I read with great interest John Jackson's opinion article (Comment, 6 July). If only!
I represented my company on several cases involving uninsured drivers some years ago and these principally related to fraudulent cover notes and motor insurance certificates.
While the courts always found the driver guilty, the fines imposed were laughable (certainly less than the then cost of third party cover).
Why, if the driver is guilty and pleads so, is his fine reduced? Why, if he is living on benefits, is he even able to purchase a car, let alone drive it uninsured?
And why is his fine reduced on the basis he cannot pay more? Surely by doing so the court is encouraging him to continue to drive and probably drive uninsured as well.
I accept that the MID and automatic number plate recognition systems used by the police should pick up these drivers but they do not. When did you last see a police car carrying out routine work such as this rather than rushing to an incident of some kind?
Finally, on the proposal to carry windscreen insurance discs, this was looked at by the MIB some years ago and it was decided that it was so open to fraudulent reproduction that it was not proceeded with.
These problems will continue until we fine uninsured drivers large amounts and/or take away their licence for two or three years.
It needs the DVLA, MID and courts to enforce the law fully and properly then it might start to be resolved.
Retired motor underwriter