One of my neighbours regularly runs his cars with no front numberplate. At first I thought it had just dropped off but then noticed that other cars he drives also have missing front plates. I've never asked him but the only thing I can think of is that he removes them to prevent being caught on camera from the front. If stopped he could argue that he didn't know it had 'dropped off' and presumably be charged with a lesser offence or even charm the plod into letting him off. Obviously he couldn't use this story if he removed front and rear plates. Also for him to be noticed by a patrol car, the plods would have to be driving in the opposite direction and by the time they turned round he would be gone.
How serious an offence is he committing?
|
|
Does he have a valid licence, tax, MoT and insurance? The ANPR cameras only scan front plates, as do Truvelo cameras, so it seems he's got something to hide from the ANPR system.
|
|
I would be very surprised if his MOT tax and insurance etc. were not in order.
|
|
So why leave his front plates off? How many cars does he run?
|
|
I'd guess the driver is inviting police/traffic warden interest by advertising he/she is putting two fingers up:) Hopefully they will oblige. to spped things along, cabsmanuk could check whether the plates match the cars, and then whether the cars are taxed, via RAC and DVLA websites. After that, it depends how public spirited he feels, if there is a bigger problem...
|
if it is untaxed use this page, its your public duty to get scum off the road :-)
merry xmas
bah humbug ;-)
forms.dvla.gov.uk/public/unlic_veh/report_online_d...m
|
easier just to spray mud allover your plates
in either case mud covering plates, cycle carrier covering plates or plates missing althogether the offence does not lead to an endorsement on the licence just a modest fine, and in the case of mud 99.99999 % of the time you would only ever get a warning
so you can do this as you wish
better on the licence and insurance than getting hammered by a camera for 35 in a 30 or other such trivia
as ever only the hard working ordinary folk are hammered by the law
how many illegal cars on the local travellers site is it worth reporting? none cos after their risk assesment the police etc will leave em alone
|
|
|
In the following thread, PugUgly suggested it's a "fixed penalty offence"
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=29274
|
fixed penalty at police discretion
not endorsable though, no legal basis for having points added to your licence for this
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seen this quite a lot .
Other things I have noticed..
there seem to be an increased number of people carting bicycles which obscure the rear plateor towing trailers ( usually with no, or the wrong, plate showing). Both of these would obscure rear plates for cameras.
I reckon people have wieghed up the chance sof being stopped for this stuff aare much lower than being caught on a camera, and if caught the penalty is softer.
BTW I have been caught twice by cameras and was annoyed ( not with the system, but with myself).
it's one of the great myths of our time that motorists are being harassed. On every journey I see reckless driving and way-over-limit speeding , and these people don't seem to feel hunted down. Fact is, though, I wish they were
|
it's one of the great myths of our time that motorists are being harassed. On every journey I see reckless driving and way-over-limit speeding , and these people don't seem to feel hunted down. Fact is, though, I wish they were
Motorists are being harassed.
The problem is that people like you get caught, yet the truly reckless drivers get away with it.
It?s widely accepted that the ?wrong? group of drivers gets caught by speed cameras. However they are the ones who are least likely to object and will pay the penalty without making a fuss.
|
>>It?s widely accepted that the ?wrong? group of drivers gets caught by speed cameras accepted....
No it isn't. Speeders get caught by speed cameras, and that's exactly the group its aimed at. On what information do you base the *widely* accepted ?
The issue isn't cameras, its cameras instead of police officers. Cameras in addition to traffic officers out on the road would make perfect sense.
|
|
re "harassment", its the males wot suffer. According to HO figures, 9 out of 10 driving convictions are by males, with 97% of detected and prosecuted DD, committed by males. Females account for 18% of speeding convictions. Funny old things these scameras: they can detect testosterone at 20 metres:)
|
how many mamber of the local "travellers" camp have ever paid a speeding ticket issued by a camera
not many
reasons too many to mention
cameras and road police are disproprtionately hitting middle england, doing not much about the real nutters
|
Spot on retgwte.
Probably adds to the information about most speeding motorists being this type of driver.
lies, damned lies and statistics in use yet again.
Ever seen the irresponsible motorists who speed through towns etc but slow down suddenly for the scameras and then speed off the other side! They dont get caught so they dont ad to the figures but are way more dangerous than the ones who slip through at 2 or 3 mph too many! Or those in stolen, unregistered vehicles who dont worry because they cant get caught! Or those who tootle everywhere at 30; but they are not dangerous anyway are they !
But lets pounce on those that get caught , pay up andthen we can label all the offences to this type of driver, the normal one !
|
I understand certain groups of motorists being "caught" by cameras probably means certain groups more likely to end up suffering a fine / having licence endorsed than other groups
Obviously a camera catches speeders regardless, but then there's a whole set of variables that determines what happens next:
do the pictures have a number plate in them? (as per this thread)
is the plate readable?
is it a UK plate (ie not polish etc)
is it a cloned plate?
is the plate actually registered to the speeding driver?
And then, should a NIP turn up, will the driver respond etc?
To cut a long story short, the penalities from cameras are likely to fall upon those who want or need to stay "in the system". Someone mentioned Middle England, which is a Daily Mail way of looking at it I suppose...
Alternative would be say, on the spot fines by police patrols for speeding, or cars being clamped or towed as with tax evasion.
Ian
|
you see we have police forces that are scared of tackling their local "traveller" community because
i) they have to risk assess everything, and the risk is very high they will end up in an all out fist fight and loose
ii) the PC brigade think that "travellers" are an ethnic group so should be treated "equally" these being the same PC people who will talk down to you if you have a working class accent
iii) they have to man "speed awareness days" which involves doing middle class people in the rush hour going to their nice warm big offices while the "travellers" are still asleep
and they know with certainty that anything short of murder and they wont be given resources to deal with the "travellers" despite them being responsible for the biggest crime waves in the country
ever though which address all the non stolen vehicles on the local "travellers" site are registered to?
ever thought what happens when they are sent a NIP?
ever thought what driving licence they are driving on?
do you really think cops are going to give "travellers" on the spot fines? any idea how the average stop will go for the 4 foot female police officer?
i dont really mean to pick on "travellers" they are not the only group routinely breaking the law with virtual diplomatic immunity
there are others in similar groups
but it does blow the myth that speed cameras are impartial about who they target
|
|
|
|
>>cameras and road police are disproprtionately hitting middle england, doing not much about the real nutters
So, it seems your preferred balancing technique would be to back off on "middle england" [whatever that may be].
My preferred response would be to bring all other groups up to the same level of enforcement.
To say that one group should get away with it because another does sounds so much like my 4 year old daughter's approach that its laughable. "But Daaaaaad, all the others do".
IMO there is nothing wrong with cameras. Cover the country with them every 50 metres for all I care. To argue against cameras is to argue against enforcement - and that is just about the most mind-boggling dumb idea I've come across, albeit adopted by quite a large, and vocal, proportion of this country's speeders.
There are two issues though;
1) We have inappropriate speed limits
2) Cameras are used instead of police out on the road
Now, if your average, gobby anti-camera campaigner could work out the difference between enforcement ad daft laws ebing enforced, then we could concentrate on getting the speed limits altered (possible) instead of trying to stop the law being enforced (ridiculous) and could nail all the other crimes with more police out on the road (not administrators in the office, blair).
We could then focus our attention on ignoring the pinko prats and begin crushing cars. You watch a traveller, or anyone else for that matter, start to care as their $£20,000 SUV is crushed. And if you end up taking only £100 cars off the road, well there's a finite supply of those as well, and if they become scarce because they've all been crushed, then their price will go up as well.
|
I think that view point supports the current government/police attitude of the only big crime is speeding !
Whilst that prevails, the gobby anti scamera people who want less scameras and more traffic police and enforcement of the more than enough laws already in place, will just have to pay the fines and let the other "more pc" groups to escape until the uprising becomes so big !
When you are in the trade looking at cars daily you see how many crimes are comitted ! Scameras dont even begin to scratch the surface let alone tackle the problem!
How many regions have got more scameras in place than ever before and have had accident figures increase? Answer may surprise a lot of people! They do not save lives but they do raise revenue !
Give me road safety please ! First steps include picking up cars without number plates, or wrong ones or dirty ones. Way more likely to be involved in other more serious crime than the average motorist !
|
|
Have you some evidence for "How many regions have got more scameras in place than ever before and have had accident figures increase? " Whats the "answer" you imply?
|
|
|
>>want less scameras and more traffic police and enforcement of the more than enough laws already in place
Its spelt "camera", no leading "S". HTH clear up your confusion. Or is that one of those "trendy" nicknames ?
1) More traffic police ? Excellent.
2) Enforcement of existing laws ? Excellent.
Less cameras ? Why ? Surely that would fail your desire for 2) ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
