ANPR Operation today
Discussion
purpleheadedcerb said:
Having been the victim of an uninsured loss accident, I wish this was done more regularly.
Well done.
So you would rather see a crude and ineffective sledge hammer to crack a nut aproach than a simple foolproof solution such as base level insurance included in fuel tax? Perhaps we should license computers then we could spend millions on prosecuting those in breach. Making crimes exist for the sake of it seems very silly to me.
It's better than nothing NG but yes I would prefer all taxes to be levelled fairly through the fuel system. However, I do subscribe to the 'if you have got nothing to hide' philosophy with regard to static anpr road blocks but not the logging and retention of all data relating to road journeys. (just so we are clear!)
Scott
Scott
Tonyrec said:
I took part in an ANPR operation today and there were quite a few Police on it. It didnt take long for a middle aged person who i can best describe as being an idiot to walk past and start pointing his finger at all the Police bodies and shaking his head. I really and truly wanted to get hold of him and explain the situation but against my better judgement i refrained from doing so.
What area was that in? Just wondering as they were out in force in Canning Town a few weeks ago.
Tonyrec said:
I took part in an ANPR operation today and there were quite a few Police on it. It didnt take long for a middle aged person who i can best describe as being an idiot to walk past and start pointing his finger at all the Police bodies and shaking his head. I really and truly wanted to get hold of him and explain the situation but against my better judgement i refrained from doing so.
However, to the point.
Any vehicle which doesnt have Insurance is taken away from the driver forthwith. This is a new Force policy on such operations and to expedite this we have a large car transporter on scene which will take about 12 cars.
It wont surprise you to know that after one hour 30 mins the transporter was full. This coupled with countless process and 4 good quality arrests made it a very productive couple of hours.
It just goes to show how many uninsured, unlicenced cars are on the road..........and not one speeding ticket was issued.
For those that might want to whinge about all the resources dealing today, we were all Traffic Police....the local Police were still able to deal with Robbers and Burglars and day to day stuff that was coming their way. Oh, and we still had Trafpols on patrol to deal with a Fatal RTC.
I think this is fantastic policing, keep it up!
ANPR used correctly as per TonyRec's account is a fantastic use of technology - these scrotes that don't insure their cars do need teaching a lesson, although I understand why they are doing this.
Insurance is a scam industry and Nonegreen's plan for displayed duty covering insurance is spot on, a sliding scale somehow connected to power/engine size or car value is probably best (I'm leaving that delibrately fuzzy).
Insurance is a scam industry and Nonegreen's plan for displayed duty covering insurance is spot on, a sliding scale somehow connected to power/engine size or car value is probably best (I'm leaving that delibrately fuzzy).
Agree with the principle and good job taking the uninsured off the road.
However I had a meeting with the Bib after driving into a wall, and after establishing that my car was not a black clio then I was told it was uninsured.
At the time I didn't get a producer (must have an honest face) but almost a month later at 11:00 at night, I had a knock on the door from the same officer, asking to see my documents. As the database was still showing no insurance.
This was in November and the car had been fully (and expensively) insured since April. I was also able to tax it in August.
Preumably I could have proved this with a call to my insurers (if I could remember their name
) but it doesn't inspire any confidence in the system.
However I had a meeting with the Bib after driving into a wall, and after establishing that my car was not a black clio then I was told it was uninsured.
At the time I didn't get a producer (must have an honest face) but almost a month later at 11:00 at night, I had a knock on the door from the same officer, asking to see my documents. As the database was still showing no insurance.
This was in November and the car had been fully (and expensively) insured since April. I was also able to tax it in August.
Preumably I could have proved this with a call to my insurers (if I could remember their name
) but it doesn't inspire any confidence in the system.puggit said:
ANPR used correctly as per TonyRec's account is a fantastic use of technology - these scrotes that don't insure their cars do need teaching a lesson, although I understand why they are doing this.
And utterly dependant on databases that are, by the DVLAs own admission, inaccurate.
TonyRec said:
It should really be a bigger fine than that.
From experience of my own jobs at Court, the fine varies (quite wrongly IMHO)depending on which Court you attend.
Ive seen it from £650 right down to £125
I say crush the car if its blatant use of vehicle on a road without Insurance. A bit harsh but it might give some people a rocket up the...bum.
WON'T WORK , WILL IT!
people driving without insurance / tax ect, already cannot afford to pay,
so how is a fine going to be paid?
thier first priority after leaving the scene will be ring thier nearest friendly twocker to arrange for another car for £50, back on the road in about 4 -6 hours (if twocker takes his time)
the laws as they stand now , is a recipe for use car once and crush car get another car economy
antispeed said:
It should really be a bigger fine than that.
From experience of my own jobs at Court, the fine varies (quite wrongly IMHO)depending on which Court you attend.
Ive seen it from £650 right down to £125
I say crush the car if its blatant use of vehicle on a road without Insurance. A bit harsh but it might give some people a rocket up the...bum.
WON'T WORK , WILL IT!
people driving without insurance / tax ect, already cannot afford to pay,
so how is a fine going to be paid?
thier first priority after leaving the scene will be ring thier nearest friendly twocker to arrange for another car for £50, back on the road in about 4 -6 hours (if twocker takes his time)
the laws as they stand now , is a recipe for use car once and crush car get another car economy
So what do we do then?
Do we say "Oh well you cant afford to pay, off you trot then"
Its part of ways and means, if they dont pay the £200 then the fine goes up after 28 days, if they still dont pay they get warrants issued. But they still get 6 points.
Get done again then 12 month ban under totting up.
Get done again then arrested for driving whilst disqual + further endorsements and extended ban.
Then finally they go inside for a short stint for another disqual.
We work with what we have and getting these people who flout the laws time and time again while YOU are paying, locked up is a way of doing it regardless of their financial state.
madbadger said:
Agree with the principle and good job taking the uninsured off the road.
However I had a meeting with the Bib after driving into a wall, and after establishing that my car was not a black clio then I was told it was uninsured.
At the time I didn't get a producer (must have an honest face) but almost a month later at 11:00 at night, I had a knock on the door from the same officer, asking to see my documents. As the database was still showing no insurance.
This was in November and the car had been fully (and expensively) insured since April. I was also able to tax it in August.
Preumably I could have proved this with a call to my insurers (if I could remember their name
So you have total proof that the system does not work yet you support it
Its pretty obvious that Tony and his gang have probably taken a dozen cars away and at least half of them will probably be perfectly legal and fully insured etc. Obviously the officers who order this kind of activity to take place are culpable and should be prosecuted for car theft and then jailed as appropriate. This is not police work at all it is criminal activity. There are probably 100000 workers in the police and the civil service who could be better employed than indulging in this mindless crap. As the insurance element relies on the records of private companies it is most definately theft that is occuring here.
nonegreen said:
Agree with the principle and good job taking the uninsured off the road.
However I had a meeting with the Bib after driving into a wall, and after establishing that my car was not a black clio then I was told it was uninsured.
At the time I didn't get a producer (must have an honest face) but almost a month later at 11:00 at night, I had a knock on the door from the same officer, asking to see my documents. As the database was still showing no insurance.
This was in November and the car had been fully (and expensively) insured since April. I was also able to tax it in August.
Preumably I could have proved this with a call to my insurers (if I could remember their name
So you have total proof that the system does not work yet you support it
Its pretty obvious that Tony and his gang have probably taken a dozen cars away and at least half of them will probably be perfectly legal and fully insured etc. Obviously the officers who order this kind of activity to take place are culpable and should be prosecuted for car theft and then jailed as appropriate. This is not police work at all it is criminal activity. There are probably 100000 workers in the police and the civil service who could be better employed than indulging in this mindless crap. As the insurance element relies on the records of private companies it is most definately theft that is occuring here.
Not quite.
I support taking uninsured drivers off the road. At the moment, under current law there is no basic cover as part of tax so there is a requirement to get your own insurance. Whether there should be basic 3rd party cover or not is a different argument to enforcing the current law.
I also have not totally lost all faith in the police and the system (perhaps naievly) but I would assume that if I had had reason to have a little chat with Tony and his chums, then I would have been able to demonstrate that I am indeed insured, and I would also assume that I would therefore not have to watch my car being taken off.
Currently I now carry my documents with me.
Also - the only conclusive proof I have is that the DVLA couldn't maintain an accurate database in a brewery.
In my case the sytem has worked as no-one has actually taken away and crushed my car (apart from me) as the police seem quite prepared to accept that the database is not 100%.
In my case the sytem has worked as no-one has actually taken away and crushed my car (apart from me) as the police seem quite prepared to accept that the database is not 100%.
Great result to catch the baduns of course.
But why have a system that can be circumvented, needs manpower to watch / monitor everyone on an ad hoc basis, when there is a system possible (and employed in other countries) whereby basic insurance can't be avoided and road tax (i.e. included in fuel cost) can also not be avoided?
But why have a system that can be circumvented, needs manpower to watch / monitor everyone on an ad hoc basis, when there is a system possible (and employed in other countries) whereby basic insurance can't be avoided and road tax (i.e. included in fuel cost) can also not be avoided?
james_j said:
Great result to catch the baduns of course.
But why have a system that can be circumvented, needs manpower to watch / monitor everyone on an ad hoc basis, when there is a system possible (and employed in other countries) whereby basic insurance can't be avoided and road tax (i.e. included in fuel cost) can also not be avoided?
The current administration are aware of that but they love waste. The reason they won't eliminate the crime by making it impossible to commit is because they can employ all kinds of wastful tasks and somputer resources to achieve very little. Mediocrity is the aim of the socialist green.
nonegreen said:
All this could be eliminated by simply making liability cover part of road tax and road tax part of fuel cost.
Indeed such a system would take away the 'justification' for ANPR but not the real reason
But the whole car tax/SORN/Fixed Penalty system could be scrapped & with Basic insurance included for all, the TrafPol could then Police the roads much more effectively by being able to concentrate on Driving issues without having to waste time on all these other offences.
Of course the reality would be entire network of roads Policed by Scammers and Petrol at £20 per Gallon.
catso said:
All this could be eliminated by simply making liability cover part of road tax and road tax part of fuel cost.
Indeed such a system would take away the 'justification' for ANPR but not the real reason
But the whole car tax/SORN/Fixed Penalty system could be scrapped & with Basic insurance included for all, the TrafPol could then Police the roads much more effectively by being able to concentrate on Driving issues without having to waste time on all these other offences.
Of course the reality would be entire network of roads Policed by Scammers and Petrol at £20 per Gallon.
It would add 4p per litre to include insurance and about the same for road tax. It would also increase the need for unemployment benefit too.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff