ANPR Operation today
Discussion
Nii said:
Hi Tony rec,
Someone recommend me to you. I'm doing a TV documentary in London about speed cameras, I wonder if you could give an interview about your opinion? We need a police officer to balance the story. Thank you.
Please dont take this as a cop out but i dont think it would be 'prudent' for me to appear on any TV documentary airing my views on Speed Cameras and the like.
I dont believe it would be professional of me to do this because it would show me sitting on the fence a bit.
I not a great believer in the Scameras and most of them do generate a lot of money but there are a few that i honestly believe do a reasonable job.
However, they can not and will never be a substitute for Trafpol (contrary to what Nonegreen says)
Tonyrec said:
Please dont take this as a cop out but i dont think it would be 'prudent' for me to appear on any TV documentary airing my views on Speed Cameras and the like....
Who is this Tonyrec of whom thou speak...?
For Cardinal Brunstrom doth summon him from the North of Wales......
Richard C said:
3 Questions for Tonyrec
What Statutory Instrument or other legal power is used to seize the uninsured cars ? I have enquired of N Wales police but they speak mysteriously of the DVLA having powers and that they have 'devolved them' to the police. And the owner is required to sign a document but a copy is not handed to him.
Are cars siezed in your area for out-of-date tax disks alone ? Ledfoot implies that 'a mate' risked loosing his apparently untaxed car to an ANPR operation. I have observed N Wales police siezing a car for what the woner claimed was an out of date tax disk.
And finally it seems that the ANPR operation depends on an insurance certificates existing on a database which has the registration of the vehicle attached. But I can legally drive a vehicle on the roads which is not mine and not hired to me under an HP agreement, which is taxed and with the owners permission. But if the owner himself does not use it on the road and has no insurance - I assume the ANPR will flag it and i will be stopped and you will want to load the car on a transporter ?
I'd really like to know the answers to these questions Tonyrec or any other BiB who does ANPR operations
tonyrec said:
Richard,
I dont know the exact legal power act and section that allows the cars to be seized by Police but i will find out when im back at work.
I prefer to give you the correct answer so i will leave that until then.
Richard C said:
Thanks Tonyrec
Have you been able to find out yet Tony ?
Tonyrec
Your continued silence is confirmin what I and others already suspect - that the ANPR operations are illegally seizing cars without proof of insurance and/or a valid tax disk being displayed. And that the operation as in S Yorks relies on the Police intimidating the user into signing a release into handing over the car and its contents before being dumped on the roadside miles from anywhere.
And before others say - "serve them right" etc, with the crap that masqueradesas the DVLA database - don't be too sure it may not be you one day.
not sure which is worse - understanding the above or being told I was worng and that the Police have been given such powers - either way its standard police state stuff
Your continued silence is confirmin what I and others already suspect - that the ANPR operations are illegally seizing cars without proof of insurance and/or a valid tax disk being displayed. And that the operation as in S Yorks relies on the Police intimidating the user into signing a release into handing over the car and its contents before being dumped on the roadside miles from anywhere.
And before others say - "serve them right" etc, with the crap that masqueradesas the DVLA database - don't be too sure it may not be you one day.
not sure which is worse - understanding the above or being told I was worng and that the Police have been given such powers - either way its standard police state stuff
Tony
As I was driving into St Albans, earlier today, I saw a small 'thing' possibly a camera and on top of it seemed to be a solar panel. It was mounted about 7-8ft up a lamp column.
Sorry for the hopeless description (it was raining) but do you know what is was? Some sort of permanent ANPR?
As I was driving into St Albans, earlier today, I saw a small 'thing' possibly a camera and on top of it seemed to be a solar panel. It was mounted about 7-8ft up a lamp column.
Sorry for the hopeless description (it was raining) but do you know what is was? Some sort of permanent ANPR?
Richard
Prempting what Tony may come back with and I am not an APNR operator but have an idea what goes on....
Where the driver of a motor vehicle on a road is required not only to produce evidence that there is Insurance for the vehicle but also he has a current Driving Licence, fails to produce one or the other and if the Officer has REASONABLE grounds to believe that there is non in force he may seize the vehicle under Section 165A Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by Section 152 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
The Commencement Order with a date of 1st July 2005 for Sect 165A/152 was The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Commencement No 1 Transitional and Transitory Provisions) Order 2005.
Having seized the vehicle responsibilities for retention and disposal are covered at law by Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Vehicles) Regs 2005.
Under The Disclosure of Vehicles Insurance Regs 2005, the Motor Insurance Information Centre, where details of all vehicle Insurance are collated, are authorised to disclose details at frequent intervals their records and amendments to PITA (Police) VRM,i.e. make and model of vehicle, date Insurance ceased to be in force in relation to the use of that vehicle. If you remember Certificate of Insurances used to cover Any Vehicle owned by the Policyholder but now that is out and VRM used so it is possible to create a data base.
From that data base ANPR will flag up an uninsured vehicle. But as you rightly state there will be occasions where APNR will be found wanting in that under the circumstances you describe the driver will be Insured. Fast forward to REASONABLE GROUNDS aspect and Plod will then make certain enquiries along established avenues to confirm or deny. He cannot seize until those grounds are satisfied. What ANPR is doing is giving a possible pointer, not a bad thing.
Other powers exist for a seizure by Police on other matters and DVLA by clamping and uplifting vehicles that cannot be shown to be currently taxed.
So Wales and other force do have power under the law to seize.
dvd
Prempting what Tony may come back with and I am not an APNR operator but have an idea what goes on....
Where the driver of a motor vehicle on a road is required not only to produce evidence that there is Insurance for the vehicle but also he has a current Driving Licence, fails to produce one or the other and if the Officer has REASONABLE grounds to believe that there is non in force he may seize the vehicle under Section 165A Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by Section 152 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
The Commencement Order with a date of 1st July 2005 for Sect 165A/152 was The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Commencement No 1 Transitional and Transitory Provisions) Order 2005.
Having seized the vehicle responsibilities for retention and disposal are covered at law by Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Vehicles) Regs 2005.
Under The Disclosure of Vehicles Insurance Regs 2005, the Motor Insurance Information Centre, where details of all vehicle Insurance are collated, are authorised to disclose details at frequent intervals their records and amendments to PITA (Police) VRM,i.e. make and model of vehicle, date Insurance ceased to be in force in relation to the use of that vehicle. If you remember Certificate of Insurances used to cover Any Vehicle owned by the Policyholder but now that is out and VRM used so it is possible to create a data base.
From that data base ANPR will flag up an uninsured vehicle. But as you rightly state there will be occasions where APNR will be found wanting in that under the circumstances you describe the driver will be Insured. Fast forward to REASONABLE GROUNDS aspect and Plod will then make certain enquiries along established avenues to confirm or deny. He cannot seize until those grounds are satisfied. What ANPR is doing is giving a possible pointer, not a bad thing.
Other powers exist for a seizure by Police on other matters and DVLA by clamping and uplifting vehicles that cannot be shown to be currently taxed.
So Wales and other force do have power under the law to seize.
dvd
Richard C said:
Tonyrec
Your continued silence is confirmin what I and others already suspect - that the ANPR operations are illegally seizing cars without proof of insurance and/or a valid tax disk being displayed. And that the operation as in S Yorks relies on the Police intimidating the user into signing a release into handing over the car and its contents before being dumped on the roadside miles from anywhere.
And before others say - "serve them right" etc, with the crap that masqueradesas the DVLA database - don't be too sure it may not be you one day.
not sure which is worse - understanding the above or being told I was worng and that the Police have been given such powers - either way its standard police state stuff
Richard,
Sorry for the lack of reply to your question but working 15 hour days takes its toll.
DVD has quite rightly pointed out that the power comes from the recently introduced SOCPA powers. In fact hes explained it superbly well as always
As has been explained, if theres a chance that the vehicle is insured then it wont be taken away.....its not worth the hassle as there are enough 100% cases out there to keep us going.
rsvmilly said:
Tony
As I was driving into St Albans, earlier today, I saw a small 'thing' possibly a camera and on top of it seemed to be a solar panel. It was mounted about 7-8ft up a lamp column.
Sorry for the hopeless description (it was raining) but do you know what is was? Some sort of permanent ANPR?
Sorry but i dont know what it is. It could well be a city observation camera though, i will have a look the next time i pass through.
mungo said:
to expedite this we have a large car transporter on scene which will take about 12 cars.
Lucky you!!!!
The last time traffic did an operation in the town I police they were constantly calling out recovery to take away the cars they had section 165'd...
The van I was driving broke down so I had to call out recovery for myself - because the traffic guys were keeping the local recovery services so busy I had to wait over an hour to get the van recovered! See the pic in my profile.
Matt, nice to hear from you again, i trust all is going well mate
Dwight VanDriver said:Ammounts to state sponsored car theft.
Richard
Prempting what Tony may come back with and I am not an APNR operator but have an idea what goes on....
Where the driver of a motor vehicle on a road is required not only to produce evidence that there is Insurance for the vehicle but also he has a current Driving Licence, fails to produce one or the other and if the Officer has REASONABLE grounds to believe that there is non in force he may seize the vehicle under Section 165A Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by Section 152 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
The Commencement Order with a date of 1st July 2005 for Sect 165A/152 was The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Commencement No 1 Transitional and Transitory Provisions) Order 2005.
Having seized the vehicle responsibilities for retention and disposal are covered at law by Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Vehicles) Regs 2005.
Under The Disclosure of Vehicles Insurance Regs 2005, the Motor Insurance Information Centre, where details of all vehicle Insurance are collated, are authorised to disclose details at frequent intervals their records and amendments to PITA (Police) VRM,i.e. make and model of vehicle, date Insurance ceased to be in force in relation to the use of that vehicle. If you remember Certificate of Insurances used to cover Any Vehicle owned by the Policyholder but now that is out and VRM used so it is possible to create a data base.
From that data base ANPR will flag up an uninsured vehicle. But as you rightly state there will be occasions where APNR will be found wanting in that under the circumstances you describe the driver will be Insured. Fast forward to REASONABLE GROUNDS aspect and Plod will then make certain enquiries along established avenues to confirm or deny. He cannot seize until those grounds are satisfied. What ANPR is doing is giving a possible pointer, not a bad thing.
Other powers exist for a seizure by Police on other matters and DVLA by clamping and uplifting vehicles that cannot be shown to be currently taxed.
So Wales and other force do have power under the law to seize.
dvd
We have other priorities and issues wasting money on this tripe is merely an aberation. Where do I sign up to support AlQuieda? We need a change of leadership.nonegreen said:
Ammounts to state sponsored car theft.
Surely if people are driving without Insurance then they deserve this to happen?
Tony, you're quite right, one can really have little sympathy with the uninsured who do this deliberately all the time.
However, the problem is that the general public, and I don't just mean the enthusiasts who post on here, increasingly believe that the gov't have instructed the Police Service to concentrate on catching drivers whilst allowing other minor offences to go largely unpunished. The courts service is perceived as doing the same.
Then there are really stupid statements from CC's (like your Guv'nor Sir Ian) down to the Bournemouth beat officer (who said that thefts of under £75 should not be reported - a 'thief's charter if ever there was one).
The ordinary person does want high-profile, low-tolerance policing of street crime and burglary but the visible high-profile police activity is now mainly on road traffic related activity. I'm not saying this should not be done at all, but if the visible numbers of officers at ANPR 'stings' were deployed in certain town centres on Friday and Saturday nights with a zero-tolerance towards 'yobs' the perception of the police service would improve overall.
It's sad that this should be the case, but the Chief Constables do seem pre-occupied with their political image and 'toeing-the-party's politically correct line' at all times. I guess they have their future 'honours and awards' to consider (Lord Brunstrom of Scammerville?)
Put yourself in the position of someone who phones 999 to report a break-in in progress only to have 2 young WPC's, one a 'Special', turn up some 50 minutes later, as happened to me, and then see an ANPR exercise in operation during the following week with, maybe, 14 officers engaged for several hours. Statistically it may be productive, but in PR terms it's not so good.
There is little doubt that the respect Mr. Joe Public has for the Police Service has dropped over the past 25 years and the reason for this is the concentration towards drivers and motoring offences, probably at the behest of Gov't.
I really don't envy you your job and what has happened is no fault of the ordinary copper at the 'sharp end' as policy is laid down from above. It's the policy which is in question, not the chaps doing the job on the street.
However, the problem is that the general public, and I don't just mean the enthusiasts who post on here, increasingly believe that the gov't have instructed the Police Service to concentrate on catching drivers whilst allowing other minor offences to go largely unpunished. The courts service is perceived as doing the same.
Then there are really stupid statements from CC's (like your Guv'nor Sir Ian) down to the Bournemouth beat officer (who said that thefts of under £75 should not be reported - a 'thief's charter if ever there was one).
The ordinary person does want high-profile, low-tolerance policing of street crime and burglary but the visible high-profile police activity is now mainly on road traffic related activity. I'm not saying this should not be done at all, but if the visible numbers of officers at ANPR 'stings' were deployed in certain town centres on Friday and Saturday nights with a zero-tolerance towards 'yobs' the perception of the police service would improve overall.
It's sad that this should be the case, but the Chief Constables do seem pre-occupied with their political image and 'toeing-the-party's politically correct line' at all times. I guess they have their future 'honours and awards' to consider (Lord Brunstrom of Scammerville?)
Put yourself in the position of someone who phones 999 to report a break-in in progress only to have 2 young WPC's, one a 'Special', turn up some 50 minutes later, as happened to me, and then see an ANPR exercise in operation during the following week with, maybe, 14 officers engaged for several hours. Statistically it may be productive, but in PR terms it's not so good.
There is little doubt that the respect Mr. Joe Public has for the Police Service has dropped over the past 25 years and the reason for this is the concentration towards drivers and motoring offences, probably at the behest of Gov't.
I really don't envy you your job and what has happened is no fault of the ordinary copper at the 'sharp end' as policy is laid down from above. It's the policy which is in question, not the chaps doing the job on the street.
OK how is ANPR going to catch a driver (lets call them person A) who has no Licence, no Insurance and yet the car is owned by someone else (lets call them person B), is Taxed, MOT'd and Insured by person B ??
Person A will be able to drive all day every day and go totally undetected.
Person B may well be a very low risk person and the Insurance etc be very cheap.
Person A could well be banned for dangerous driving, drink driving etc etc etc.
Person A will be able to drive all day every day and go totally undetected.
Person B may well be a very low risk person and the Insurance etc be very cheap.
Person A could well be banned for dangerous driving, drink driving etc etc etc.
ANPR is a fairly blunt instrument and there are cases where it will not show up anything.
However, it should stop those who just buy a car and use it untaxed and uninsured and, possibly, not registered to themselves at all.
With the current obsession with electronic enforcement it is relatively easy to, effectively, opt out of the system reasonably legally. If you register a car to a limited company, have it insured by that company and use a 3rd party management services company as the company secretary with their address as the registered office, an ANPR will come up 'clean' every time and any speed camera NiP's will go to the registered office from where the company secretary (another company, not an individual) will simply reply with a 'driver not known' letter from that management services company. It is unlikely that this will be chased down at all, or so my senior police officer friend has told me. After all, the summons for 'failure to identify' would have to go to a 'body corporate' and if they pursued a director in person he could and would (rightfully) deny ever receiving the NiP which went to the company secretary i.e. the management company.
One of my clients often gets NiP's for their company cars when those cars (or vans) are being used by teams of technicians who go to various airports, or to aircraft maintainers, to carry out work on the aircraft. The vehicles are all insured for any company driver, so any one of up to 4 employees could be driving. My friend there is the H.R. Director and his department replies on behalf of the company listing all the possible drivers on that day, inviting the Police to visit the company and to interview all those who could have been driving in person. He never gets any further action (so far)and the offer to allow interviews in company time has never been taken up. This is a very large multi-national company with a turnover of many millions, so maybe the camera pratnerships realise they would be spending a lot of time on a doubtful outcome.
A while ago one of my employees was caught in a company car at 49 in a 40 at midnight. I filled in the NiP correctly, except that I didn't have his drivers licence number, but the driver had left our employment and moved to work in France for a few months by the time he received his NiP at his former home address. They never came back to my company and never managed to trace the driver either. I guess it just 'went away'.
When the effort to trace seems likely to be difficult it seems as though the pratnerships or the CPS/Police just give up.
However, it should stop those who just buy a car and use it untaxed and uninsured and, possibly, not registered to themselves at all.
With the current obsession with electronic enforcement it is relatively easy to, effectively, opt out of the system reasonably legally. If you register a car to a limited company, have it insured by that company and use a 3rd party management services company as the company secretary with their address as the registered office, an ANPR will come up 'clean' every time and any speed camera NiP's will go to the registered office from where the company secretary (another company, not an individual) will simply reply with a 'driver not known' letter from that management services company. It is unlikely that this will be chased down at all, or so my senior police officer friend has told me. After all, the summons for 'failure to identify' would have to go to a 'body corporate' and if they pursued a director in person he could and would (rightfully) deny ever receiving the NiP which went to the company secretary i.e. the management company.
One of my clients often gets NiP's for their company cars when those cars (or vans) are being used by teams of technicians who go to various airports, or to aircraft maintainers, to carry out work on the aircraft. The vehicles are all insured for any company driver, so any one of up to 4 employees could be driving. My friend there is the H.R. Director and his department replies on behalf of the company listing all the possible drivers on that day, inviting the Police to visit the company and to interview all those who could have been driving in person. He never gets any further action (so far)and the offer to allow interviews in company time has never been taken up. This is a very large multi-national company with a turnover of many millions, so maybe the camera pratnerships realise they would be spending a lot of time on a doubtful outcome.
A while ago one of my employees was caught in a company car at 49 in a 40 at midnight. I filled in the NiP correctly, except that I didn't have his drivers licence number, but the driver had left our employment and moved to work in France for a few months by the time he received his NiP at his former home address. They never came back to my company and never managed to trace the driver either. I guess it just 'went away'.
When the effort to trace seems likely to be difficult it seems as though the pratnerships or the CPS/Police just give up.
rsvmilly said:
Tony
As I was driving into St Albans, earlier today, I saw a small 'thing' possibly a camera and on top of it seemed to be a solar panel. It was mounted about 7-8ft up a lamp column.
Sorry for the hopeless description (it was raining) but do you know what is was? Some sort of permanent ANPR?
In Hertfordshire, there are quite a few of these. I am fairly certain that they are a device which are used to power traffic flow monitoring sensors under the road.
Nothing to worry about with these as far as speed enforcement is concerned..
Tonyrec said:
Ammounts to state sponsored car theft.
Surely if people are driving without Insurance then they deserve this to happen?
That is debatable and in reality we can eliminate the problem very simply as I have already suggested. In terms of things we might have tackled before we spent a fortune on a 50% accurate databise which has been specified by incompetent civil servants who can barely spell computer much less spec software, therefore ensuring half the cars you stop will indeed be insured. The following are in my opinion of higher priority, in no particular order
Drug crime
Street crime
Local Government fraud
Domestic safety
Work safety
Organised crime
Religious inspired violence
Just to give you a handle on where I am coming from, the cost of uninsure drivers is about 60 quid each for the rest of us to cover it. I am absolutely certain the civil service waste is several orders of magnitude greater than that and I am certain I could halve my council tax while maintaining the essential services and even have a bit left over for some extra policemen.
I just think ANPR and all it stands for is a waste of moneyGassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff