Co Durham Crushed 1300 uninsured cars..
Discussion
Co Durham's BiBs were on yesterday's R2 prog ( about 13.40 slot in show).
It seem that although the police were give power to crush chuckaway cars two year ago.. few do "because it cost them money to do so"
Apparently Co Durham have managed to negotiate some funding with Direct Line (also on prog with them) to have the cars disposed of. To date they have seized 2500, given 14 days to get insurance sorted und crushed 1300 defective "£60 at auction cars". They crush rather than send back to auction und start the cycle over again.
They find that their stance in targetting the truly dangerous - including these very dangerous drivers who all too often are criminally involved in other offences has reduced the overall crime rate.. und KSI figure for 2006 are 30% lower than their already low 2004 stats
Perhaps their record show that ist achievable to reduce KSI, enforce law fairly, with REAL POLICE OFFICERS und not forests of yellow Gatsos.
It seem that although the police were give power to crush chuckaway cars two year ago.. few do "because it cost them money to do so"
Apparently Co Durham have managed to negotiate some funding with Direct Line (also on prog with them) to have the cars disposed of. To date they have seized 2500, given 14 days to get insurance sorted und crushed 1300 defective "£60 at auction cars". They crush rather than send back to auction und start the cycle over again.
They find that their stance in targetting the truly dangerous - including these very dangerous drivers who all too often are criminally involved in other offences has reduced the overall crime rate.. und KSI figure for 2006 are 30% lower than their already low 2004 stats
Perhaps their record show that ist achievable to reduce KSI, enforce law fairly, with REAL POLICE OFFICERS und not forests of yellow Gatsos.
Certainly my resident RPD unit could only seize 4 cars a month because of the cost. However, this was two months ago and I get the impression that might have changed as I'm currently dealing with a no insurance job where they seized without hesitation for me. It's still the case that only the RPD guys can seize, but they're only a radio message away...
I just hope there aren't any genuinely good cars and classics (or potential spares donors for classics) being crushed in amongst these cars .. surely better to offer them for sale than just crush them? seems prety daft to me (though I applaud any initiative to target unisured drivers, but it's the driver that's at fault not the car???)
herewego said:
Timberwolf said:
Why isn't the uninsured driver made to meet the full cost of impounding and crushing the car, making it a "free" initiative from the point of view of the police?
Because they don't have money?
lol but they've saved the cost of insurance
i bet they have family holidays abroad and big TV sets though 
* in some cases
herewego said:
Timberwolf said:
Why isn't the uninsured driver made to meet the full cost of impounding and crushing the car, making it a "free" initiative from the point of view of the police?
Because they don't have money?
So why don't they get put to work until they've earnt the money?
I'm not a big fan of the "lock 'em away and throw away the key" brand of justice, but it strikes me as somewhat wrong that it's possible to cause, say, £2k worth of damage and then throw your hands up and say, "But I don't have two grand!"
When I was young, it was an established rule in the family that anything you broke would be paid for out of pocket money, however long it took. One of my stepsisters was brought up without that rule. Guess which child would break things in shops to get attention or throw things around during a tantrum?
Timberwolf said:
herewego said:
Timberwolf said:
Why isn't the uninsured driver made to meet the full cost of impounding and crushing the car, making it a "free" initiative from the point of view of the police?
Because they don't have money?
So why don't they get put to work until they've earnt the money?
I'm not a big fan of the "lock 'em away and throw away the key" brand of justice, but it strikes me as somewhat wrong that it's possible to cause, say, £2k worth of damage and then throw your hands up and say, "But I don't have two grand!"
When I was young, it was an established rule in the family that anything you broke would be paid for out of pocket money, however long it took. One of my stepsisters was brought up without that rule. Guess which child would break things in shops to get attention or throw things around during a tantrum?
I don’t know anybody brought up with a rule like that nor anyone who throws things round for attention, so I wouldn’t relate the two.
I do expect that people who’ve had their car confiscated have been fined for the no insurance offence and have lost the car they paid for so they already have financial consequences and no car. Some may well be able to pay more but for some it may break the camels back.
Edited by herewego on Wednesday 10th January 10:42
herewego said:
Timberwolf said:
herewego said:
Timberwolf said:
Why isn't the uninsured driver made to meet the full cost of impounding and crushing the car, making it a "free" initiative from the point of view of the police?
Because they don't have money?
So why don't they get put to work until they've earnt the money?
I'm not a big fan of the "lock 'em away and throw away the key" brand of justice, but it strikes me as somewhat wrong that it's possible to cause, say, £2k worth of damage and then throw your hands up and say, "But I don't have two grand!"
When I was young, it was an established rule in the family that anything you broke would be paid for out of pocket money, however long it took. One of my stepsisters was brought up without that rule. Guess which child would break things in shops to get attention or throw things around during a tantrum?
I don’t know anybody brought up with a rule like that nor anyone who throws things round for attention, so I wouldn’t relate the two.
I do expect that people who’ve had their car confiscated have been fined for the no insurance offence and have lost the car they paid for so they already have financial consequences and no car. Some may well be able to pay more but for some it may break the camels back.
For those with Court fines or 'official' fees unpaid, wasn't there a PH thread about new powers for bailiffs to storm the sovereign bailywicks and extract goods, with powers to restrain if opposed?
Be that as it may or may not be wouldn't an order against earnings or dole be easier? Take it weekly or monthly at source.
turbobloke said:
For those with Court fines or 'official' fees unpaid, wasn't there a PH thread about new powers for bailiffs to storm the sovereign bailywicks and extract goods, with powers to restrain if opposed?
Be that as it may or may not be wouldn't an order against earnings or dole be easier? Take it weekly or monthly at source.
I don't know the thread you are referring to, but I understand that the powers of baliffs are pretty limited in terms of what they can do to gain entry to private premises. Also, quite a lot of the people who drive with no insurance will be living in Local Authority accomodation, and will purchase the few items they own on HP, which means that they don't actually own them. Therefore, they can't be seized by baliffs. Be that as it may or may not be wouldn't an order against earnings or dole be easier? Take it weekly or monthly at source.
Also, you can't enforce an attachment to benefits for a civil court order (as I found out when I tried to get some such a thing against a toe rag who drove into my car uninsured.)
More effective would be some means of ensuring that people cannot drive if they don't have the finances/insurance to pay for potential damage caused. One way of doing this would be to instill a sense of civil responsibility, but those who either sponge off the state or live on proceeds of crime are pretty near the bottom of the list of those blessed with such a trait.
Oli.
Oli.
Men (and women) of straw have been an age-old thorn in the side of decent people, you'd think the country's greatest legal minds would have sorted it by now.
In the worst case they could be arrested, anaesthetised, and some organ or other - where biological redundancy applies (or whatever it's called when there are two of something and one would do the job) - could be extracted and sold. Just think of that warm glow of pride when they wake up and realise that, at last, they've done TWO other people a favour
In the worst case they could be arrested, anaesthetised, and some organ or other - where biological redundancy applies (or whatever it's called when there are two of something and one would do the job) - could be extracted and sold. Just think of that warm glow of pride when they wake up and realise that, at last, they've done TWO other people a favour
turbobloke said:
Men (and women) of straw have been an age-old thorn in the side of decent people, you'd think the country's greatest legal minds would have sorted it by now.
In the worst case they could be arrested, anaesthetised, and some organ or other - where biological redundancy applies (or whatever it's called when there are two of something and one would do the job) - could be extracted and sold. Just think of that warm glow of pride when they wake up and realise that, at last, they've done TWO other people a favour
Or, on a serious note, bring back the poorhouse. No, seriously. Where someone has run up a debt that is greater than their personal value, they should be put to work by the state, their earnings claimed by the state and a basic living arranged by the state. Obviously strict control would need to be maintained to ensure that they cannot run up greater debt (by causing further damage/injury/whatever). Literally, lock them up and force them to work until they have repaid the debt. Any government proposing such a policy would get my vote immediately.In the worst case they could be arrested, anaesthetised, and some organ or other - where biological redundancy applies (or whatever it's called when there are two of something and one would do the job) - could be extracted and sold. Just think of that warm glow of pride when they wake up and realise that, at last, they've done TWO other people a favour
toni896 said:
I think thats pretty fair, 2 weeks to arrange insurance else car is crushed.
I can arrange car insurance in 5 minutes on the telephone. Why give them longer than half an hour? Oli.
zcacogp said:
I understand that the powers of baliffs are pretty limited in terms of what they can do to gain entry to private premises.
Somebody posted an article recently which indicated the powers had been extended recently. As far as I can remember, some bailifs do now have the right to enter private premises and remove goods in some circumstances, and it is an offence to obstruct them. But I got the impression that this doesn't apply to all bailifs in all circumstances.
zcacogp said:
toni896 said:
I think thats pretty fair, 2 weeks to arrange insurance else car is crushed.
I can arrange car insurance in 5 minutes on the telephone. Why give them longer than half an hour? Oli.
true I was thinking in the event it's a genuine mistake/oversight and whoever is not aware, but in the event it's a road side tug, i guess the time limit should be a lot less say 24/48hours more to allow for Bib to do his paper work, there have been times when I have had a HORT1 and produced before BiB has done what ever was needed to inform front desk.
OR
2 weeks to allow said scrote to burgle and fence goods.
Edited by toni896 on Wednesday 10th January 13:04
toni896 said:
zcacogp said:
toni896 said:
I think thats pretty fair, 2 weeks to arrange insurance else car is crushed.
I can arrange car insurance in 5 minutes on the telephone. Why give them longer than half an hour? Oli.
true I was thinking in the event it's a genuine mistake/oversight and whoever is not aware, but in the event it's a road side tug, i guess the time limit should be a lot less say 24/48hours more to allow for Bib to do his paper work, there have been times when I have had a HORT1 and produced before BiB has done what ever was needed to inform front desk.
OR
2 weeks to allow said scrote to burgle and fence goods.
Eh? Why would said scrote bother to raise hundreds for insurance to get a siezed car back? Surely he'd just buy another £60 throw-away vehicle instead?
I remember reading somewhere that less than 10% of the seized vehicles were reclaimed. I don't find that in the least little bit surprising.
So are you not in favour of this as KSI has dropped by 30% in Durham?
Seems like the proverbial hammer works very well when you hit the nail on the head, rather than from the side....?
www.safespeed.com said:
Would you use a hammer to fix a clock?
Would you use a speed camera to improve road safety?
Neither would we. They are both the wrong tool for the job.
But with the hammer it's easy to see the damage.
Would you use a speed camera to improve road safety?
Neither would we. They are both the wrong tool for the job.
But with the hammer it's easy to see the damage.
Seems like the proverbial hammer works very well when you hit the nail on the head, rather than from the side....?
WildCat said:
Co Durham's BiBs were on yesterday's R2 prog ( about 13.40 slot in show).
It seem that although the police were give power to crush chuckaway cars two year ago.. few do "because it cost them money to do so"
Apparently Co Durham have managed to negotiate some funding with Direct Line (also on prog with them) to have the cars disposed of. To date they have seized 2500, given 14 days to get insurance sorted und crushed 1300 defective "£60 at auction cars". They crush rather than send back to auction und start the cycle over again.
They find that their stance in targetting the truly dangerous - including these very dangerous drivers who all too often are criminally involved in other offences has reduced the overall crime rate.. und KSI figure for 2006 are 30% lower than their already low 2004 stats
Perhaps their record show that ist achievable to reduce KSI, enforce law fairly, with REAL POLICE OFFICERS und not forests of yellow Gatsos.
It seem that although the police were give power to crush chuckaway cars two year ago.. few do "because it cost them money to do so"
Apparently Co Durham have managed to negotiate some funding with Direct Line (also on prog with them) to have the cars disposed of. To date they have seized 2500, given 14 days to get insurance sorted und crushed 1300 defective "£60 at auction cars". They crush rather than send back to auction und start the cycle over again.
They find that their stance in targetting the truly dangerous - including these very dangerous drivers who all too often are criminally involved in other offences has reduced the overall crime rate.. und KSI figure for 2006 are 30% lower than their already low 2004 stats
Perhaps their record show that ist achievable to reduce KSI, enforce law fairly, with REAL POLICE OFFICERS und not forests of yellow Gatsos.
And how are Durham's traffic officers rewarded for this good work ?
The RPU (traffic) department is being devolved.
The force has no money apparently.
They diversified und devolved some time ago.. combining Armed Response, Dogs und some others into the RPU.. which they think give "value for money". RPU then "devolved" some time ago.. but they still retain an elite force able to deal with most emergencies und keep thing safe. My cousin ist senior BiB up there.. und whilst he keep discreet .. I read between the lines there
I think Co Durham und N Yorks achieve the impossible here und I think they deserve all our praise und thanks for jobs well done within their available resources.
Long may they continue und they prove why we need real police und not a silly machine as well.
I read between the lines there I think Co Durham und N Yorks achieve the impossible here und I think they deserve all our praise und thanks for jobs well done within their available resources.
Long may they continue und they prove why we need real police und not a silly machine as well.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff