RE: Uninsured driver crackdown starts today
Discussion
What this government consistently fails to understand is that the majority of the public are motorists, and the majority of motorists are not stupid (although considering the standard of driving I see on the motorways in my 25K p/ann commute, I could be wrong about that 
). This is another step towards monitoring the public, and all the potential that brings, full stop. It has to be because even our idiotic MP's must surely be able to see it won't work in the way they claim. More and more policing of our roads is done by camera's, and they rely entirely on the number plate. Change or remove the plate - avoid capture - easy. I have actually been advised by a serving plod to take the number plate off my bikes if I what to "have some fun" - I kid you not - and I didn't even know him personally. Even law abiding folk will be tempted to do this sort of thing with the way things are going. I agree totally with trying to stop uninsured driving, and agree with a central database to assist with this, but the answer is more plod on the roads, change your plate and then try to explain it to them - not quite so easy.
). This is another step towards monitoring the public, and all the potential that brings, full stop. It has to be because even our idiotic MP's must surely be able to see it won't work in the way they claim. More and more policing of our roads is done by camera's, and they rely entirely on the number plate. Change or remove the plate - avoid capture - easy. I have actually been advised by a serving plod to take the number plate off my bikes if I what to "have some fun" - I kid you not - and I didn't even know him personally. Even law abiding folk will be tempted to do this sort of thing with the way things are going. I agree totally with trying to stop uninsured driving, and agree with a central database to assist with this, but the answer is more plod on the roads, change your plate and then try to explain it to them - not quite so easy.I'm not sure why the author of this article seems to be opposed to measures to take uninsured drivers off the road. This system will make it more difficult for persistant uninsured drivers to avoid prosecution, and increase the efficiency of the police. And the "just buy another banger" plan won't work because for a second offence of no insurance they send the driver to jail.
It's the new law that's the problem in my view, as was the case with the new road tax law. The tax law makes all car owners guilty until proven innocent, as you can be prosecuted unless you tax your vehicle or file a SORN, and no doubt the new law will be similar. Now the last time I checked the CPS were supposed to prove that you'd done something wrong to prosecute you.
It's the new law that's the problem in my view, as was the case with the new road tax law. The tax law makes all car owners guilty until proven innocent, as you can be prosecuted unless you tax your vehicle or file a SORN, and no doubt the new law will be similar. Now the last time I checked the CPS were supposed to prove that you'd done something wrong to prosecute you.
Another nearly useless policy?
I witnessed a crackdown on untaxed cars along my street about three months ago. Lorries came along in the morning and simply scooped them up. Trouble is, they were all bangers. Most of them wouldn’t sell for more than a few hundred quid. Many of the people who own these cars have no intention of insuring, taxing, or MOT-ing these old cars, as it’s cheaper to simply buy another one once they get caught.
WHAT IS THE F
ING POINT?
The people who are most likely to carry on in this way aren’t the least bit concerned about the consequences of their unfair actions, let alone this new system. They don’t respond to this type of enforcement as most of us do, and so yet again more of our tax money is wasted. It may make a dent in the problem, but only in the same way I can make a dent in the side of a Range Rover by chucking a marble at its door skin.
I witnessed a crackdown on untaxed cars along my street about three months ago. Lorries came along in the morning and simply scooped them up. Trouble is, they were all bangers. Most of them wouldn’t sell for more than a few hundred quid. Many of the people who own these cars have no intention of insuring, taxing, or MOT-ing these old cars, as it’s cheaper to simply buy another one once they get caught.
WHAT IS THE F
ING POINT? The people who are most likely to carry on in this way aren’t the least bit concerned about the consequences of their unfair actions, let alone this new system. They don’t respond to this type of enforcement as most of us do, and so yet again more of our tax money is wasted. It may make a dent in the problem, but only in the same way I can make a dent in the side of a Range Rover by chucking a marble at its door skin.
the problem I seee is that in the past I've sometimes lapsed insurance but kept a car taxed as I intended to sell it now that is impossible, also the data base is only as perfect as insurance companies and brokers and we all know how slow and inefficient they are (polite description!!!!)if this is going on I think there should be a way for individuals to check that their car has been placed on the database as one insurance company balls up could cause loads of hassle
Car £200.
Fine for driving without numberplates? Say £20?
Fine for driving without insurance? Say £100?
Insurance for numpty with lots of previous motoring convictions? £5000.
Even the pond-scum can work out that it's cheaper not to bother with insurance and risk getting caught.
What they need to do is crack down on car insurance. Within 24 hours, I managed to get two quotes from the same company for the same car with the same exact details which differed by over £100. Madness!
Ian A.
Fine for driving without numberplates? Say £20?
Fine for driving without insurance? Say £100?
Insurance for numpty with lots of previous motoring convictions? £5000.
Even the pond-scum can work out that it's cheaper not to bother with insurance and risk getting caught.
What they need to do is crack down on car insurance. Within 24 hours, I managed to get two quotes from the same company for the same car with the same exact details which differed by over £100. Madness!
Ian A.
So I take it if you have a SORN on a car then you will not have to insure it? Otherwise I'm stuffed. I have 4 cars off the road currently undergoing repairs/being stored. Only one is insured, as it is soon to go for MOT. If the police turn up on my door step demanding to have them taken away I'll not be happy.
This sounds like the usual quizotic solution to a problem that
just does not go far enough to fix the problem.
Yes we all want these people off the road or if they are to remain
them they must be 'legal' and be insured like the rest of us.
Perhaps the solution is to have a means to actually show you are insured 'visually' on each vehicle.
I think they have a system like this in France - where they have a sticker on the bumper.
just does not go far enough to fix the problem.
Yes we all want these people off the road or if they are to remain
them they must be 'legal' and be insured like the rest of us.
Perhaps the solution is to have a means to actually show you are insured 'visually' on each vehicle.
I think they have a system like this in France - where they have a sticker on the bumper.
I think anything they can possibly do to stop these ers is good. One of the most efficient ways of doing this would be to increase the police force or employ some third party to attend the scene of every RTA regardless of how significant. They could then cross reference driving licence, insurance, registration etc etc all on the spot.
On two occasions, no more than 3 months apart, I was shunted into by two uninsured drivers who gave me false details of course. I was stationary sitting in traffic in both instances so could never be determined to be at fault. Bearing in mind I was driving an elise at the time, even though the damage was relatively insignificant, the cost of repairs - in excess of £1200 each time - hurt, not to mention the fact that I had to pay 2 frigging excesses and of course lost some NCB protection. So in every way I was totally screwed, I'd literally had the car back about 10 days before the second accident.....made me soooooo angry.
Rant over !
ers is good. One of the most efficient ways of doing this would be to increase the police force or employ some third party to attend the scene of every RTA regardless of how significant. They could then cross reference driving licence, insurance, registration etc etc all on the spot. On two occasions, no more than 3 months apart, I was shunted into by two uninsured drivers who gave me false details of course. I was stationary sitting in traffic in both instances so could never be determined to be at fault. Bearing in mind I was driving an elise at the time, even though the damage was relatively insignificant, the cost of repairs - in excess of £1200 each time - hurt, not to mention the fact that I had to pay 2 frigging excesses and of course lost some NCB protection. So in every way I was totally screwed, I'd literally had the car back about 10 days before the second accident.....made me soooooo angry.
Rant over !
This looks to me like the government's sneaky plan to introduce a nationwide vehicle tracking system under the guise of catching uninsured drivers. That way the public will be in favor of its introduction. I can't imagine for one minute that this system will be cheaper to install than the cost incurred to the nation by uninsured drivers.
Once the camera infrastructure is in place all over the country, it will be a relatively simple task to update the system to monitor where and when vehicles travel and consequently make nationwide “pay as you go” schemes a distinct reality.
I SAY NAY!!!!
Once the camera infrastructure is in place all over the country, it will be a relatively simple task to update the system to monitor where and when vehicles travel and consequently make nationwide “pay as you go” schemes a distinct reality.
I SAY NAY!!!!
Not strictly related to this I know, but there was consultation document on the DVLA website about a year ago, the essence of which is that it would be a legal requirement to hve your No. plates permanently bonded on. At the time I sent a response saying that:-
Any one with criminal intent would simply add a No. plate over the top, or use electrical tape to make "L" into "E", "C" into "O", etc.
The No. plate is attached to a plastic part of the car, so thieves would simply hot-knife any No. plate they wanted, or just take the whole bumper!
The No. plate is in the most vulnerable part of most cars so the law abiding would have even more hassle after a minor bump.
I've seen nothing since, but you see the way they're thinking?? How long before you have to keep a log of who was driving each car on which days & for how long?
Any one with criminal intent would simply add a No. plate over the top, or use electrical tape to make "L" into "E", "C" into "O", etc.
The No. plate is attached to a plastic part of the car, so thieves would simply hot-knife any No. plate they wanted, or just take the whole bumper!
The No. plate is in the most vulnerable part of most cars so the law abiding would have even more hassle after a minor bump.
I've seen nothing since, but you see the way they're thinking?? How long before you have to keep a log of who was driving each car on which days & for how long?
Basic error in this system is - it identifies CAR without insurance not DRIVER. How many times do we read about disqualified drivers being caught driving - may of these numbskulls have no conscience, no driving licence, no insurance and no car, they will still be able to drive a stolen car with impunity as long as the law abiding owner has insured the CAR!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps they need to tattoo a number onto our foreheads. Would save the cost of printing ID cards too.
I agree totally with all the previous comments regarding this flawed thinking. I also believe that more traffic officers would be a better route. Local officers get to know offenders, and get a feel for when a vehicle/driver doesn't seem right.
Also, as I have pointed out on previous threads, ANPR stationed at roadsides are useless unless they have mobile officers that can respond instantly. And as for fitting ANPR to patrol cars, how often do you see patrol cars on your daily commute. If you take the time to look out for them, there aren't that many, and the ones you see are often heading to an "incident". Years of reliance on static camera surveilance has depleted the numbers of traffic patrols.
How about trying to reduce the cost of insurance? I don't agree with NU and their black boxes. If they want to restrict when/where people drive, it can be done without monitoring their every move. How about giving new drivers full NCB to start with, then reduce it if they make a claim. I believe there is a term for this principle, it goes something like "innocent until proven guilty".
I agree totally with all the previous comments regarding this flawed thinking. I also believe that more traffic officers would be a better route. Local officers get to know offenders, and get a feel for when a vehicle/driver doesn't seem right.
Also, as I have pointed out on previous threads, ANPR stationed at roadsides are useless unless they have mobile officers that can respond instantly. And as for fitting ANPR to patrol cars, how often do you see patrol cars on your daily commute. If you take the time to look out for them, there aren't that many, and the ones you see are often heading to an "incident". Years of reliance on static camera surveilance has depleted the numbers of traffic patrols.
How about trying to reduce the cost of insurance? I don't agree with NU and their black boxes. If they want to restrict when/where people drive, it can be done without monitoring their every move. How about giving new drivers full NCB to start with, then reduce it if they make a claim. I believe there is a term for this principle, it goes something like "innocent until proven guilty".
rowland said:
Basic error in this system is - it identifies CAR without insurance not DRIVER. How many times do we read about disqualified drivers being caught driving - may of these numbskulls have no conscience, no driving licence, no insurance and no car, they will still be able to drive a stolen car with impunity as long as the law abiding owner has insured the CAR!!!!!!!!!!!
too rite this is another flawed scheme that again targets the owner of the car. i'm sure it will work BUT it will not stop loonies stealing cars and then adding even more pain to the owner cos it was not registered. 
and thats cruel So we have a problem with untaxed cars; specs cameras could be used to detect them but they are only apparently used to cause accidents on motorways. We have a problem with uninsured cars so we introduce a very flawed system to detect these when it is obvious that so many cars are insured but not on the database. We have speeding cars so we have speed cameras to detect them. When they detect the speeding cars they just grab the money and save lives( they even means test you if you have the audacity to plead not guilty) but never bother to check if the cars are taxed or mot'd or insured. If they really wanted to catch these offenders they already have sufficient opportunity to do so, if you get stopped by a live plod you get an Hort11 to produce documents but the guilty until proven innocent automatic sysem ignores tax mot and insurance because they already have what they want.
Who do they think stole the 14000+ numberplates last year.
WHY DO WE PUT UP WITH IT???!!!!!!!!!
Who do they think stole the 14000+ numberplates last year.
WHY DO WE PUT UP WITH IT???!!!!!!!!!
Rob_the_Sparky said:
As for cars stored, museum etc. will not be affected because they would need to be read by the camera to be seen.
Try reading the article again...
"The new offence of keeping a vehicle without insurance, announced by the Government in September, will mean that uninsured drivers can be caught before they even take to the road.">> Edited by Rob_the_Sparky on Tuesday 8th November 12:14
they won't know you've got the car unless a number-plate-reading camera picks it up or you're pulled over! if the thing's off the public highway: in a garage/ the back garden/ a museum/ stacked on another car/ in the river/ in a container etc etc the camera won't see it!! - if it's registered sorn it needn't be insured
zed sump said:
As for cars stored, museum etc. will not be affected because they would need to be read by the camera to be seen.
Try reading the article again...
"The new offence of keeping a vehicle without insurance, announced by the Government in September, will mean that uninsured drivers can be caught before they even take to the road.">> Edited by Rob_the_Sparky on Tuesday 8th November 12:14
they won't know you've got the car unless a number-plate-reading camera picks it up or you're pulled over! if the thing's off the public highway: in a garage/ the back garden/ a museum/ stacked on another car/ in the river/ in a container etc etc the camera won't see it!! - if it's registered sorn it needn't be insured
But if you have a SORNed car make sure those number plates are under lock and key, well away from the car.
As mentioned for bonded on plates, thieves will just steal or damage the surrounding bodywork. Or just make copies.
Oh I forgot the villans all report the plates they make to the dvla....
From what I'm told (by a Sgt. tasked with rolling out ANPR locally), these cameras will not be used for catching uninsured motorists.
He cited the fact that there were simply too many instances of uninsured cars to deal with and that the capacity is not there to do so. Each one has to be investigated, and the system is not robust enough to allow thousands of oficer-hours to be wasted following up false-positives for the amount of people caught and the severity of the offence.
They will be used to track vehicles identified by the police as suspicious/stolen/involved in crime and to direct officers to intercept. Much as aerial police do now in helicopters and spotter planes, the idea being here that crossing borders and driving for long distances will not be a problem, neither will the police have to endanger people by chasing criminals on the roads, rather they simply track them and intercept.
The announcement about uninsured drivers is the sugar to coat the bitter pill of surveillance and the idea that any of us can be tracked at any time.
He cited the fact that there were simply too many instances of uninsured cars to deal with and that the capacity is not there to do so. Each one has to be investigated, and the system is not robust enough to allow thousands of oficer-hours to be wasted following up false-positives for the amount of people caught and the severity of the offence.
They will be used to track vehicles identified by the police as suspicious/stolen/involved in crime and to direct officers to intercept. Much as aerial police do now in helicopters and spotter planes, the idea being here that crossing borders and driving for long distances will not be a problem, neither will the police have to endanger people by chasing criminals on the roads, rather they simply track them and intercept.
The announcement about uninsured drivers is the sugar to coat the bitter pill of surveillance and the idea that any of us can be tracked at any time.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff