ANPR and Insurance
Discussion
Apologies if you have all seen this before, but this is part of an email received from the husband of a friend of my wife, who is an Inspector in the local Traffic Division (I know!)
"Some of you will know more about the present legal position in respect of insurance and police seizure of vehicles. Needless to say, if your car is not on the motor industries database then the police have the power to seize your car.
If you look at the attached web page you can check if your car is on the database.
http://www.askmid.com
Being on the database does not mean it will not be seized, as you can have more then one driver of your car. So if you for example, if you take insurance out, it is then added to the database. If you subsequently add a family member, they might not be on the database and so will appear to be insured as it is on the database, however the police checks will show more information and if your company have failed to add a family member/freind then they will still appear uninsured.
Being on the database means at least one person is shown as legal to drive. Anyway this is a start."
"Some of you will know more about the present legal position in respect of insurance and police seizure of vehicles. Needless to say, if your car is not on the motor industries database then the police have the power to seize your car.
If you look at the attached web page you can check if your car is on the database.
http://www.askmid.com
Being on the database does not mean it will not be seized, as you can have more then one driver of your car. So if you for example, if you take insurance out, it is then added to the database. If you subsequently add a family member, they might not be on the database and so will appear to be insured as it is on the database, however the police checks will show more information and if your company have failed to add a family member/freind then they will still appear uninsured.
Being on the database means at least one person is shown as legal to drive. Anyway this is a start."
I'm struggling to understand the OP's post.
Regardless of that, I thought the MID database had details of insured vehicles not named drivers on every policy. ANPR may be good (or not) but to spot drivers' details as they approach?? In the great dumbing down of the first decade of the 21st century, the ANPR cameras spot uninsured vehicles (with accompanying identifying mark i.e. vehicle registration mark) not drivers
...
Your insurer adds your vehicles details to the MID database. The police then use an earlier downloaded version of the MID database for their ANPR exercise... cue phone calls via the MID 'helpdesk' when drivers claim to be insured for the vehicle they've just been stopped in.
Can anyone verify what the 'gap' between 'live MID database' and 'downloaded MID database used for ANPR' actually is? I've said before that I'd say up to 3 days .
There was a 'p!ss boiler' in yesterday's Mail on Sunday about how good ANR is at rooting out uninsured drivers. One paragraph says it's an ANPR database, another says 'dodgy' registration numbers are uploaded to a computer used for ANPR. Who are we to believe??!?!
Regardless of that, I thought the MID database had details of insured vehicles not named drivers on every policy. ANPR may be good (or not) but to spot drivers' details as they approach?? In the great dumbing down of the first decade of the 21st century, the ANPR cameras spot uninsured vehicles (with accompanying identifying mark i.e. vehicle registration mark) not drivers
...Your insurer adds your vehicles details to the MID database. The police then use an earlier downloaded version of the MID database for their ANPR exercise... cue phone calls via the MID 'helpdesk' when drivers claim to be insured for the vehicle they've just been stopped in.
Can anyone verify what the 'gap' between 'live MID database' and 'downloaded MID database used for ANPR' actually is? I've said before that I'd say up to 3 days
.There was a 'p!ss boiler' in yesterday's Mail on Sunday about how good ANR is at rooting out uninsured drivers. One paragraph says it's an ANPR database, another says 'dodgy' registration numbers are uploaded to a computer used for ANPR. Who are we to believe??!?!
aw51 121565 said:
Regardless of that, I thought the MID database had details of insured vehicles not named drivers on every policy.
The MID feed that insurers provide contains details of permitted drivers, and classes of use. This isn't true of the commercial MID2 that poliyholders provide either by Excel,CSV, insurers website etc.I'm a little concerned about the development of method of S165 seizures. I've seen a couple of TV programmes, and heard some horror stories online where officers have seized where they have not attained the 'belief' that a driver is uninsured.
Sec 165(A)RTA1988 is very specific in that it says that an officer must 'believe' that a car is being driven whilst uninsured. 'Believe' is much stronger than 'suspect' and it has been defined in case law to mean 'almost certain'.
Seizing on the strength of the insurance database alone is not good enough, and is acting beyond powers. If, as an officer, you cannot honestly make yourself 'almost certain' that the driver is uninsured, then you must not seize. We can still report for summons as we used to, and if it can be shown to the mags that the driver lied to retain his/her car, this should be an aggravating factor to be considered by mags when sentencing.
Sec 165(A)RTA1988 is very specific in that it says that an officer must 'believe' that a car is being driven whilst uninsured. 'Believe' is much stronger than 'suspect' and it has been defined in case law to mean 'almost certain'.
Seizing on the strength of the insurance database alone is not good enough, and is acting beyond powers. If, as an officer, you cannot honestly make yourself 'almost certain' that the driver is uninsured, then you must not seize. We can still report for summons as we used to, and if it can be shown to the mags that the driver lied to retain his/her car, this should be an aggravating factor to be considered by mags when sentencing.
aw51 121565 said:
I'm struggling to understand the OP's post.
Regardless of that, I thought the MID database had details of insured vehicles not named drivers on every policy. ANPR may be good (or not) but to spot drivers' details as they approach?? In the great dumbing down of the first decade of the 21st century, the ANPR cameras spot uninsured vehicles (with accompanying identifying mark i.e. vehicle registration mark) not drivers ...
Your insurer adds your vehicles details to the MID database. The police then use an earlier downloaded version of the MID database for their ANPR exercise... cue phone calls via the MID 'helpdesk' when drivers claim to be insured for the vehicle they've just been stopped in.
Can anyone verify what the 'gap' between 'live MID database' and 'downloaded MID database used for ANPR' actually is? I've said before that I'd say up to 3 days .
There was a 'p!ss boiler' in yesterday's Mail on Sunday about how good ANR is at rooting out uninsured drivers. One paragraph says it's an ANPR database, another says 'dodgy' registration numbers are uploaded to a computer used for ANPR. Who are we to believe??!?!
updates to ANPR are added daily and each individual computer (such as in traf car) will usually be updated every nightRegardless of that, I thought the MID database had details of insured vehicles not named drivers on every policy. ANPR may be good (or not) but to spot drivers' details as they approach?? In the great dumbing down of the first decade of the 21st century, the ANPR cameras spot uninsured vehicles (with accompanying identifying mark i.e. vehicle registration mark) not drivers
...Your insurer adds your vehicles details to the MID database. The police then use an earlier downloaded version of the MID database for their ANPR exercise... cue phone calls via the MID 'helpdesk' when drivers claim to be insured for the vehicle they've just been stopped in.
Can anyone verify what the 'gap' between 'live MID database' and 'downloaded MID database used for ANPR' actually is? I've said before that I'd say up to 3 days
.There was a 'p!ss boiler' in yesterday's Mail on Sunday about how good ANR is at rooting out uninsured drivers. One paragraph says it's an ANPR database, another says 'dodgy' registration numbers are uploaded to a computer used for ANPR. Who are we to believe??!?!
iaha said:
I'm a little concerned about the development of method of S165 seizures. I've seen a couple of TV programmes, and heard some horror stories online where officers have seized where they have not attained the 'belief' that a driver is uninsured.
Sec 165(A)RTA1988 is very specific in that it says that an officer must 'believe' that a car is being driven whilst uninsured. 'Believe' is much stronger than 'suspect' and it has been defined in case law to mean 'almost certain'.
Seizing on the strength of the insurance database alone is not good enough, and is acting beyond powers. If, as an officer, you cannot honestly make yourself 'almost certain' that the driver is uninsured, then you must not seize. We can still report for summons as we used to, and if it can be shown to the mags that the driver lied to retain his/her car, this should be an aggravating factor to be considered by mags when sentencing.
For exampleSec 165(A)RTA1988 is very specific in that it says that an officer must 'believe' that a car is being driven whilst uninsured. 'Believe' is much stronger than 'suspect' and it has been defined in case law to mean 'almost certain'.
Seizing on the strength of the insurance database alone is not good enough, and is acting beyond powers. If, as an officer, you cannot honestly make yourself 'almost certain' that the driver is uninsured, then you must not seize. We can still report for summons as we used to, and if it can be shown to the mags that the driver lied to retain his/her car, this should be an aggravating factor to be considered by mags when sentencing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/623693...
Eventually the police apologised when the insurance proved to be in place and valid, and her MP raised the issue in parliament.
Hi all,
Does anyone know what the deal is with driving another car under my main insurance policy? My fully comp policy allows me to drive another car with permission from the owner, but doesn't say anything about the car that I've borrowed being insured.
So if I were to drive a friend's car that was MOTed and taxed, but for which my friend didn't have an insurance policy, would I be driving illegally? I presume at the very least I would be in danger of getting pulled all the time, as the numberplate would show that the car wasn't insured...?
Does anyone know what the deal is with driving another car under my main insurance policy? My fully comp policy allows me to drive another car with permission from the owner, but doesn't say anything about the car that I've borrowed being insured.
So if I were to drive a friend's car that was MOTed and taxed, but for which my friend didn't have an insurance policy, would I be driving illegally? I presume at the very least I would be in danger of getting pulled all the time, as the numberplate would show that the car wasn't insured...?
There appears to be some forces that won't take a car based on MID alone but there appear plenty that do. You can virtually guarentee that any Police "CCTV" programme will a) contain a car being seized for having no insurance, b)have the owner having a hissy fit and c) at the end of the programme on the voice over a quick and discreat statement that at least one of the vehicles was returned when it was confirmed that insurance was in place.
ANPR is a great tool, computer technology and databases are great tools but as we have sucuumbed to driving by numbers where the driver doesn't have to think just follow instructions it appears that we are soon to have policing by numbers (at least for these sort of offences).
If the car is not on the database then it gets lifted. Obviously concerns over the approach as a MOP but every BiB should also be concerned and kicking up a stink. You don't need a highly trained BiB to sit in a car, wait for a yubba dabba do, stop car and lift it. Cheaper and easier to use HATO's and beyond that privatise it.
ANPR is a great tool, computer technology and databases are great tools but as we have sucuumbed to driving by numbers where the driver doesn't have to think just follow instructions it appears that we are soon to have policing by numbers (at least for these sort of offences).
If the car is not on the database then it gets lifted. Obviously concerns over the approach as a MOP but every BiB should also be concerned and kicking up a stink. You don't need a highly trained BiB to sit in a car, wait for a yubba dabba do, stop car and lift it. Cheaper and easier to use HATO's and beyond that privatise it.
iaha said:
I'm a little concerned about the development of method of S165 seizures. I've seen a couple of TV programmes, and heard some horror stories online where officers have seized where they have not attained the 'belief' that a driver is uninsured.
Sec 165(A)RTA1988 is very specific in that it says that an officer must 'believe' that a car is being driven whilst uninsured. 'Believe' is much stronger than 'suspect' and it has been defined in case law to mean 'almost certain'.
Seizing on the strength of the insurance database alone is not good enough, and is acting beyond powers. If, as an officer, you cannot honestly make yourself 'almost certain' that the driver is uninsured, then you must not seize. We can still report for summons as we used to, and if it can be shown to the mags that the driver lied to retain his/her car, this should be an aggravating factor to be considered by mags when sentencing.
Sec 165(A)RTA1988 is very specific in that it says that an officer must 'believe' that a car is being driven whilst uninsured. 'Believe' is much stronger than 'suspect' and it has been defined in case law to mean 'almost certain'.
Seizing on the strength of the insurance database alone is not good enough, and is acting beyond powers. If, as an officer, you cannot honestly make yourself 'almost certain' that the driver is uninsured, then you must not seize. We can still report for summons as we used to, and if it can be shown to the mags that the driver lied to retain his/her car, this should be an aggravating factor to be considered by mags when sentencing.
Gafferjim said:
bluepolarbear said:
Cheaper and easier to use HATO's and beyond that privatise it.
This type of job is nothing to do with HATO's, and never will be. It is police work.The further that police work is "dumbed" down in a policing by numbers style, where BiB don't have to use their initution, years of experience, training etc etc to arrive at the correct decision, the less you need "skilled" Bib and you CAN give the job to a labour force with a cheaper wage bill.
There is nothing that would stop a HATO or VOSA or some new "ANPR officer" undertaking rountine vehicle seizures if the process was just watch the screen, check database, seize vehicle. There is no skill involved in undertaking that task. All that would be required would be a small act of parliment (like the one used to create HATO) and a suitable justification for the act such as "feeing up police time to spend on more important things" (just like the reason give for HATOs).
bluepolarbear said:
Cheaper and easier to use HATO's and beyond that privatise it.
Don't knock the idea that the idea will never come to fruition,certainly not with this government in power - look what happened to parking when "decriminalised "---now being done by private firms and councils .Who me said:
bluepolarbear said:
Cheaper and easier to use HATO's and beyond that privatise it.
Don't knock the idea that the idea will never come to fruition,certainly not with this government in power - look what happened to parking when "decriminalised "---now being done by private firms and councils .Edited by esselte on Wednesday 2nd January 20:40
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff