PDA

View Full Version : The Uninsured Untaxed Detector Vans are here!


Champagne Anyone?
8th Nov 2005, 20:13
What on earth is going on in the UK?

In the morning papers I read that not content with speed camera vans, the government now invents... the uninsured and tax dodger vans!!!

Why on earth do we need such things?

Whilst I know the use of uninsured vehicles in the UK is on the up, I fail to see how the government ministers can be so blind to the obvious cure.

The problem can be solved in only a few simple steps.

1. Vehicle excise license duty. Place this on fuel. Diesel, Petrol LPG the lot. No exemptions.

2. Insurance to be displayed on a disc similar to the current VEL but in both the front and rear of the vehicle so as to be easily recognised by police officers and traffic wardens.

3. Insurance to run for 12 months from june 1st. Drivers who insure after the 1st june pay an amount proportionate to the remainder of the year left. Discs to be colour coded and issued by the insurance companies as well as the insurance certificate.

4. Make it an offence to fail to display the said discs with no exceptions. (except maybe in the case of theft which must be reported to the police and then documents produced to prove the vehicle is insured)

5. Make the punishment for failing to display the disc an amount equalling the insurance costs of the average vehicle. No exceptions or exemptions from paying the fine, either you pay up or you receive a driving ban and the fine multiplied.

6. All vehicles to be included in the scheme. Fines by way of a fixed penalty notice with minimal costly involvement with the courts.


Taking these steps would then release the extortionate costs involved in the technology involved in the camera vans, their operators and associated running costs, the teams of people chasing up the uninsured, the costs involved in court cases, etc. etc.

I know it might seem like a little radical but isn't it time we stopped pussy footing around and made a positive move to rid the roads of uninsured vehicles and untaxed vehicles with out the rediculous costs involved in the new vans?

I will be forwarding this suggestion to Mr Bliar and the transport/shadow transport ministers. I will be interested in their views on the matter.

If I get a responce I will post it here...

In the mean time what are your thoughts on the matter?

Onan the Clumsy
8th Nov 2005, 20:15
the un-insured vehicle and tax dodger vans!!!

Why on earth do we need such things?
well, I guess you'll find out when someone without insurance slams into you.

Parapunter
8th Nov 2005, 20:21
One wonders how expensive this technology has been to develop & how involving it may be to follow through detected vehicles, worthy as the cause is.

One notes that in other countries, notably the F word, they oblige one to place an insurance sticker in the front window of one's vehicle, thus enabling plod to spot at a glance whether one is insured or not.

Champagne Anyone?
8th Nov 2005, 20:22
Onan, you obviously didn't read the post. Try reading it again and then ask yourself if your responce was necessary.

tony draper
8th Nov 2005, 20:26
Read somewhere that up tp 10% of vehicles on the road are uninsured and untaxed,the biggest culprits being young chaps 18 /25 age group,(and younger)the very people that are most likely to slam into your pride and joy.
I would drag them out the vehicles and shoot the feckers in the back of the head,but then one is a bit of a facist.
The fine for being caught and found guilty of driving a uninsured vehicle is about 250 quid,it must cost four of five times that for someone in that age group to insure his first vehicle,ergo the reason for so many uninsured vehicles
Summary roadside execution,tiz the only way.
:rolleyes:

markflyer6580
8th Nov 2005, 20:31
I am all for ridding the roads of un-insured scumbags,the reason the number is rising is because all the un-liscensed asylum seekers dont buy any.Adding it to fuel would make matters worse, my insurance is ridiculous as it is,and thats with 8 years ncb,if you were to take the average you would be paying a huge amount for fuel/duty and this would mean young muppets would be driving faster cars as they would no longer be discriminated against due to their age.
As for catching the un-taxed...Its hardly crime of the century especially as only a tenth of revenue generated goes on the roads.Also most of the un-insured are the ones with no tax.
My solution is more traffic police,that always has and always will be the best way to deal with motoring offences.Speed cameras and the like do not catch people with no m.o.t,tax or insurance if they are below the speed limit,and a real officer is less likely to stop you for doing 80 on the motorway,with a camera the ticket will be in the post.
A village near me campaigned for speed humps,they were in stalled at a cost of nearly £300k,and as per the norm they have not slowed the traffic one bit.That money spent on traffic cops wages in that village would have solved it overnight.
:ok:

bjcc
8th Nov 2005, 20:35
The current lightly sentence for No Insurance is disqualification. Thats as well as the fine.

The technology isn't that expensicve, its charater recognition software, linked to the Police national Computer. Same thing as in some police cars now.

Therefore stickers in windscreens are no longer needed.

However, even if they were, with a reasonable computer and printer, they can be easily forged, just like VEL licences have been for years (before cheap computers & printers came along) so they really are not the answer.

VEL added to petrol costs, good idea, I cannot understand why it has never happened!

African Tech Rep
8th Nov 2005, 20:37
Easier system – increase road fund licence to include a payment to cover insurance costs for third party only – not at fault party gets paid – at fault part has own problem.

But your missing the big picture – employment – the drivers / observers etc can come from a “neglected minority” and the UK will avoid looking like France.

philip2004uk
8th Nov 2005, 20:38
It said something about having to be insured even if it's kept only on the drive.
How true is that?

Ricky Storm
8th Nov 2005, 20:39
£30 of your annual premium is for un-insured drivers. But having said that....Why is it that compulsory insurance is not required for helicopters flying under H-PPL rules?

Believe it or not, I could go out today, buy a chopper.(presuming I had a licence or not) ..Stuff the insurance and I'm totally legal?

Onan the Clumsy
8th Nov 2005, 20:41
Well you asked what my thoughts were :*

What on earth is going on in the UK?

>>I don't know. I don't live there

In the morning papers I read that not content with speed camera vans, the government now invents... the uninsured and tax dodger vans!!!

Why on earth do we need such things?

>>Because driving without insurance is a crime and something should be done to stop it, preferably dragging out of vehicle and shooting in back of head.

Whilst I know the use of uninsured vehicles in the UK is on the up, I fail to see how the government ministers can be so blind to the obvious cure.

The problem can be solved in only a few simple steps.

1. Vehicle excise license duty. Place this on fuel. Diesel, Petrol LPG the lot. No exemptions.

>>Ok, I could go for that but (i) people will find a way of avoiding it and (ii) it won't solve the insurance problem.

2. Insurance to be displayed on a disc similar to the current VEL but in both the front and rear of the vehicle so as to be easily recognised by police officers and traffic wardens.

>>then chavs will do what they do here, buy it for a month, get the sticker and drop the coverage.

3. Insurance to run for 12 months from june 1st. Drivers who insure after the 1st june pay an amount proportionate to the remainder of the year left. Discs to be colour coded and issued by the insurance companies as well as the insurance certificate.

>>I can see the insurance companies loving having to process all the renewals at once.

4. Make it an offence to fail to display the said discs with no exceptions. (except maybe in the case of theft which must be reported to the police and then documents produced to prove the vehicle is insured)

>>It's already an offence to not have insurance. It'll take less than a week for someone to release a print file with what looks like an insurance sticker. but I suppose you could always make that an offence.

5. Make the punishment for failing to display the disc an amount equalling the insurance costs of the average vehicle. No exceptions or exemptions from paying the fine, either you pay up or you receive a driving ban and the fine multiplied.

>>I can't disagree with this, thoughh I prefer the idea of a summary roadside execution. Still, you'd actually have to enforce the punishment.

6. All vehicles to be included in the scheme. Fines by way of a fixed penalty notice with minimal costly involvement with the courts.

>>wot, even municipal vehicles?

Taking these steps would then release the extortionate costs involved in the technology involved in the camera vans, their operators and associated running costs, the teams of people chasing up the uninsured, the costs involved in court cases, etc. etc.

I know it might seem like a little radical but isn't it time we stopped pussy footing around and made a positive move to rid the roads of uninsured vehicles and untaxed vehicles with out the rediculous costs involved in the new vans?

>>Yes I agree with you except that it's ridiculous

I will be forwarding this suggestion to Mr Bliar and the transport/shadow transport ministers. I will be interested in their views on the matter.

If I get a responce I will post it here...

In the mean time what are your thoughts on the matter?

>>well, I guess you'll find out when someone without insurance slams into you. :}

markflyer6580
8th Nov 2005, 20:45
Ricky- maybe its similar to cars! cant afford fuel and insurance,Ive heard those helicopters are not to cheap to run;) I suppose you don't see too many "un-insured helicopter hits mondeo"news stories.:E

Ricky Storm
8th Nov 2005, 20:52
The point I'm making that under English law there is no requirment to insure a helicopter used privately.

bjcc
8th Nov 2005, 20:52
You need insurance to have a car on a road.

A road is a road maintained a public expense.

Your drive is not a road maintained a public expense (even if you are paid by the public from taxes!!!!)

Ergo, no insurance needed on your drive.

However, unless you have told DVLA your car is off the road, and complete a SORIN, you need to have it taxed. In order to get a VEL, you need insurance....

flybhx
8th Nov 2005, 20:52
In the West Midlands over 2000 vehicles have been seized since they started making use of the power to seize vehicles which were uninsured or driven by unlicenced drivers.
Over 500 of these have been crushed.

markflyer6580
8th Nov 2005, 20:55
Ricky

Is this due to the argument that pplh holders are well trained or is there another reason,is it the same for fixed wing.
It seems strange that private operators dont need it when in theory commercial pilots would be safer.

African Tech Rep
8th Nov 2005, 20:57
Onan – point 1(i) - how could people avoid the tax if it was on fuel ?
Walk ? Catch a bus ?

In SA they have a system like this http://www.raf.co.za/ where victims of RTA’s can get money from a fund – it’s not working particularly well but that’s another thread revolving around management.

If you think the UK has lots of uninsured drives – come here – insurance is voluntary – as is actually having a licence.

Ricky Storm
8th Nov 2005, 21:24
What I'm stating, is the fact, that no insurance is required to fly a helicopter under private ownership. Re; Smith and his lady friend.

Zoom
8th Nov 2005, 21:33
I agree with Champagne.

M.Mouse
8th Nov 2005, 21:42
Where I live the vans are often used on the road leading into town. The area swarms with police motorcycles and cars. They catch many, many people without tax or insurance. Bloody good job too.

The reason we have a tax disc, apart from revenue raising is in order to track vehicle ownership. A tax on petrol would not do that.

I agree an insurance disc to display would be a good idea but any method used to catch uninsured drivers has my vote.

I do not equate the camera vans used for the purpose of catching insurance and tax dodgers as anything other than a fair means to enforce just laws.

Speed scamera vans are a different debate altogether.

African Tech Rep
8th Nov 2005, 21:51
The reason we have a tax disc, apart from revenue raising is in order to track vehicle ownership. A tax on petrol would not do that

True – but again down here done different – the buyer can’t register the car until it’s passed a test (MOT type) – few buyers want it to stay in the sellers name – less sellers want it stay in their’s (they pay the fines then) so system works as well as anything here – though that’s not saying lots.

chiglet
8th Nov 2005, 21:52
I "exchanged" my car for another. Reputable Dealer etc..Sent off the relevant paperwork.....Oh dear,
1. Get SORN :rolleyes:
2. Get "Parking Ticket"
3. Reply to both wth reciepts
4. Get an increase in parking fine 'cos "I am the REGISTERED KEEPER of the vehicle" :{
Can't these :mad: beggars read?
watp,iktch

eal401
8th Nov 2005, 22:04
The current lightly sentence for No Insurance is disqualification. Thats as well as the fine.
Well, I'll have to double check the local paper, but I am pretty sure that is not true.

Punishment for no insurance etc. generally seems to be a fine significantly cheaper than the cost of insurance, costs on top of that and some points on the license.

However, I cannot be anti- tax checking cameras. I know that, unlike speed cameras, they actually serve some use.

TheOddOne
8th Nov 2005, 22:09
VEL added to petrol costs, good idea, I cannot understand why it has never happened!

Because fuel price, though the demand is highly inelastic, has a VERY high political content. The Govt. has retreated from increasing duty to help cut emissions in the face of opposition so I don't think they're likely to put more tax onto fuel even to directly replace another tax.

Personally I agree that it would make more sense to put all road tax on fuel for 2 reasons:
a) it's a fairer tax as the people using the roads most, pay most
b) it's got a 99.9% success rate in collecting the tax (very little evasion takes place)

I do agree that collecting insurance in this way wouldn't work as it doesn't differentiate between those who are high-risk and therefore should pay more.

We've had a couple of these vans around our way over the past few days - the motorcycle plods were positioned in the end of our road. Didn't seem to get much trade - we're obviously too law-abiding and affluent around our way! They should get themselves over to one of the sink estates, but then they'd probably find the van up on bricks & the wheels gone before they've nicked anyone!

Cheers,
The Odd One

bladewashout
8th Nov 2005, 22:12
If you think that tax/insurance cameras are bad, wait till they add MOT!

MOT computerisation means they will (soon) know immediately that you haven't got an MOT because the MOT test centre updates DVLA in real time. No MOT usually invalidates your insurance even if you have a paid up policy.

All MOT stations should be computerised during next year.

The insurance database, tax database and MOT databases are all being linked so you can be done for all 3 at once with an automated numberplate recognition camera anywhere hooked up to the system.

Personally, I'm all in favour of it - the rules are not unreasonable and everyone benefits if they are commonly adhered to.

BW

chiglet
8th Nov 2005, 22:27
A friend of mine is an MOTer. He can do [per hour] more than the New Regulations allow. Aparrently the "New" computing thingy won't let him "log on" more than once per 45 mins...ergo he is losing money. Can he sue the "Authorities" for loss of earnings?
watp,iktch

Champagne Anyone?
8th Nov 2005, 22:56
Well Onan... I am a fool... I should have realised that you were from Texas...

Execute people for driving with out insurance?? Oh I suppose thats not that bad in your countries track record in their use of weapons and blue on blue etc.

I'll just ignore your posts from now as clearly you have nothing constructive to say...

16 blades
8th Nov 2005, 23:15
Unlike speed cameras, these insurance / tax / mot cameras are a fantastic idea and long overdue, IMHO. The problem, however, is not in the enforcement - like most other things wrong with the British justice system right now, it's in the punishments handed down by the courts.

The vast, vast majority of offenders in this area are worthless little chavs who simply don't give a toss. The courts will refuse to issue any meaningful fine because they are 'disadvantaged'. They usually have no licence to add points to or confiscate. This leaves only the option of confiscating the vehicle, to which they will simply say "Thank you very much, I've been trying for ages to get rid of this worthless shitter - you've done me a favour" - before dashing off to the auctions to pick up another £100 shitter and carry on where they left off.

They should IMPRISON people who drive uninsured, untaxed, unroadworthy vehicles with no driving licence. They should also decree that ANY unlicenced driver who kills somebody in an RTA will be AUTOMATICALLY charged with causing death by dangerous driving, with the onus upon the ACCUSED to disprove the charge - after all, is not driving without a licence (being untrained or deemed unfit to drive through disqualification) INHERENTLY dangerous?

BTW, bjcc, it is my understanding that driving without insurance cover currently attracts a penalty of 6-8 points and a fine of up to £1000 (but more typically £150-200, much less if you're a benefit-scrounging chav).

16B

Farrell
8th Nov 2005, 23:18
I would drag them out the vehicles and shoot the feckers in the back of the head

Yes, yessssss, muahahahahah

Onan the Clumsy
8th Nov 2005, 23:34
Onan – point 1(i) - how could people avoid the tax if it was on fuel ? I dunno cos i don't have a crinimal mind like this bloke ==> :cool:

but they seem to manage it with cigs, vino and everything else that has an extra duty levied on it. Maybe they'll be allowed to sell it duty free on Indian reservations :E

In DeSoto, where a mate of mine runs the jail, they have a rule: stopped without proof of insurance is a trip straight to the pokey.

champers old bean calm down. I actually agree with you, I just don't think they're particularly workable ideas and that anything, that stops or just hinders the situation, even a van would be a good idea, plus you could sell chips out of the side of the van and make some extra revenue.




...and it's "country's" possessive as opposed to "countries" plural :}

bjcc
9th Nov 2005, 00:35
16 Blades/EAL401

Never seen anyone not disqualified for no Ins. However, I just used to take them to court...So I bow to your greater knowladge.

On the subject of causing death by dangerous driving, not having a licence does not prove dangerous driving. The best driver I ever met was 14, and did not, obviously have a licence. He was safer than nearly every other driver I have ever seen. Sadly for him, we all knew who he was, so once glance in the car and he got nicked later. The way he was going last time we met, he will probably never legaly be able to drive a car!

bladewashout

No MOT does NOT invalidate vehicle insurance.

By the way, DVLA have been doing Tax camera vans for at leat 5 years. The Insurance details from companies is a recent addition, however, it is NOT that acurate, as Insurance companies are not that quick in sending the details.

So while you may get an automatic fine for no tax, the insurance bit may not happen as easily.

GearUp CheerUp
9th Nov 2005, 00:43
Champagne Anyone wrote,

The problem can be solved in only a few simple steps.

1. Vehicle excise license duty. Place this on fuel. Diesel, Petrol LPG the lot. No exemptions.

Well thanks mate, thats a really fair proposal to anyone with a boat or a private aircraft to run.

Did you not think of that? Are you a pilot at all? If you are, why dont you think before posting and if not why dont you leave this board to people who are?

Blacksheep
9th Nov 2005, 01:18
Sending uninsured vehicles to the car crusher would be a pretty drastic deterrent, one imagines.

Onan the Clumsy
9th Nov 2005, 01:57
...especially if the driver was still locked inside. :}

BlueEagle
9th Nov 2005, 02:05
If you own it outright and don't mind if it gets written off then you can probably avoid taking out hull insurance on your helicopter but if the machine is the subject of a financing agreement then the financier will insist on adequate insurance to cover their interests and they may insist on both passenger liability and third party liability cover as they could be named in any action that resulted from injury, death or damage.

As a PPL holder you cannot carry pax for hire and/or reward so, providing you can afford to fund any successful claims against you for injury or death, you can get away with not having passenger liability insurance.

In the event that you only ever fly over your own property you won't need third party liability insurance but if your helicopter should cause damage anywhere else then you may be liable and the bill could easily run to millions. Most, if not all, airfields and landing sites won't let you use their facilities if you don't have adequate third party cover.

Loose rivets
9th Nov 2005, 05:46
Huge amount of work went into assessing the cost of fuel which included the RFL fee. It was unworkable, cos the hardworking folk that had to drive miles would have to pay for the many, many second cars and part time off road cars that would be paying zilch while stationary.

My Honda has stood in London for a year or so, and earned the beloved government....??????? Come to think of it I don't know how much tax is now. I have to pay cos it has to be moved onto the street to get my daughter's car out. The MOT wastes away, and I'm sure that the government is about to introduce a tax for any car that is coloured green. Has to happen.... "oooh, that's a nice shade of green sir. That'll be ten guineas please.":ugh:

henry crun
9th Nov 2005, 07:07
Loose rivets: You would be well advised to keep that sort of suggestion to yourself.

The bars....., sorry, the nice chancellor of the exchequer might read this forum and you don't want to put ideas in his head, do you ?

UL730
9th Nov 2005, 07:21
I think you will find that the insurance regulations have changed somewhat for GA.

Interesting link here (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=56&pagetype=70&groupid=864)

One has a tax disc in ones flying machine and fluffy dice but they are removed before flight :uhoh:

It is presumed that helicopters are not exempt :confused:

eal401
9th Nov 2005, 07:40
bjcc, sadly here in Preston reports of drivers being "punished" for no insurance/MOT/tax etc (including all three!) is a nightly occurance in the local paper. Very rarely is a disqualification reported, as I stated it is commonly a fine (nowhere near £1000 usually - £250-400 seems common.) and points on the licence, usually no less than six.

So, sadly if you do get done for no insurance etc, usually you can walk from the court straight back behind the wheel! (Well, nearly)

UniFoxOs
9th Nov 2005, 09:14
Local TV news (Birmingham) last night showed the vans in use, vehicles were all impounded - watching it I was overjoyed to see the faces of the drivers as they realised they were losing their wheels. Some of the vehicles being towed away were quite valuable - one Ford KA looked quite new, also a big Rover. If they are stupid enough to spend, say, £5K on a car and not insure it, rather than £4K on a cheaper car and insure it for the time they have it then they deserve to lose it.

First time for a long time I've applauded plod.

BTW Everybody but me thinks doing away with the Car Tax and putting the equivalent on petrol is a good idea, well please don't suggest it to Gordon. After several years of his stealth taxes I can confidently forecast that, in the event of this happening, he would retain a "nominal" annual Car Registration Charge, of, say, £5. Next year this would be increased to £10, the following year £25, and before you can say "[email protected]" it would be back up to £150 again.

lexxity
9th Nov 2005, 12:58
The technology isn't that expensicve, its charater recognition software, linked to the Police national Computer. Same thing as in some police cars now.

The character recognition software is a lovely idea, but it's not really that accurate. I know because I got pulled over by Mr Plod on the M56. He informed me that as I left work I had been photographed by the unmarked police car the patrols near MAN and my car had no registered keeper. Which was news to me as I had recived my DVLA tax renewal notice a week before. And when he radiod my reg through, ta da, the keeper was ME!
So yes, nice idea, but not until the technology actually works.

419
9th Nov 2005, 14:07
The government could put detector vans in every town in the U.K, but people who don't bother insuring or taxing their vehicles will find a way to avoid getting caught.
As is often the case now, a lot of people buy a car, and don't bother to send off the registration form, so there's no official record of the owner.
Cloned number plates are also becoming more and more common, which will also make it just about impossible to trace a vehicle.

What they should be doing, is stop wasting money on gimmicks, and spend it on putting more police on the streets, where they can actually do some good.

Champagne Anyone?
10th Nov 2005, 19:16
Onan you [email protected]!!

You should have checked your last post more thoroughly before correcting mine....

The word is criminal... repeat after me... CRIMINAL...
or is your way the american english spelling... :E :E :E :E :E


Gear up.....

Correct me if I am wrong but when has vehicle excise duty been due on aircraft or marine vessels?? Did I mention Avtur, Avgas or Marine diesel in my post? Think not!

Jerricho... look at the bottom of the last post Onan made where it says:- from??? Oh dear, it says Texas.:ok: :ok: :ok:

Jerricho
10th Nov 2005, 19:19
Well Onan... I am a fool... I should have realised that you were from Texas...

Tee hee.........he's not from Texas :}

bjcc
10th Nov 2005, 20:16
EAL401

o repeat, I just used to take um to court, not read about it in the paper. ever thought they may not give all the details?

However, I continue to bow to your greater knowladge on the subject (gained from papers not reality)

419

While some of what you say is absolutly correct, more police etc doesn't slove the problem either. Try walking along a row of parked cars this time of the year, you can't read most of the RFL disc. especialy in the dark. And that is of couse assuming you have nothing better to do.

In any case, if I found one on a parked car, I am in the same boat as the camera when it comes to 'cloned vehicles'.

Dectector vans can do it in bulk, and while it is not perfect it does catch a large number, more than ploder fodder does, or did.

I'd prefer that, afterall I have to pay it why shouldn't others!

Onan the Clumsy
10th Nov 2005, 20:30
Champers old bean, "C-R-I-N-I-M-A-L" is not a mistake, but a colloquialism like "C-H-I-M-B-L-E-Y" or for that matter like "dunno" and "cos" and "bloke", as in...I dunno cos i don't have a crinimal mind like this bloke ==> :cool:

Your unfortunate malapropisms were simply the result of pure higgerance (that's another colloquialism btw). To confuse the possessive and the plural is a distressingly common, and I use that word advisedly, mistake.

So, though a [email protected] I might be, you remain a fool and throughout the world, one is notably more popular than the other.







No point looking, I ran it through spell checker.

splatt
11th Nov 2005, 13:34
Hmm, this technology is known as Automatic Number Plate Recognition or ANPR for short. I happen to know a little something about it because I *ahem* may or may not be helping create some of the gadgetry that does this. Note that death threats and bribes will be ignored :hmm:.

Basically you point a video camera at a car or let a car drive into a camera's field of view and the gadgetry reads the number plate on that car. It them checks to see if there is anything the operator should know about that car. The gadgetry being computer software means we can put it onto pretty much anything with a camera. It's on mobile phones and on computers embedded into cars / vans, and city center CCTV already.

Everyone from supermarkets, to petrol forecourts, to public services are buying it. Not all for the same things obviously - it has lots of uses. Even had some private individuals ask about access control to their homes. It's not very expensive kit at all and the bang for the buck is pretty impressive. Criminals beware - I haven't seen a suggestion on this thread yet that would actually outsmart our kit and have yet to think of one myself. As for lexxity's experience I can pretty confidently say that mistake occured because the system was checking vehicles against an out of date database - more recent systems have live links to Hendon.

splatt

eal401
11th Nov 2005, 13:38
However, I continue to bow to your greater knowladge on the subject (gained from papers not reality)
Hmmm, even if you are polite, bjcc still manages to be rude and dismissive.

Maybe we should go back to the subject of murdered Brazillians?

:rolleyes:

Jerricho
11th Nov 2005, 14:03
look at the bottom of the last post Onan made where it says:- from??? Oh dear, it says Texas.

*Sigh*

You really are new around here. :rolleyes:

jayteeto
11th Nov 2005, 14:21
ANPR is a brilliant idea and whilst not perfect, it performs very well in my opinion. Some have suggested that more police on the streets would be better value for money.... Wrong!!
In merseyside, car crimes of all sorts are higher than the country average I think we all agree. ANPR is software that can be linked to any camera of decent resolution and our cars have it fitted through the existing video system. If someones illegal car appears in the field of view, it alarms. We get LOADS of other crimes detected/outstanding people wanted/stolen property from these routine stops. They also take uninsured and untaxed cars away from these people at the roadside. This does the same job as tens of bobbies patrolling streets hoping to get a lucky spot.
The fixed sites mentioned earlier are usually preplanned operations that take place a few times a week. They do often get false readings, but this is normally cleared up at the roadside and the law abiding motorist gets on their way asap.

lexxity
11th Nov 2005, 14:27
I can pretty confidently say that mistake occured because the system was checking vehicles against an out of date database


err, this happend to me in may this year and I'd had the car 2years!

splatt
11th Nov 2005, 14:45
lexxity - I meant that it was only renewed a week before. They can go onto the database the day that it lapses. Or it could have been a misread of the number plate. Anyway I am confident but that doesnt mean I am right :}

A point of interest to aviators may be that we recently installed a system on the Surrey police helicopter. So far I haven't had the pleasure of visiting to see the installation but hoping I'll get a chance soon. :8

mad_jock
11th Nov 2005, 14:46
The Northen Constab already have ANRS in there traffic cars.
But they only pull tax discs. And in the future MOt's

The insurance thing is a problem because it is also linked to the driver. eg I am insured with the owners permission to drive any car third party. So even if the owner isn't insured I am.

Personally I think the crushing option is the best one. Its the responsability of the owner to ensure that the driver is insured for the car. A quick check to see if the car is stolen then crush it.

A couple of weekends in park and ride car parks with a load of clamps check the driver as they turn up to collect car to make sure they haven't borrowed it and they are insured, let them remove thier belongings that day. Midnight bring a breakers lorry in and lift them. Sunday Crush them. Monday morning a page in the local paper with before and after shots. Same with large shopping centers.

MJ

Boss Raptor
11th Nov 2005, 17:02
My local/town police ran a trial using the equipment few weeks ago - my local beat bobby was part of the team and told me that the data provided by DVLA was a joke!

Of the 36 cars flagged by the system/DVLA data as untaxed etc. in reality only 3 were genuine and all the others had all appropriate documents - the data was provided as current by DVLA that morning?!

Tossers I think is the word...another total lack of proper implementation - and if I was pulled over incorrectly because of a DVLA error I would not be a happy man and would be taking it a lot further :hmm:

BDiONU
11th Nov 2005, 17:29
Have seen the system in operation in the Portsmouth area for some months now. We were told that it has a direct wireless link (there is a satellite/microwave dish next to the vans) into the DVLA computer for checking the vehicle database. Response time is pretty much instant and they get a piccie :-)

I'm all for it, seems much more useful than 'safety' cameras (speed cameras to the average punter).

BD

bjcc
11th Nov 2005, 21:49
The points made about DVLA's records are valid. The time it takes them to update verries greatly. Assuming that they get the right information to start with.

The info on the Police national Computer comes from DVLA. Most police take it as a guide only. Just because the computer says that a car has no tax, doesn't mean it has not, and obviously the opposite can also apply.

EAL401

Its an aquirred art, and a free service that police provide to prats which cameras will never do.

Murder? A serious allagation. You, of course have the evidence to support it? Or would you like me to pass your comments to the Police Federation for them to consult their solicitors over?

419
12th Nov 2005, 13:39
bjcc,
I agree that having more police on the beat wouldn't stop uninsured/taxed drivers totally, but I still think they would be able to catch a lot of people that the cameras never could.
I'm sure a lot of police would be able to read a persons body language, and be able to assess if the driver is telling the truth when questioned over insurance etc.

My major problem with relying on a camera, is that they will soon go the same way as the "safety" camera's, and end up replacing police on the street totally.
Around my area, there are loads of speed cameras, but nowadays, you hardly ever seen a police car.

bjcc
12th Nov 2005, 20:30
419

I'd agree with some of what you say. The body lanagague bit, well perhaps not so much in relation to insurance. But you can establish someones identity and give them a producer, provided you have done the identity bit properly it does get the insurance & MOT checked. The drivers licence can be done via the PNC, thus helping to establish identity.

M<ore Police? well, yes, in an ideal world again I'd agree, but its not an ideal world, and in reality, apart from reassurance to some, doesn't do much to reduce an form of crime.

A foot patrol officer may walk down a side street once, maybe twice in a days duty. If you are mr yob, then having seen the police once and waited 1/2 hour, you know they arn't going to be back in anything less than that, and the street is yours.

The majority of cars are being driven with the correct documents. So to pull one that isn't, by the law of avarages you are going to stop a lot that are perfectly legal. That pees people off.

Of course that is assuming that you are not busy, running from one call to another...Which in my foot patrol days was not unusual to be doing. In a car it is even worse!

When you look at it in that context, the use of cameras does make sense.

jayteeto
13th Nov 2005, 02:43
Boss Raptor, I would rather be pulled over every now and then by mistake, than know my local police were letting the low life drive uninsured/untaxed with impunity.
If one of these scumbags hit your car and you lost your no-claims bonus, or worse still a loved ones life, you certainly 'would not be a happy man and would be taking it a lot further'

allan907
13th Nov 2005, 06:26
Here in WA third party insurance (State Government run) is a mandatory part of the road fund licence which is a nice big colour coded sticker. The system ought to be foolproof but there are plenty of vehicles that don't bother with road fund licences (mainly aboriginals and our equivalent of chavs). Speed cameras (and we have a heck of a lot of them hidden behind things) do not catch those that ought to be caught.

BDiONU
17th Nov 2005, 12:54
From your knowledge does this article sound right for use of ANPR?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/15/vehicle_movement_database/

Shades of Big Brother!

BD

Burnt Fishtrousers
17th Nov 2005, 17:57
Of course if the MOT is tied in electronically and mileages recorded, that will also help against clocking of vehicles too.

Unusually enough this government seem to be thinking in a joined up fashion.

Insurance and MOTare tied in anyway. No MOT or insurance cert ...no tax disk.....leaves you vunerable to camera snooping.

You could always photocopy a Guiness beer mat I suppose

Most criminals are caught through car crime as they are usually of a couldnt-give-a -toss persuasion, which leaves them vulnerable to detection via their vehicle. When plod investigates further a lot of them are illegal immigrant scum or just scum involved in nafarious activities such as credit card scams, car theft gangs etc

They should deport them at the slightest sniff of a traffic offence.

Its probably easier to insure your car 3PF&T , save the difference in a fund and should you amass a sum after 6 years of no claim motoring youve got some wedge for another car or money to repair the one youve got should you need to repair it.

simon brown
17th Nov 2005, 18:52
The Uninsured Untaxed Detector Vans are here!

Government hypocrites

Unwell_Raptor
17th Nov 2005, 20:39
How do you work that out Simon?

henry crun
17th Nov 2005, 20:42
UR: I think he might be implying that if the govmint vehicles are not taxed or insured why should the rest of you bother. :)

simon brown
17th Nov 2005, 21:07
Henry,

I think Based on your intellect and ability to read between the lines, I feel there may be an opening in the Thames Valley region for a magistrate

Unwell_Raptor
17th Nov 2005, 21:19
The ANPR technology is here to stay and is a keystone of the surveillance society. Although I am a libertarian, I do not see human rights as extending to the right to drive an uninsured and unlicensed vehicle, so I can live with that.

Astrodome
17th Nov 2005, 22:04
I do not see human rights as extending to the right to drive an uninsured and unlicensed vehicle, so I can live with that You miss the point.

TODAY this is what the technology will be used for.

But what of tomorrow ?

Remember the powers to arrest under Terrorism legislation ? To be used on for anti-terrorism purposes promised Blair? Actually used to arrest a man at this year's Labour party conference, and indeed I seem to recall, a lady walking along a cycle route ?

splatt
18th Nov 2005, 09:42
Hi BDiONU,

Firstly, I am a software developer for an ANPR supplier so not really public facing but as a result I believe I'm less likely to feed you duff information. Here is my personal opinion.

I also read that same article along with the Sunday Times article with interest. However, I think some of what has been reported is media spin. For instance, I don't recall any of the ACPO documentation that I have read mentioning ANPR cameras for speed enforcement in any way shape or form. Although speed enforcement is not an impossible application of ANPR I feel that this is one ACPO member's personal comment or idea for ANPR and not necessarily that of ACPO as a whole. Indeed it might even be an out of context quote.

The simple solution would be for the media to ask ACPO as a group for a straight yes/no answer on the speed enforcement issue. Then for ACPO to publicize their plans more actively / widely in future. I think that when an endeavour such as this is not actively publicized it leaves the stage wide open for media to pass all kinds of comments and of course they're going to go straight for the most sensational ones first. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. This is what has happened here.

splatt

BDiONU
18th Nov 2005, 12:07
Thank you for the reply, its good to hear! I thought it sounded a bit of overkill to use/misuse the system as the articles suggested. As you say its most probably journo's hyping things up or taking things out of context.

BD

Wrongstuff
19th Nov 2005, 23:53
Article in Torygraph today. The figures were given to MPs by the Home Office

Data provided by the DVLA only 40% accurate

Police National Computer 79% accurate

Forces own data base 83% accurate

1 in 5 ANPR hits inaccurate because of bad data

Still if you nothing to hide, nothing to fear eh, sleep tight

bjcc
20th Nov 2005, 00:57
Wrongstuff

I don't doubt the accurancy of your reporting as far as percentages go, but I do doubt the numbers!

The PNC is not a stand alone database (As far as vehicle information is concerned) is takes it from DVLA.

So if their data is only 40% accurate, then that is what the PNC is, as far as vehicle details and keeper are concerned.

The only data put on regarding vehicles by police are Lost or Stolen vehicles.

Whatever the hit rate success of ANPR is it will be better than hit & miss coppers nose hit rate.

Put like that, actualy you probably have less to worry about with ANPR.

Wrongstuff
20th Nov 2005, 03:07
BJCC

I think the worry was/is that ANPR may be have a 100% strike rate but the data base that is then subsequently used to identify the vehicle has a one in five chance of getting it correct.

It will be the poor old Police Officer that ends up wasting 20% of their valuable time.

More worringly

Knock Knock 'Who's there'

'Police Mr Wrongstuff'

'Your car was tracked by ANPR after a bank job in London'

'Hang on I was half way across the Altantic, look here's me roster'

'Yes of course you were...now are you going to come quietly'

bjcc
20th Nov 2005, 08:12
Wrongstuff

I can see your concern, but it is borne perhaps from lack of experience of police.

There is slightly more to investigation than your example. Think about it, even when snapped speeding you are not automaticly accused, you are asked who was driving the car.

Again, if it is plodder fodder that stops you, he is not going to have access to any more information than ANPR is. Yes, he can ask questions, but so can the officer in your example.

My point over the numbers you quote, is that if DVLA is only 40% accurate, then PNC will only be 40% accurate too, because thats where the information comes from.

jayteeto
21st Nov 2005, 19:45
Wrongstuff, without realising it, you have just shown how good ANPR can be. It was reported on tonights news, that the ANPR camera close to the policewoman shooting in Bradford recorded a suspect car. This was linked to a car in London, leading to six arrests. It has not been confirmed yet, but if it is true, I can accept some misreads if the network can do this.

Any Comments??

splatt
21st Nov 2005, 21:00
jayteeto,

A couple of years back I was brought into Bradford and asked to design a system that would allow them to plug ANPR into their existing (and growing) town center CCTV system. I was the technical lead and our financial director was the sales man.

I rang up the FD today to talk about something completely unrelated but got chatting about another system near Bradford at which point he informed me that our 'BigFish' system (the individual ANPR readers are called Shark's and Whale just didnt sound right!!) did indeed aid the police to some extent in this case.

He has declined interviews to the press and will continue to do so because, I'm proud to say, I work for a company that does not believe in capitalising on story's like this.

splatt

derekl
22nd Nov 2005, 17:27
Mate of mine was driving his one-year old SUV on the M40 when he was passed by an identical vehicle with the same number plate. Pulled off the mortorway and phoned the Police immediately. Luckily, he had the correct registration, the other vehicle was the clone (and still being driven around AFAIK).

Very worrying if too much weight is given to ANPR evidence alone.