Safe Speed Forums

Not so much a topic, more a question , probably for the BIB in here.

Warwickshire police are getting ready for Xmas with their threats of the random xmas stops.( why just xmas we ask - aint we got the force to do it all year round??)
Not complaining - might get some of the unlicenced/untaxed /uninsured a xmas holiday.Being hailed a big success the selling story being the amount of crime/criminals being removed from the ares
Now one of their big topics is their new powers ( since 1 october) to stop any driver they have "good reason" to believe is driving without insurance.

Seem to remember one of the BIB giving us the police powers etc to stop a vehicle .Seem to remember it had something to do with good reason etc and the legality of the vehicle and driver.

Problem this new powers, as quoted in newspaper is that onus is on vehicle owner to prove that they have insurance.


HMM,HMM ---now they ARE saying GUILTY untill proven innocent.
Or are they??

Isn't the onus always on the driver to prove they have insurance by producing a certificate? Its in their best interest to surely?
It could hardly work the other way around could it?

[Police Officer] - I can't find any evidence of you having insurance, you're nicked.
[Driver] - Yes I do, here's my certificate.

Driver therefore proves he/she has insurance by producing certificate and demonstrates own innocence.

Or have I misunderstood the question?

- Basically yes.

Lets try that the other way . as it used to be done -
[Police Officer] - can i see your insurance documents ,sir
[driver[] - i don't carry it in the car as a security precaution
[Police Officer] - you are required to produce it at {name your favourite police station} within 7 days - drive carefully.

Note that in olden days the driver is presumed innocent by asking him/her to produce their insurance documents , not guilty untill they were produced - subtle difference.

Now back to the question - didn't police have the powers previously ..............................................

So under the 'old' method..

After 7 days you don't produce your certificate your're nicked.
Produce it and no problem.

Under the new system...

After 7 days you don't produce yourn certificate your, er, nicked.
Produce it and no problem

End result is the same, what does it matter what some copper thinks of you in the interim?

According to my newspaper article - no docs - car siezed - not exactly innocent till proved guilty is it.


But as i said - back to my origonal question - RP - are you qualified to answer it?

HINT - the one about the previous powers to stop -or can you find a link to the old article??

What has changed in the meantime is in the old days, car number plate was registered to an address, and 99 times out of a hundred, it was bona fide.
OLD FASHIONED SCENARIO:
[Constable] Can I see your documents?
[Driver] I dont have them with me. (is given a producer for 7 days)

Fails to turn up and produce documents

[Constable - now on your doorstep] You failed to produce when required, therefore I am arresting you.

MODERN TIMES:
[Constable] Can I see your documents?
[Driver] I dont have them with me. (is given a producer for 7 days)

Fails to turn up and produce documents

[Constable - at the doorstep of a complete stranger] You failed to produce when required, therefore I am arresting you.

[Stranger] Sorry, but I was out of the country - somebody else must be driving around with my number! I keep getting parking tickets and congestion charge bills too!
or
Lease company gets the phone call and has to trace the driver, AND anyone he might have allowed to drive it.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

No, doesn't even look like I'm qualified to understand it

I'm trying to reconcile this segment from the original post in my own mind...



So you aren't complaining at the prospect of criminals being caught in the crackdown, its the methodology that you have an issue with?

But what about a driver that has been assured(maybe even in writing) that they are insured to drive a car on someone else's policy? An employee is a common case, but I have a mate who sometimes needs me to drive one of his company's vehicles - and so I have no access to the certificate. However he's shown me the certificate which reads something along the lines of Persons to Drive: Company x and Any Person.

There certainly used to be a clause in there that if you could provide a reasonable reason not to produce a document (like for instance that it's a company vehicle and you don't have access to the docs) then the BiB could use his discression and only give you a producer for some of the docs...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

To avoid paying too much to Mr Brown's christmas club my company has an approach whereby I own the car but it is insured under a corporate policy.

our HQ is in warks so I'm looking forward to being cracked down on!

I don't know the ins and outs precisely, I was merely trying to ascertain from Botach why he thinks things have changed towards a 'guilty till proven innocent' state of affairs.
When my mate borrowed my motorbike some years ago when his was off the road, he told me he had a rider policy that covered him for all bikes - it transpired that it didn't . Some cardriving, no-looking jerk SMIDSY'd him ( ) and as a result, we both got done. The officeress who did the nicking was oddly apologetic towards my (then) girlfriend when I went out of the room to get my insurance cert to check whether it coveerd my mate, but explained that it was in part my responsibility to ensure he was insured to ride my machine.
Another bunch of points on the old licence to replace some that had been recently erased following some (ahem) speeding lapses.

That's harsh. The law (case law) states that if you lend someone a vehicle on the express condition that they provide their own motor insurance then you cannot be found guilty of 'permitting' if they fail to do so.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Yeah, with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight and a few more years experience in the university of life, an older me might well have queried further why I was being done. Tsk, such is life.

Certainly not complaining about either the criminals or the untaxed being pulled up - just wondering what extra powers this new order gives them - as i remember a PC could stop a vehicle if he had doubts about it ,and there were powers to confiscate vehicles ( no doubt Paul can remember as he had great misgivings about this) .
Now Warks police are advertising about how great these new found powers are , particularly with vehicle siezures.-

see this

There are now two vehicle seizure powers. The first is called 'section 59' and relates to the seizure of a vehicle being used in an anti-social way. The second is new and comes from the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. This allow seizure of uninsured vehicles.



That link proudly proclaims that they siezed 268 cars in a month in Coventry. Coventry has a population of about 305,000, or 1/200th of the GB total. If they kept up that rate of seizure and all other forces matched it on a pro-rata rate with the population they would seize 200*268*12 = 636,000 vehicles annualy, which would be just 31% of the 2 million uninsured vehicles that the government thinks we have.

So the risk to an uninsured driver is about one seizure every 3 years.

Of course there's no way at all that the cops will be able to keep up that rate.

Why oh why can't the government do these simple sums and see that they are on a loser?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

[quote="SafeSpeed
There are now two vehicle seizure powers. The first is called 'section 59' and relates to the seizure of a vehicle being used in an anti-social way. The second is new and comes from the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. This allow seizure of uninsured vehicles.


Why oh why can't the government do these simple sums and see that they are on a loser?[/quote]

There was another local paper advertising how wonderful Warks police were in this .
The two powers are interesting , was also interested in the older power to stop suspect vehicles. Few residents looking to put letter in about how wonderful Warks police are at not attending to incidents with mini motos/ bikes with no plates and obviously no anything else to contrast with this sudden urge to remove untaxed cars and wanting all powers /facts before writing.

a simple PNC check answers most of the questions raised here
1. who is the registered keeper
2. has the vehicle got a previous keeper only / in trade marker on it
3. is there insurance on the vehicle (policyholder, spouse, named drivers etc)
4. is the vehicle taxed
5. any information markers attached

a PNC person check establishes licience details and confirmation of point 3

since the summer we have recorded any quad bikes / off road bikes, the relevant info has been then tasked to the PCSO's to follow up enquiries, thus building a knowledge who is using these bikes

_________________
now retired