How do plod know if a car is not insured these days?
Discussion
Someone settle an argument for me:
A friend of mine said that all vehicles are on a national 'insurance' database and the cops can identify an uninsured driver from the roadside. Is this true?; if so, what are 'producers' for, or are they not used anymore?
He said he was stopped recently, and happened to have his documents on him (returning from buying a tax disc), and they said, "it didn't matter whether he had the paperwork or not, they can easily find out if the car was uninsured).
A friend of mine said that all vehicles are on a national 'insurance' database and the cops can identify an uninsured driver from the roadside. Is this true?; if so, what are 'producers' for, or are they not used anymore?
He said he was stopped recently, and happened to have his documents on him (returning from buying a tax disc), and they said, "it didn't matter whether he had the paperwork or not, they can easily find out if the car was uninsured).
The database might tell them that there is a policy in force on the vehicle, but it wouldn't tell them whether or not the driver was insured to drive it. I can drive your car on my policy, but how would they know that? does the Insurance Database include details of the driving other cars extension?
The insurance database (especially coupled with ANPR) is mostly bullshit or wishful thinking or both.
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
mungo said:
The insurance database is not always up to date... it's good to confirm someone HAS got insurance but if it comes back that it isn't shown that doesn't mean insurance isn't held... This doesn't mean they do not have insurance so this is when a HORT/1 will be issued (producer)
If however, they admit they don't have insurance then we can sieze the vehicle under Section 165 road traffic act AND give them a £200 ticket.
If however, they admit they don't have insurance then we can sieze the vehicle under Section 165 road traffic act AND give them a £200 ticket.
Just wondering what is the total punishment for driving without insurance?
If it's only £200 then that's no deterent and rather cheap compared to policy prices! Do they lose their vehicle for good? How many points do they get?
safespeed said:
The insurance database (especially coupled with ANPR) is mostly bullshit or wishful thinking or both.
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
The law will soon say that cars on the road must have a policy of insurance covering them, not only the person driving it.
Und then of course there are those driving around who do not tell their insurers about any points on licence. Mad Doc mention this on Paul's site based on something his sister mention to him about a bloke she knows who has nine points on company car .. but did not tell insurers for OWN car about this.
I gather from the replies to his thread on Paul's site...as his sister pondered about whether or not this guy was really insured ... that insurers would pay out for the third party damage but not for the policy holder's damage if full comp as the policy ist "voided"
But the DVLA database ist not accurate .. or as accurate as it should be.
I gather from the replies to his thread on Paul's site...as his sister pondered about whether or not this guy was really insured ... that insurers would pay out for the third party damage but not for the policy holder's damage if full comp as the policy ist "voided"
But the DVLA database ist not accurate .. or as accurate as it should be.
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
The insurance database (especially coupled with ANPR) is mostly bullshit or wishful thinking or both.
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
The law will soon say that cars on the road must have a policy of insurance covering them, not only the person driving it.
What the law "may soon say" and what it says now are two different things. I'm with Paul on this matter until the position of the cart and the horse is reversed!
safespeed said:
The insurance database (especially coupled with ANPR) is mostly bullshit or wishful thinking or both.
Really?
Have you had occasion to use either?
safespeed said:
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
safespeed said:
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
There are lots of reasons a vehicle may not appear on the database. That is why the opportunity to produce documents is still there
Did you consider that some people may even produce dodgy documents at the nick
They do
Edited by mg6b on Monday 12th June 09:15
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
The insurance database (especially coupled with ANPR) is mostly bullshit or wishful thinking or both.
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
The law will soon say that cars on the road must have a policy of insurance covering them, not only the person driving it.
Really? Are you sure? I haven't seen that proposal. What bill contains it?
mg6b said:
safespeed said:
The insurance database (especially coupled with ANPR) is mostly bullshit or wishful thinking or both.
Really?
Have you had occasion to use either?
No. Have you had occaison to study the subject? I have.
mg6b said:
safespeed said:
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Even if the database was perfect you STILL can't spot an uninsured DRIVER by scanning VEHICLE numberplates.
mg6b said:
safespeed said:
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
There are lots of reasons a vehicle may not appear on the database. That is why the opportunity to produce documents is still there
Did you consider that some people may even produce dodgy documents at the nick
They do
Did you consider that uninsured driving is completely out of control? DfT says 2 million uninsured drivers, growing at at least 100,000 per annum. If the Police can ramp up to nicking 300,000 per annum I'd be amazed. Do the numbers. You can't even scratch the surface. It's a great big bluff to scare people into getting insurance, and that's not the right way to Police anything. And it isn't even going to work. In fact it'll cause a large upsurge in throw-away vehicles.
It's a huge problem that needs a radical solution. We need to put a third party insurance premium on motor fuel and get all those resources that are being wasted on (and by) uninsured driving back.
safespeed said:
Did you consider that uninsured driving is completely out of control? DfT says 2 million uninsured drivers, growing at at least 100,000 per annum. If the Police can ramp up to nicking 300,000 per annum I'd be amazed. Do the numbers. You can't even scratch the surface. It's a great big bluff to scare people into getting insurance, and that's not the right way to Police anything. And it isn't even going to work. In fact it'll cause a large upsurge in throw-away vehicles.
It's a huge problem that needs a radical solution. We need to put a third party insurance premium on motor fuel and get all those resources that are being wasted on (and by) uninsured driving back.
Didn't know it was getting worse, or that the database was that bad. It's a huge problem that needs a radical solution. We need to put a third party insurance premium on motor fuel and get all those resources that are being wasted on (and by) uninsured driving back.
However, certain social groups and demographics are more likely to drive without insurance than others. Stopping mummies on the way to school in Berkshire wouldn't yield many results, whereas stopping young males of foreign extraction in London would pay dividends. I have been hit by uninsured drivers twice in 5 years, and on both occasions I looked at the other person as they got out of the car and thought "I BET you don't have insurance." On both occasions I was proved right.
It may be a major problem, but if the Police cracked down on it, I am sure it wouldn't be insoluble. (Note - before I am swamped by angry posts from cops, I'll add that this is genuinely my opinion, and given the amount of effort expended by the cops in the two above-mentioned cases, I think it is justified.)
Oli.
safespeed said:
It's a huge problem that needs a radical solution. We need to put a third party insurance premium on motor fuel and get all those resources that are being wasted on (and by) uninsured driving back.
That's something that does happen in some countries isn't it? Can't see it being a popular decision here, although it would benefit those people who drive very low mileage I guess, although it also penalises those of us who do many motorway miles (I'm guessing, but my feeling is that 100 miles on a motorway ~ 10 litres of fuel, is a lot less risky than tootling round town for the equivalent distance).
Also, do you really think this would be applied fairly by insurance companies, rather than to take more money...I can't see them reducing policies by the "equivalent" amount to make up for the petrol premium - and perhaps this in turn would lead to more people running their motor's on red diesel etc.
7db said:
Card to be swiped at fuel station which confirms that tax, ins and mot up to date?
Left wallet at home (got cash). Just bought the car. Database error. Borrowed car in emergency.
7db said:
ANPR on the fuel station cameras?
Couldn't get fuel, so stole numberplate. Database error. My numberplate has been stolen. Can't connect to database.
7db said:
Lots of ways to crack this egg.
I think you mean that there are lots of way to make it worse by having excessive faith in technology.
vonhosen said:
safespeed said:
The insurance database (especially coupled with ANPR) is mostly bullshit or wishful thinking or both.
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
The law says that DRIVERS need insurance, but drivers don't have numberplates.
Then there are cars in the trade. Cars in fleets (there's a 'self declaration' system for fleet managers.) Cars recently insured. Database errors. Numberplate read errors. People driving otherwise uninsured vehicles on their own policy. Cars that have insurance that doesn't cover the actual driver.
The law will soon say that cars on the road must have a policy of insurance covering them, not only the person driving it.
You have always needed a valid insurance in order to tax a car.
safespeed said:
I think you mean that there are lots of way to make it worse by having excessive faith in technology.
Yes, but ultimately technology makes an otherwise very man-hours-intensive process much easier. I think that part of the current problem (as you have earlier highlighted) is reliance on poorly-designed and inaccurate technology. There is no problem in relying on an insurance database if it is 100% (or functionally very close to 100%) accurate. I am also of the opinion that there is a 'toothpase out of the tube' element to this problem. The situation has deterioraited to the level that even keeping the status quo is too difficult. If more pro-active effort had been put in earlier on, we wouldn't be here now. Unfortunately the realistic answer is to throw a LOT of resource at this problem (ANPR's with catch squads at all road junctions of any size) to seriously address it. Then, when you have 99% compliance with the regulations, you can afford to think about scaling back the efforts expended on catching these low-lifes.
Just my $0.02's worth.
Oli.
zcacogp said:
I am also of the opinion that there is a 'toothpase out of the tube' element to this problem. The situation has deterioraited to the level that even keeping the status quo is too difficult. If more pro-active effort had been put in earlier on, we wouldn't be here now. Unfortunately the realistic answer is to throw a LOT of resource at this problem (ANPR's with catch squads at all road junctions of any size) to seriously address it. Then, when you have 99% compliance with the regulations, you can afford to think about scaling back the efforts expended on catching these low-lifes.
I agree absolutely, except the catch squads thing is way too big to be even possible. You would need to make 4 million collars in a year to get the average capture risk up to twice a year - and that's about the minimum level required to really change behaviour.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff