Rights to travel

[colley]

This is very interesting and unbelievable really. This guy drives his car without a driving licence, insurance, mot, tax and its legal.
If you have a spare 45mins have a watch of these videos as its very interesting. This guy knows the law very very well.

Vid 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmLqr2tr7jA&feature=related
Vid 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAWYkQcOeDU&feature=relmfu
vid 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFE7qpFq-G4&feature=related

And this one he explains in more detail how it works
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8dPcLf8-kY&feature=relmfu

[Gazeddy]

this is almost comical. well done to the guy he certainly knows the law

[igotababyfrontera]

It's a shame it's not videod all the way to conclusion.

[Roo]

He had nice eyes
On a serious note...
I'd be worried if I caused an accident and caused serious injury to someone I wouldn't be able to afford to pay for their pain/ suffering or even death...
And the MOT gives me peace of mind that my Vehicle is safe to be on the road
Cheers
Roo

[Wilberforce]

Which was pretty much what I was thinking, Roo...

I'll admit I only watched the part one vid, and the one where he's explaining it in the pub.
I did feel that "Dave" phoning his mate and saying the PC was being belligerent in part one was a bit over the top to my mind, as he was being firm but polite, and was probably just a bit frustrated at trying to explain things through a small gap in the window while constantly being interrupted. Just my impression.

Anyhow, on to other things.
A valid MOT doesn't mean that your vehicle is safe to be on the road, merely that it was found to be in compliance with all the restrictions tested at the time of the test, you still have to maintain it in a roadworthy condition. Once you're out of the test centre, something could go wrong with the car 50 yards down the road that makes it dangerous, yet you've still got a valid MOT for another year. Still, at least the current system ensures that the more glaring errors (how many cars do you see doing 70mph on the motorway yet strangely the brake lights are on? Or other u/s bulbs and tyres) get fixed on a yearly basis.

I'd say he's right about the whole full / limited liability though.
By having insurance and paying VED, you have huge resources behind you in the case of an accident, or if your car is damaged because of a road failure. Even if it's your fault, if you have fully comp insurance then it's all largely dealt with by somebody else, you probably get a courtesy car, and maybe your premium goes up a bit next year.

If you don't have this then you're opening yourself up to a whole lot of financial pain. It's all very well saying that if you damage anything then "fix it and send me the bill" will solve it, but things can get very expensive very quickly if you're paying for it yourself. Can the Highways Agency sue you for costs involved in cleaning up after an incident that's your fault? If you're just exercising your rights for free travel, do you then have any rights if the road you are using for free and at your own risk has a pothole that you drive through and it damages your car? What if you do cause injury or death to somebody?
Plus there's the other thought that if you're going to get stopped, and have to go through this routine every time your car gets pinged by the ANPR system in a police car, how much do you value the time you lose from sitting and explaining, and everybody elses who then ends up waiting for you.

Personally I'd rather pay up and know that unless I drive like an idiot I'll be able to drive when and where I want without worrying about being sgtopped and having to explain, and that if i'm involved in any sort of incident that I will have help to deal with it, and that the police can use their limited resources to deal with above mentioned idiots rather than wasting them on me who just wants to save a few quid to prove a point.

[westo123]

Well I watched the whole thing, it is quite laughable, besides not being factually correct.
The reason it does not go to it's conclusion is probably because he got fined for breaking the law.
It is obviously just a work of fiction designed for publicity by a deluded man.
A David Icke advert per chance.

[frontlee3]

stop being a n#* and pay your stuff like the rest of us do your full of poo wasting police time being an idiot is about all i can say

[adyclemo]

What a d**k, does this mean then we can charge him for the 1 hour or so of our time he has wasted watching this. I dread to think how many people may have needed urgent help while he wasted their time.

[Roo]