Clamping of untaxed cars
Discussion
towman said:
bjwoods said:
towman said:
Since when did having an untaxed vehicle make you an unsafe driver?
because the police/insurance companies (ie uninsured untaxed cars hitting insured ones) statitics proof it
untaxed (i'm talking over a month) cars more than likely to not have an mot or be insured,,, these drivers/vehicles 10x more likeky to have a crash, drive off from a crash, etc,etc, than an insured/taxed driver.
B
What utter rot. using your ridiculous logic, how many taxed cars have accidents? - Far more than untaxed ones. Therefore it is safer to drive an untaxed vehicle!
You have fallen for the mantra spouted by Mr Ladyman. Untaxed cars are not unsafe. However i would concede that in many cases they would be uninsured and not mot`d. I would also agree that the financial consequences of having an accident with one of thes vehicles is not good. However, the severity of the accident has nothing to do with whether the vehicle is taxed or not.
The government has taken the easy way out. The big problem in lask of insurance - why don`t they deal with it by means of a windscreen disc / govt issued numberplates etc like they do in Europe? Instead they choose to go for the easy target untaxed vehicles - probably because it is easy to target those who genuinely let it slip. It`s all about revenue, road safety? - my arse!!
it is hardly utter tosh, as i said, as a PROPORTION, they are more risky... a million such vehicles on the road compared to a million taxed, the untaxed ones (statistically, are many times a greater risk)
i'm not refering to those that have forgot, or a few weeks overdue, but those cars significantly out of dat, generally they are also uninsured, un mot'd and the drivers far more likely to have an accident, have an accident whilst under the influence drig/drugs, or leave the scene... of course, the 'generalisisation will aslo include the odd driver, whos been ill, abroad, etc... and whose car is safe, and they are safe. BUT most won't the police of course will not know what category you fall into, until they stop the car/ clamp the car
B
Edited by bjwoods on Friday 23 June 14:30
julianhj said:
Jith, I agree with you that it should not be in the hands of private companies, particularly the NCP who seem to have a monopoly on parking and enforcement (certainly where I live). I would be happier with Police-employed traffic wardens doing the work. However, if a car is not taxed, and has not been for more than a month, it should be removed from the roads IMHO. Clamping is the cheaper option, I would be happier to see towing squads in action. There is no excuse for not taxing your vehicle for months on end and continuing to use it on the roads. As I mentioned, there is a much greater chance that other offences are being committed as well.
They are only clamped for a short time. They should be removed within 24hrs of clamping.
vonhosen said:
julianhj said:
Jith, I agree with you that it should not be in the hands of private companies, particularly the NCP who seem to have a monopoly on parking and enforcement (certainly where I live). I would be happier with Police-employed traffic wardens doing the work. However, if a car is not taxed, and has not been for more than a month, it should be removed from the roads IMHO. Clamping is the cheaper option, I would be happier to see towing squads in action. There is no excuse for not taxing your vehicle for months on end and continuing to use it on the roads. As I mentioned, there is a much greater chance that other offences are being committed as well.
They are only clamped for a short time. They should be removed within 24hrs of clamping.
So what are you implying VH, that this makes it alright?
It is indefensible for five minutes let alone 24 hours; the principles at work are wrong and corrupt: I find it astounding that some of you don't grasp this.
By condoning it you make it acceptable for a private company to make profit from the implementation of the law. Can you not see how immoral that is?
The law in our society should be exclusively used to serve and protect all of us from harm and abuse, not line the pockets of the likes of NCP.
jith said:
vonhosen said:
julianhj said:
Jith, I agree with you that it should not be in the hands of private companies, particularly the NCP who seem to have a monopoly on parking and enforcement (certainly where I live). I would be happier with Police-employed traffic wardens doing the work. However, if a car is not taxed, and has not been for more than a month, it should be removed from the roads IMHO. Clamping is the cheaper option, I would be happier to see towing squads in action. There is no excuse for not taxing your vehicle for months on end and continuing to use it on the roads. As I mentioned, there is a much greater chance that other offences are being committed as well.
They are only clamped for a short time. They should be removed within 24hrs of clamping.
So what are you implying VH, that this makes it alright?
It is indefensible for five minutes let alone 24 hours; the principles at work are wrong and corrupt: I find it astounding that some of you don't grasp this.
By condoning it you make it acceptable for a private company to make profit from the implementation of the law. Can you not see how immoral that is?
The law in our society should be exclusively used to serve and protect all of us from harm and abuse, not line the pockets of the likes of NCP.
Well my opinion differs from yours.
A private company acts as a sub contractor for the enforcing body. Police do the same with a lot of their removals too. The Police prosecute & call the contractor to remove.
As far as I'm concerned if you haven't got road tax, then you shouldn't be on the road.
Your welcome to your opinion & I'm welcome to mine
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 23 June 15:50
jith said:
vonhosen said:
julianhj said:
Jith, I agree with you that it should not be in the hands of private companies, particularly the NCP who seem to have a monopoly on parking and enforcement (certainly where I live). I would be happier with Police-employed traffic wardens doing the work. However, if a car is not taxed, and has not been for more than a month, it should be removed from the roads IMHO. Clamping is the cheaper option, I would be happier to see towing squads in action. There is no excuse for not taxing your vehicle for months on end and continuing to use it on the roads. As I mentioned, there is a much greater chance that other offences are being committed as well.
They are only clamped for a short time. They should be removed within 24hrs of clamping.
So what are you implying VH, that this makes it alright?
It is indefensible for five minutes let alone 24 hours; the principles at work are wrong and corrupt: I find it astounding that some of you don't grasp this.
By condoning it you make it acceptable for a private company to make profit from the implementation of the law. Can you not see how immoral that is?
The law in our society should be exclusively used to serve and protect all of us from harm and abuse, not line the pockets of the likes of NCP.
Real World Please!!!!!!!1
MOST things are contracted out, it's called business...
Do you realy need a trained police officer to run a check and clamp a car. THAT is/would be a much bigger waste of public resources..
IF they make a profit, good it means they are good getting these vehicles/drivers off the roads.
B
bjwoods said:
jith said:
vonhosen said:
julianhj said:
Jith, I agree with you that it should not be in the hands of private companies, particularly the NCP who seem to have a monopoly on parking and enforcement (certainly where I live). I would be happier with Police-employed traffic wardens doing the work. However, if a car is not taxed, and has not been for more than a month, it should be removed from the roads IMHO. Clamping is the cheaper option, I would be happier to see towing squads in action. There is no excuse for not taxing your vehicle for months on end and continuing to use it on the roads. As I mentioned, there is a much greater chance that other offences are being committed as well.
They are only clamped for a short time. They should be removed within 24hrs of clamping.
So what are you implying VH, that this makes it alright?
It is indefensible for five minutes let alone 24 hours; the principles at work are wrong and corrupt: I find it astounding that some of you don't grasp this.
By condoning it you make it acceptable for a private company to make profit from the implementation of the law. Can you not see how immoral that is?
The law in our society should be exclusively used to serve and protect all of us from harm and abuse, not line the pockets of the likes of NCP.
Real World Please!!!!!!!1
MOST things are contracted out, it's called business...
Do you realy need a trained police officer to run a check and clamp a car. THAT is/would be a much bigger waste of public resources..
IF they make a profit, good it means they are good getting these vehicles/drivers off the roads.
B
Maybe it's about time you lived in the real world sonny!
I've been a business man for over thirty five years and I don't need advice from someone who clearly STILL cannot grasp the concepts here.
The whole concept of what is going on is immoral because it does NOT tackle crime, got it??!!
These private individuals CANNOT report, CANNOT arrest, are impotent to carry out any other task. They are NOT interested in any other task, because there is NO profit in it.
The Government DO NOT spend the revenue they collect from these schemes on the roads.
If there is justification for stopping and fining a motorist for an offence, it MUST be done by the police in a manner that is defensible by the accused or justice goes out the window, exactly what is happening now.
THAT is the real world, if you believe in justice.
jith said:
bjwoods said:
jith said:
vonhosen said:
julianhj said:
Jith, I agree with you that it should not be in the hands of private companies, particularly the NCP who seem to have a monopoly on parking and enforcement (certainly where I live). I would be happier with Police-employed traffic wardens doing the work. However, if a car is not taxed, and has not been for more than a month, it should be removed from the roads IMHO. Clamping is the cheaper option, I would be happier to see towing squads in action. There is no excuse for not taxing your vehicle for months on end and continuing to use it on the roads. As I mentioned, there is a much greater chance that other offences are being committed as well.
They are only clamped for a short time. They should be removed within 24hrs of clamping.
So what are you implying VH, that this makes it alright?
It is indefensible for five minutes let alone 24 hours; the principles at work are wrong and corrupt: I find it astounding that some of you don't grasp this.
By condoning it you make it acceptable for a private company to make profit from the implementation of the law. Can you not see how immoral that is?
The law in our society should be exclusively used to serve and protect all of us from harm and abuse, not line the pockets of the likes of NCP.
Real World Please!!!!!!!1
MOST things are contracted out, it's called business...
Do you realy need a trained police officer to run a check and clamp a car. THAT is/would be a much bigger waste of public resources..
IF they make a profit, good it means they are good getting these vehicles/drivers off the roads.
B
Maybe it's about time you lived in the real world sonny!
I've been a business man for over thirty five years and I don't need advice from someone who clearly STILL cannot grasp the concepts here.
The whole concept of what is going on is immoral because it does NOT tackle crime, got it??!!
These private individuals CANNOT report, CANNOT arrest, are impotent to carry out any other task. They are NOT interested in any other task, because there is NO profit in it.
The Government DO NOT spend the revenue they collect from these schemes on the roads.
If there is justification for stopping and fining a motorist for an offence, it MUST be done by the police in a manner that is defensible by the accused or justice goes out the window, exactly what is happening now.
THAT is the real world, if you believe in justice.
No VEL is an offence. DVLA prosecute & they get a contractor to clamp/remove vehicles cluttering up our streets that don't have the right to be on the road by virtue of having no VEL.
Unnecessary obstruction is an offence. The Police prosecute & they get a contractor to remove the vehicles that are causing the obstruction.
Yes VEL is a tax & tax evasion is an offence.
In line with our other taxes, the area of expenditure is not tied to the income source.
jith said:
bjwoods said:
jith said:
vonhosen said:
julianhj said:
Jith, I agree with you that it should not be in the hands of private companies, particularly the NCP who seem to have a monopoly on parking and enforcement (certainly where I live). I would be happier with Police-employed traffic wardens doing the work. However, if a car is not taxed, and has not been for more than a month, it should be removed from the roads IMHO. Clamping is the cheaper option, I would be happier to see towing squads in action. There is no excuse for not taxing your vehicle for months on end and continuing to use it on the roads. As I mentioned, there is a much greater chance that other offences are being committed as well.
They are only clamped for a short time. They should be removed within 24hrs of clamping.
So what are you implying VH, that this makes it alright?
It is indefensible for five minutes let alone 24 hours; the principles at work are wrong and corrupt: I find it astounding that some of you don't grasp this.
By condoning it you make it acceptable for a private company to make profit from the implementation of the law. Can you not see how immoral that is?
The law in our society should be exclusively used to serve and protect all of us from harm and abuse, not line the pockets of the likes of NCP.
Real World Please!!!!!!!1
MOST things are contracted out, it's called business...
Do you realy need a trained police officer to run a check and clamp a car. THAT is/would be a much bigger waste of public resources..
IF they make a profit, good it means they are good getting these vehicles/drivers off the roads.
B
Maybe it's about time you lived in the real world sonny!
I've been a business man for over thirty five years and I don't need advice from someone who clearly STILL cannot grasp the concepts here.
The whole concept of what is going on is immoral because it does NOT tackle crime, got it??!!
These private individuals CANNOT report, CANNOT arrest, are impotent to carry out any other task. They are NOT interested in any other task, because there is NO profit in it.
The Government DO NOT spend the revenue they collect from these schemes on the roads.
If there is justification for stopping and fining a motorist for an offence, it MUST be done by the police in a manner that is defensible by the accused or justice goes out the window, exactly what is happening now.
THAT is the real world, if you believe in justice.
maybe you need to calm down and not be abusive, trying to belittle someoneelses viewpoint is not going to help your point, which i see, but do not agree with... ie lesser of two evils
There are by best estimates (could be far more) over a million untaxed, unlicensed, vehicles out there, drivers of these vehicles are over 10 times more likely to have an accident, kill someone drive of, drive under the influence...
My point of view is, if they can be taken off the road or discouraged, fine. And whilst i have a little sympathy for the outsourcing to private companies view (ie parking outsourced is a nightmare...
THIS is a simple, probably cost effective way of acheiving less of these drivers out there....
there of course should be political/legal oversight and a contract written to reflect the publics/laws interets, but as a point of principle why not... Bailiffs for example are private business that operate , make a profit (like them or not, they are a necessity for the law to be seen to work) under court orders
It may catch a few people, ie mistake, ill abroad, etc, BUT their is no RIGHT to have a car on the public road, IT is a priveledge, and everybody is aware you need to tax, mot insure your vehicle...
So shall we agree our viewpoint differ, and discuss this rationally...
Or shall i spout of about my years in business, my directorships (not that it means anything discussing drivers, a 17 year who has just put their firsyt car on the road should have an equal point of view)
and start calling you 'gramps'
?
B
Edited by bjwoods on Friday 23 June 18:26
bjwoods said:
Or shall i spout of about my years in business, my directorships (not that it means anything discussing drivers, a 17 year who has just put their firsyt car on the road should have an equal point of view)
and start calling you 'gramps'
?
B
Go to your room, you're grounded, and you don't get out again until you've studied your law books!
by the way i'm not 17, though i wish i was still sometimes - simple click on profile would have shown that.
but oh dear, by the childish response, totally unwilling to discuss issues or points, means i've beeing talking to a 14 year old troll in pennsylvania. or maybe someone who has had a long day..
would you behave like this if we chatted about this face to face in a pub.. or playground
lighten up
B
- simple click on profile would have shown that. but oh dear, by the childish response, totally unwilling to discuss issues or points, means i've beeing talking to a 14 year old troll in pennsylvania. or maybe someone who has had a long day..
would you behave like this if we chatted about this face to face in a pub.. or playground
lighten up B
Edited by bjwoods on Friday 23 June 18:35
bjwoods said:
towman said:
bjwoods said:
towman said:
Since when did having an untaxed vehicle make you an unsafe driver?
because the police/insurance companies (ie uninsured untaxed cars hitting insured ones) statitics proof it
untaxed (i'm talking over a month) cars more than likely to not have an mot or be insured,,, these drivers/vehicles 10x more likeky to have a crash, drive off from a crash, etc,etc, than an insured/taxed driver.
B
What utter rot. using your ridiculous logic, how many taxed cars have accidents? - Far more than untaxed ones. Therefore it is safer to drive an untaxed vehicle!
You have fallen for the mantra spouted by Mr Ladyman. Untaxed cars are not unsafe. However i would concede that in many cases they would be uninsured and not mot`d. I would also agree that the financial consequences of having an accident with one of thes vehicles is not good. However, the severity of the accident has nothing to do with whether the vehicle is taxed or not.
The government has taken the easy way out. The big problem in lask of insurance - why don`t they deal with it by means of a windscreen disc / govt issued numberplates etc like they do in Europe? Instead they choose to go for the easy target untaxed vehicles - probably because it is easy to target those who genuinely let it slip. It`s all about revenue, road safety? - my arse!!
it is hardly utter tosh, as i said, as a PROPORTION, they are more risky... a million such vehicles on the road compared to a million taxed, the untaxed ones (statistically, are many times a greater risk)
i'm not refering to those that have forgot, or a few weeks overdue, but those cars significantly out of dat, generally they are also uninsured, un mot'd and the drivers far more likely to have an accident, have an accident whilst under the influence drig/drugs, or leave the scene... of course, the 'generalisisation will aslo include the odd driver, whos been ill, abroad, etc... and whose car is safe, and they are safe. BUT most won't the police of course will not know what category you fall into, until they stop the car/ clamp the car
B
Edited by bjwoods on Friday 23 June 14:30
Sorry, but you`ve totally missed the point of my original post. In a nutshell, Mr Ladyman is trying to link this to road safety. Untaxed cars have nothing to do with road safety. Any vehicle can be involved in an accident.
that is not correct, compare 100 thousand licensed cars, vs 100 thousand unlicensed cars. the unlicesned car is 10 TIMES more likely to be involved in accident, etc,etc,etc than licensed...
DO you comprehend this.
anyway bedtime now,,
my 2 toddlers that is......
B
DO you comprehend this.
anyway bedtime now,,
my 2 toddlers that is......
B
Edited by bjwoods on Friday 23 June 18:44
bjwoods said:
that is not correct, compare 100 thousand licensed cars, vs 100 thousand unlicensed cars. the unlicesned car is 10 TIMES more likely to be involved in accident, etc,etc,etc than licensed...
A question regarding cause and effect (btw I'm still not convinved either way): would forcing these evading drivers into getting VED reduce their probability of crashing?bjwoods said:
that is not correct, compare 100 thousand licensed cars, vs 100 thousand unlicensed cars. the unlicesned car is 10 TIMES more likely to be involved in accident, etc,etc,etc than licensed...
DO you comprehend this.
anyway bedtime now,,
my 2 toddlers that is......
B
DO you comprehend this.
anyway bedtime now,,
my 2 toddlers that is......
B
Hang on, the figures you quoted originally referred to untaxed and uninsured vehicles. I am talking about untaxed.
would you like to reposition these?
towman said:
bjwoods said:
that is not correct, compare 100 thousand licensed cars, vs 100 thousand unlicensed cars. the unlicesned car is 10 TIMES more likely to be involved in accident, etc,etc,etc than licensed...
DO you comprehend this.
anyway bedtime now,,
my 2 toddlers that is......
B
DO you comprehend this.
anyway bedtime now,,
my 2 toddlers that is......
B
Hang on, the figures you quoted originally referred to untaxed and uninsured vehicles. I am talking about untaxed.
would you like to reposition these?
not really an untaxed vehicle, is also more 'likely' to be an uninsured, un mot'd vehicle..
all this has been discussed many times before, and confirmed by a number of traffic police who use this site.. ie run a check on an untaxed vehicle, and in 'certain' area
8-9 times out of 10, vehicle uninsured, etc,etc,etc B
bjwoods said:
Totally agree, but a lot more of the chavvy ones than others, so if clamping gets them off the road, WHY not
Why not what?
Why not shaft a few honest people who found out too late that their local post office has stopped issuing tax discs? (Happened to me, minus the shaftage.)
Why not penalise people who missed their SORN renewal date due to no reminder?
Why not clamp every car you see? That way you'll be SURE to catch the scrotes (along with everyone else, but why not?)
It's true to say that a lot of dangerous drivers have no licence, insurance and tax, but it is flawed logic to assume that an expired tax disc automatically means the driver is dangerous.
Crucially, the dangerous, unlicensed, uninsured, untaxed, chavvy ones will not be deterred in the slightest - they'll simply buy another stolen, ringed, written off, cloned car for a lot less than you and I pay for a tax disc.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff