We'l have your car if your not insured! 23.09.04
Discussion
cen said:
I wish we could adopt the same policy of other European Country`s where the Insurance for a vehicle is displayed the same as a tax disc.
Basically one disc showing insurance details maybe expirery of MOT and road tax. It cannot be difficult to bring into fruitation.
Ok, I have a little green square on the windscreen of each of my vehicles in France with insurance details. They're worth diddly squat, no security features and I could knock one up on my home computer system in 20 minutes. What is that adding?
I think that the ANPR linked to an insurance database is much better - at least if you want to falsify that data you've got to hack a (presumably!) very secure website.
Added to that, already people will break into cars to nick tax discs - they'll just nick the insurance disc at the same time.
A good initiative would be to make the printing and fitting of numberplates a more secure process. In France you have to show your registration documents for the reg that you want printing, and plates HAVE to be fitted with rivets rather than screws. A minor thing maybe, but would make cloning a bit more difficult.
>> Edited by nel on Thursday 23 September 09:35
jesusbuiltmycar said:
Excellent.....
I have noticed recently that some petrol station forecourts have anpr. There is no reasaon why this system couldn't be connected up to a database to prevent drivers of un-insured cars from buying petrol.
But then again the politically correct/great unwashed would probably claim that would be an infringement of human rights.
I agree...but PHs last time it was discussed...got all flapping about scammed numbers and such like..
Street
The disqualified driver thing is not applicable. If you are banned your insurance policy is still valid,as others who may be covered to drive the vehicle are still fully covered. The vehicle would come up as fully legal on the ANPR check i.e. taxed and insured.
It is so easy to insure a car and cars covered by no policy at all will be easy to pick out - excellent.
Obviously with the current levels of disqual. for a few minor speeding offences the numbers DWD will continue to increase. This was the subject of a very long thread on here recently.
Whilst one can understand where the Bib's on here are coming from in respect of DWD, there must be some basic understanding of why it will increas, even if there is a lack of sympathy. The enforcement of inflexible but unnecessary laws (like artificially low limits) will lead to the consequences of that enforcement being disrespected by increasing numbers.
It is so easy to insure a car and cars covered by no policy at all will be easy to pick out - excellent.
Obviously with the current levels of disqual. for a few minor speeding offences the numbers DWD will continue to increase. This was the subject of a very long thread on here recently.
Whilst one can understand where the Bib's on here are coming from in respect of DWD, there must be some basic understanding of why it will increas, even if there is a lack of sympathy. The enforcement of inflexible but unnecessary laws (like artificially low limits) will lead to the consequences of that enforcement being disrespected by increasing numbers.
and said:
Gemini,
I assume get a binary "insured or not insured" answer on your database which is of course better than nothing, but won't hoardes of scrotes just insure their wagons incorrectly e.g. phoney limited mileages / risk assessment factors, laid up insurance etc etc ?
Andy
Nah...scrotes are scrotes...they don't insure their cars full stop
Street
I think we should adopt the Australian system where the road tax includes statutory minimum insurance (ie. 3rd party) for the car (rather than the driver). I believe they display this on the numberplate rather than as a tax disc.
Adopt both of these and ANPR could instantly verify that the car was both taxed and insured.
I would hope that this system would also cut the number of uninsured drivers too.
>> Edited by JonRB on Thursday 23 September 10:11
Adopt both of these and ANPR could instantly verify that the car was both taxed and insured.
I would hope that this system would also cut the number of uninsured drivers too.
>> Edited by JonRB on Thursday 23 September 10:11
cen said:
Lets go further and impound the cars for good.
I wish we could adopt the same policy of other European Country`s where the Insurance for a vehicle is displayed the same as a tax disc.
Basically one disc showing insurance details maybe expirery of MOT and road tax. It cannot be difficult to bring into fruitation.
Cen
The only way to be able to perform mass checking of vehices is via their registration number. Discs on windscreens are all well and good if we have 1000's of dedicated people to check them.
Personally, I would like to see the ANPR system re-engineered so that it has a link to the DVLA database, the insurance database, an MOT database and the PNC. When anything is not 100% then a tug ensues.
But this would require extensive re-engineering of many business processes. AIUI the DVLA database is always at least 6 weeks out of date.
gemini said:
Well as from tomorrow, enter north yorks without insurance and we'll impound your car at your expense.
14 days to claim it (with a valid ins cert)or it goes!
This is aimed at the criminal fraternity - trying to get these pool cars away and off the streets
Hope all goes well - its the type of enforcement you want?
>>> Edited by gemini on Wednesday 22 September 23:15
Excellent idea but having seen Della's bumph on it just wondering as nothing is mentioned where you lawfully get all this power from to grab, charge removal and storage fees or even get the disclaimer to scrap the vehicle. Ways and Means Act no longer applies these days.
Had a look at S 143 Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 and that doesn't cover neither does S 59 Police Reform Act 2002 which does cover seizure and charges for offences under section and which does not cover No Insurance.
Have I missed an Act or stated case mr G?. Put me wise.
DVD
nel said:
While I'd never condone driving without insurance, no doubt this campaign will also catch many who have been forced to drive illegally due to a ban. Where this ban has resulted from a few minor speeding offences they have my sympathy.
When you disqualify drivers in such large numbers, you force reasonable people to take extreme measures to protect their livelihood.
Try telling this to my brother who was knocked off his bike last year by a scrote who ran a red light after he 'borrowed' his dads pile of rust and went racing his mate in it.
My brother broke so many bones it's a miracle he is still alive.
What happens to the poor sod your 'reasonable person' runs into/over. Where will your sympathy be when one of your family is the victim.
God I could slap some people ... grrrrrr
BARRETI said:
While I'd never condone driving without insurance, no doubt this campaign will also catch many who have been forced to drive illegally due to a ban. Where this ban has resulted from a few minor speeding offences they have my sympathy.
When you disqualify drivers in such large numbers, you force reasonable people to take extreme measures to protect their livelihood.
Try telling this to my brother who was knocked off his bike last year by a scrote who ran a red light after he 'borrowed' his dads pile of rust and went racing his mate in it.
My brother broke so many bones it's a miracle he is still alive.
What happens to the poor sod your 'reasonable person' runs into/over. Where will your sympathy be when one of your family is the victim.
God I could slap some people ... grrrrrr
well said
Those who condone and sympathise with disqualified drivers should hold their heads in shame..
Hope your brother has recovered well..
Street
gemini said:
Well as from tomorrow, enter north yorks without insurance and we'll impound your car at your expense.
14 days to claim it (with a valid ins cert)or it goes!
This is aimed at the criminal fraternity - trying to get these pool cars away and off the streets
Hope all goes well - its the type of enforcement you want?
>>> Edited by gemini on Wednesday 22 September 23:15
Agreed. No problems with this at all. Carry on sargeant.
BARRETI said:
Try telling this to my brother who was knocked off his bike last year by a scrote who ran a red light after he 'borrowed' his dads pile of rust and went racing his mate in it.
My brother broke so many bones it's a miracle he is still alive.
What happens to the poor sod your 'reasonable person' runs into/over. Where will your sympathy be when one of your family is the victim.
God I could slap some people ... grrrrrr
What happened to your brother is completely inexcusable whether the other driver's insured or not - 'ran a red light', 'racing', etc.! So this has lead you to the conclusion that anyone who loses their licence through totting up a few 34 in a 30 limit offences are the type to run red lights and race on public roads?
As I said before, when you disqualify drivers in such large numbers, you force reasonable people to take extreme measures to protect their livelihood. Fortunately I've never been forced to consider the choice of breaking the law or losing my job, but as a law abiding citizen I'm not sure what I'd do in such a situation.
Hope your brother recovers fully.
I believe.... Let me see if I have got this right:
You commit what used to be considered a serious crime:
And you get a £5 fine payable at 5p a month.
You go away on holiday, leaving your car parked on the road, forgetting your insurance is about to expire:
And you get a £10,000, £20,000....... effectively unlimited .... fine, payable instantly on your return, with no appeal.
Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick again?
Wouldn't it be a better idea to target criminals that actually harm the public and society and punish them, rather then harass the general public?
Because some of them might be criminals?
Or some of them might, just might, be more likely to harm someone by doing 35 rather than 25 on a 30 dual carriageway or whatever?
Or, shock, horror, might have forgotten to renew their insurance (or road tax, or MOT).
How many times did that "Slasher" kid attack and injure people before he got anything more than a supervision or community order?
Meanwhile a repeatedly banned drink/drug/dangerous driver could not have his car confiscated just because he was caught driving it illegally.......
.........And a few hours later he killed two people!
But, then again, isn't killing people going to be worth no more than 4 years (as long as you confess early enough)?
Oh, and another thing:
If I were to commit a murder I would get 4 years if I admitted guilt.
If I didn't commit the murder, refused to plead guilty and maintained my innocence:
How many decades would I get then?
Oh, oh, and if me and another guy get held on remand for the same crime, for a period equivalent to the jail sentence, and I'm found not guilty, and he isn't:
How come his time on remand counts as punishment, but mine doesn't count as illegal punishment.
Oh, oh, oh, and what's all that about sentences running concurrently then?
How come someone who commits a one off crime deserves the same punishment as someone who commits dozens?
Oh, and yet another.................
You commit what used to be considered a serious crime:
And you get a £5 fine payable at 5p a month.
You go away on holiday, leaving your car parked on the road, forgetting your insurance is about to expire:
And you get a £10,000, £20,000....... effectively unlimited .... fine, payable instantly on your return, with no appeal.
Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick again?
Wouldn't it be a better idea to target criminals that actually harm the public and society and punish them, rather then harass the general public?
Because some of them might be criminals?
Or some of them might, just might, be more likely to harm someone by doing 35 rather than 25 on a 30 dual carriageway or whatever?
Or, shock, horror, might have forgotten to renew their insurance (or road tax, or MOT).
How many times did that "Slasher" kid attack and injure people before he got anything more than a supervision or community order?
Meanwhile a repeatedly banned drink/drug/dangerous driver could not have his car confiscated just because he was caught driving it illegally.......
.........And a few hours later he killed two people!
But, then again, isn't killing people going to be worth no more than 4 years (as long as you confess early enough)?
Oh, and another thing:
If I were to commit a murder I would get 4 years if I admitted guilt.
If I didn't commit the murder, refused to plead guilty and maintained my innocence:
How many decades would I get then?
Oh, oh, and if me and another guy get held on remand for the same crime, for a period equivalent to the jail sentence, and I'm found not guilty, and he isn't:
How come his time on remand counts as punishment, but mine doesn't count as illegal punishment.
Oh, oh, oh, and what's all that about sentences running concurrently then?
How come someone who commits a one off crime deserves the same punishment as someone who commits dozens?
Oh, and yet another.................
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff