There have been several people who've quoted from one of my posts in their questions recently, Berti. It's good to see that I'm keeping people on their toes around here ;-)
It's also good to see that both Woozer and TonyV know what I was writing about, which is confirmed in this document:
http://www.biba.org.u...es/CIELeaflet2010.pdf
While I can see some sort of logic behind the new legislation, it goes against all common sense, since the purpose of compulsory insurance is to provide cover if the driver is sued due to his negligence. It actually makes no sense to insist upon a vehicle (rather than that vehicle's driver) being insured, since you can't sue a vehicle!