Safe Speed Forums

Hi folks - just to stir things up, we all agree that we hate the current emphasis on speed enforcement by automation. Not too difficult to hate that!

However, we are probably also in agreement about the unlicenced, uninsured scrotes (ahem, drivers) on the road. Not only do they tend to 'get away with it' unlike the rest of us, but they are also costing us money

The technology exists, and is in use to some extent, to counter this. I refer, of course, to the ANPR (Automated Number Plate Recognition) systems.

What are the views of you all regarding the potential proliferation of these systems? Would that be a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing'???

Personally, I would welcome it - especially if it were linked to a reduction in emphasis on the speed side of things as advocated by PS. (in my dreams of course )

Over to you - what do you think

_________________
Stultus est sicut stultus facit - a known fact
Stercus accidit - a truism!

In principle I agree with anything which will help the BiB catch uninsured drivers.

BUT.... The fact that a passing vehicle may not have any insurance does not mean the driver of that vehicle doesn't.

AND.... They are abusing speed camera technology now as most of us who use this forum readily accept; how long is it going to be before ANPR technology is abused?

I'm not dead set against ANPR, although I really ought to be since I oppose anything that makes us even more of a surveillance society than we already are. ANPR certainly has it's uses, though as PaulF has already pointed out, since we insure drivers rather than cars it's far from perfect. Still, I imagine in cases of a car the computer says is uninsured but which is driven by a driver with appropriate cover, the plod either let the driver go about their business or give out a producer. Slightly annoying for the driver to be stopped like that, but not a big deal really. However, there are other potential problems. I remember a thread about this months ago, and I think someone, probably SafeSpeed, mentioned that Swansea's records are all over the place. If so how does that affect the abilities of ANPR?

I think it'd be better if the need for ANPR was reduced rather than the use of ANPR extended. As discussed elsewhere, VED and 3rd party insurance would be impossible to avoid if it was part of the cost of fuel, and probably easier to administer. I don't want to go off topic into all the pros and cons of doing that, but I would just point out that if it was no longer possible to drive uninsured or without buying VED the ANPR vans would have a great deal less work to do.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

ANPR is in principle a good thing - they are typically paired with police motorcycles to intercept (well they could hardly use the V5 could they?), sp people actually get caught, and if you are somehow legally drving a suspect vehicle, you do have a chance to argue your case.

But somehow I don't think they are as effective as they should be, or that they are being used for necessarily the right reasons:

1) The cynic in me says that they are being used to increase scamera revinues, because if you are not a good little law abiding sheep, then they cannot fine you.

2) What happens the the people they catch? Points on licence? Ha, ha. Car crushed - no problem can get a replacement for less than the cost of insurance. Jail - well if you can find a place in one, it will only be for a week or two. The biggest problem is knowing who you have caught...ah we need identity cards for that don't we.

While they might catch a few people that are borderline criminal, those that really don't care will be back in a few weeks doing it again. When will they realise that this is the inevitable consequence of policies that attempt to price people of the road....

So someone remind me, how does ANPR detect if someone has cloned your numberplate? Therefore your tax, your insurance etc.

Just wondering....

I have been to Sunday markets where they make up a set of plates for £20 no questions asked.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Same way gatsos do. By failing abysmally.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

My feelings are that ANPR is basically a revenue collection tool. It's there to reduce the amount of unpaid tax and is being sold to us on the "road safety" ticket as a means of justifying it's primary aim which is to increase revenue.

It is fundamentally flawed in terms of detecting uninsured vehicles for the reasons outlined above. It can't detect unlicenced drivers as it doesn't know who's driving the vehicle, and the whole issue becomes completely irrelevant if the car is carrying plates which clone those of another legitimate vehicle.

So the real question as I see it is whether we are happy to allow this degree of blanket surveillance solely to reduce the numbers of people avoiding VED. I think not. I think that IF the non-collection of VED does constitute a massive problem then the tax should simply be placed onto fuel as mentioned previously. If this were done as an audited revenue-neutral exercise there would be little valid reason for opposition, and the Government would be well in profit due to (a) the end - to all practical purposes - of tax dodging, (b) the saved costs of issuing VED licences, (c) the costs of running operations such as ANPR, (c) the costs of other methods of licence fraud detection.

That the Government don't even appear to be considering this course of action leads me to believe that there is an ulterior motive behind all this, that ANPR is ultimately an exercise in general surveillance, rather than being specifically targeted at illegals.

I guess our resident TrafPols won't entirely agree with my views on ANPR, and I don't doubt that they will have picked up many illegalities as a spin-off from ANPR operations, but I feel this may be misleading. When I've seen local ANPR operations they have been accompanied by 4 or 5 pursuit vehicles acting in support. I reckon if the same resources were simply deployed for the same time period but in the traditional manner, ie observe the traffic and look for anything "suspicious", they'd grab just as many illegals, but with the added benefit that they'd also pick up a few dangerous (but legal) drivers to boot. Ultimately, this I feel would be a more efficient use of resources in terms of road safety, though not perhaps in terms of revenue.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Oohhh so much to comment on!

Firstly to PaulF - I might be mistaken, but I thought that even if you had cover on your OWN insurance to drive another vehicle, the vehicle must STILL be insured by its owner - this was certainly the case when I had 3rd party extension on my insurance. Therefore even if your own policy allows you to drive someone elses vehicle, its still illegal if the owner is not insured for it.

As for VED. I agree that it would be far more practical and easier all round if VED was included in fuel tax. That would automatically mean that the heaviest road users pay more in VED (which I thought was the whole point as it's supposed to go into road maintenance ) Also there have been one or two instances I can think of where the current system has failed me - I bought a car with no tax on it and obviously I couldn't tax it until my insurance came through, and so I got fined for not having tax. Yes you can argue quite fairly that that was my responsibility and if I didn't have anywhere to keep it off the road I shouldn't have bought it, but the current system makes NO allowance for this kind of event.

Redwolf - what about public floggings for those caught driving without the appropriate documents / licence etc. Generally I find that the fear of massive public humiliation tends to make people think twice

Yes I agree with ANPR in theory IF IT USED CORRECTLY!!! But as with every other government / police / whatever idea its not been properly thought through, or properly implemented. I am far more in favour of more trained and competant coppers in cars using their discression to prosicute REALLY dangerous or illegal drivers. But then, that doesn't work for the statistics does it?

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

I've checked the wording of my policy, and it clearly states that I may drive other vehicles not owned by me without making any stipulation about any other policy being required.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Not really wanting to stick my oar in .... but I was also under the impression that to drive a third parties vehicle on my own insurance it must be covered by its own policy .

If anyone can clarify this it would be of great use as both my wife and I own motorcycles but she prefers to ride on only 6 month policies . and I was under the impression that that I could not ride hers whilst she herself had no insurance in place.

Go and check the wording of the Certificate of Insurance that came with your policy. Note that this document is a legal document in it's own right, as far as complying with the RTA is concerned. In other words, whilst the Insurance company might have all sorts of additional clauses and terms written into the policy booklet they only apply to additional cover terms such as Fully Comprehensive policies.

In terms of whether you are complying with the Road Traffic Act's requirement for third party cover, if the certificate says you can then that's the end of it. It is after all the only document you need to produce to a policeman should he need to see proof of your cover.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

I've checked my policy too - it says I can drive (or ride) any vehicle (or motorcycle) which does not belong to me provided I have the owner's permission (or the owner's agent's permission) and am licensed to do so. There is no stipulation about the existance of any other insurance, but my policy booklet says that in the event of a claim arising, they would go 50/50 where such other insurance exists.

So if I write my wife's car off, seeing as I am named on her policy as well as being able to drive her car on my policy, my insurance company might like to try to get cute and go 50/50 with regard to liability.

Think about it. If you have several cars (or bikes) for example they just need to be registered in someone elses name for you to driver them with one policy....I don't think thats the case.

I think that you will find that if there is a claim the insurance on the vehicle makes a claim off your own policy. If the vehicle is not insured in the first place this cannot happen.

I may be wrong, but that's how I have seen it done in the past.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

I think it is, more or less. What hasn't been mentioned here so far is that this is 3rd party cover and may not be available on all policies.


Nope, it comes straight off the drivers insurance. For example, if I'm driving Mrs Gatsobait's car and through my own fault injure someone or damage another car then her policy pays out in full for all of us because I am a named driver. But if I was driving my mum's car and injured someone or damaged another car her insurance company would not pay because I am not named on her policy and would have been using the any vehicle clause in mine. My insurance company would cough up instead, but since it's only third party they would only pay for the injury/damage I did to the other person/car, and any damage I'd done to my mum's would be our problem.

I think there are also specialist any vehicle insurance policies for people like mechanics so that there is fully comp cover on customer vehicles when they take 'em out to road test them, or if they pick up and deliver cars. I seem to remember it being mentioned when I worked at a garage years ago. IIRC the two boss mechanics were insured for practically anything while the apprentice spanner monkey was only covered for up to 2 litres or something. Dim and distant past though, so I'm far from certain I've got that bit right.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

It has always been my impression that the "driving other vehicles" clause only applied to vehicles on which there was already a valid insurance policy - albeit one that did not cover you driving it.

If you tried to tax a car using the clause on your mate's policy I don't think you'd get very far.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Heya everyone, I'm new to the forum - look forward to getting to know most of you-



Sorry Paul, but I fail to understand how that might be possible? Please help me out...

You are right, Peter, in order for any "DOC" extensions on an insurance policy to be valid - the car which the policy holder intends to drive needs to be insured by it's owner - whoever the car might belong to - and it can't be a company car, hired car, etc etc

It's sort of the other way around - just because a car shows up insured on the ANPR doesn't mean the person behind the wheel is insured - I still insist that traffic police are the best solutions.

_________________
My friends call me RuFFy

OK, a view from this side of the fence....

ANPR is invaluable. Most people committing one motoring offence linked to being responsible for the vehicle commit other offences as well - for example, an untaxed car probably will be uninsured, without MOT, and quite possibly driven by a disqual / unlicensed driver. It will usually be driven more dangerously than others, and may often be involved in other crime - burglary, etc. Many vehicles are kept "untraceable" for a reason other than simple lack of funds to insure.

But on it's own it's useless - it can only effectively be used in conjuntion with police on the ground stopping the vehicle at the time. Typically we use a couple of long dual carriageways with no exits in between - the ANPR crew can scan the vehicle and let us know about 3/4 minutes before it arrives. We've usually got a lane coned off to deal with it, typically with DVLA present.

In terms of cloned vehicles, my team are usually pretty able to tell whether the driver is genuinely startled to be stopped, or trying to hide something.

Penalties are the big problem though - as someone else has mentioned, as long as magistrates keeping handing out endorsements and bans to unlicensed drivers, we know they'll be back on the road as soon as we've chucked them out of the nick. It's disheartening to say the least, although luckily round here we have a few mag's who will happily send people down for repeated offences.

The handy thing is that any fines, etc don't go to camera partnerships, so the incentive to raise revenue is removed.

It also means we can do a lot more, a lot quicker - typically an old style PNC check on a vehicle took 1-2 mins and even then may not have had correct insurance data...with MOT being linked into the check as well, we have more chance than ever to remove the real scrotes from the road.



Please let your local Trafpol know about this !!!

_________________
Never point a speedmeter at a civil or military aircraft, vessel or armoured vehicle. Many military aircraft, vehicles or vessels have target acquisition detectors, some of which initiate automatic counter measures.
Association of Chief Police Officers

on

totally agree Cotswold just seen your post

I agree with JT about the "driving other cars" extension. There's no specific requirement for the vehicle to be insured by its owner for you to drive it under your own policy extension (3rd P only cover of course).

The owner of the vehicle will however have to have at least "Road Traffic Act" cover on the vehicle before they allow you to use it on the road.

Let's say you drive the car on your own policy, then park it and leave the vehicle for an hour. Whilst it's parked, whose policy is covering third party liabilities??

Case law - Samuelson v National Insurance & Guarantee Corporation (1986) Court of Appeal ruled when a motor trader drove a customer's car to another garage under their own motor trade policy, once they parked the car and left it, the customer's policy resumed cover on the vehicle whilst it was parked.

(Recalled from an insurance exam many years ago... )