxman
LXF regular
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:47 am

Postby PCNetSpec » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:59 am

How is that the same? .. the MOT is a declaration that the vehicles is safe for legal road use.

The SORN has nothing to do with using the vehicle on the road legally... it's a statement that you are NOT using it on the road illegally.

[EDIT]

It's the shift of responsibility that I object to...

from the authorities having to prove you were doing something wrong, to you having to declare you aren't... and not making that declaration carrying a penalty, even if you weren't using it on the road.
Last edited by PCNetSpec on Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WARNING: You are logged into reality as 'root'... logging in as 'insane' is the only safe option.
Linux in the UK
The Linux Community Forum
User avatar
PCNetSpec
LXF regular
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Cornwall UK

Postby AndyBaxman » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:04 pm

nelz wrote:Ah, so what you're really complaining about is not the need to advise the authorities of the status of your vehicle but the cost of doing so. I was under the impression there was no charge for a SORN.


There is no charge to SORN your vehicle, and you can do it quickly online or by phone. It doesn't involve the capture of any personal details above those required as the registered keeper of the vehicle, so there are no privacy or civil liberties issues.

Essentially its just a bit (a really, tiny, insignificant bit) inconvenient that you have to do this once a year. If it helps to keep the uninsured asswipes off the road, its well worth it.

The only way to avoid this, and keep the vehicle, it to declare it scrapped. You can put a scrapped vehicle back on the road, but there are costs involved. You need to do a Vehicle Identity Check (VIC) and re-register the vehicle. Hardly worth it for the sake of a couple of minutes online each year.
Last edited by AndyBaxman on Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bomb #20: "Let there be light"
User avatar
AndyBaxman
LXF regular
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:47 am

Postby AndyBaxman » Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:14 pm

PCNetSpec wrote:How is that the same? .. the MOT is a declaration that the vehicles is safe for legal road use.


And the SORN is a declaration that you are not using the vehicle on the road and, therefore, does not need an MOT, tax or insurance.

It's the shift of responsibility that I object to...

from the authorities having to prove you were doing something wrong, to you having to declare you aren't... and not making that declaration carrying a penalty, even if you weren't using it on the road.


And its the same with the MOT, when it was introduced. It is an offence to use an unroadworthy vehicle on the road with any of the defects that would have caused it to fail an MOT. If your car passes an MOT and then, the next day, the brake lights fail, that car is illegal.

So, by your arguments, all the MOT test is doing is saying "we don't trust you to ensure your car is kept in a roadworthy condition". Your car may be (indeed, should be, in law) perfectly safe to drive on the road without having to have it MOT'd, yet you still have to do it.

In other words, and, again, using your arguments, the assumption is that you intend to drive an unsafe vehicle.
Bomb #20: "Let there be light"
User avatar
AndyBaxman
LXF regular
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron