Went into the local Motor accessory shop for a new number plate for the wifes car on Saturday.
As per regulations I had to produce a driving licence, registration book and a utility bill.
He pulled out a plastic cover, stuck transfers on and then pulled it through what he called the mangle which was simply like the old fashioned washing device to squeeze water from the washing similar to what my Mother used.
Am I missing something here but what is the point in him taking down all these details and then using technology to make the number plate which anyone could do at home.
|
Instead of wondering how people do that let's focus on why people do that.
Typical 20 year old fella in any of our cities has to fork out £160 tax and £2000 TPO insurance for group 5 car. As an alternative he can gamble - dodging the bills vs. possibility of accident. Odds are pretty good so many go for it.
It's fairly easy to fix however, at least insurance situation:
- Let's raise road tax to £250 but include Third Party insurance in the tax. This will end insane quotes, insurance dodging and, what's more important - it will let people without NCB drive better equipped, safer and roadworthy cars, as they no longer will have to match price of the car to insanely high insurance quote. More ABS and traction controls on the roads means less danger to your cars gentlemen.
- Stop driving test being failed for profit. Retests should be free, so only real numpties are hassled and good drivers are no longer failed for not adjusting rear view mirror in dramatic manner. Less unnecessary retests and shorter queues mean better and longer tests can be performed. Make pass plus part of the basic test.
|
- Let's raise road tax to £250 but include Third Party insurance in the tax. This will end insane quotes
Unfortunately, I think it will also result in people who have only just passed their test driving around in insanely powerful cars, sinc they can insure them for exactly the same price as a 1.1 fiesta.
Perhaps if a scheme similar to this was brought out, but in conjunction with a 'new driver' limit on engine capacity?
Say, in your first year driving it must be 1.1 or less, 2nd year 1.7, third year 2.0 and then unlimited.
Of course, then they'd be driving round in 1.1 Fiesta's, but with twin superchargers and NOS :D
|
|
|
Agree with much of what you say vOn on the reasons why so many drivers don't bother with insurance etc.
The problem with relying on discs, documents etc. is that they can be lost, destroyed, forged, stolen etc. and need to be checked/verified. Paying for basic cover via fuel duty is much simpler and almost impossible to evade. Also the more you drive, the more you pay and vice versa.
|
|
|
v0n said:
"Typical 20 year old fella in any of our cities has to fork out £160 tax and £2000 TPO insurance for group 5 car."
I pay £930 even with no NCB on a group 5 - not quite £2000. Changes the odds fairly substantially
|
|
|
|
|
Alvin Hi, Legal number plate producers are now registered and must comply with the regulations, font, size, backing etc. etc.. The supplier of blank plates codes the rear surface of the plate, lower RH corner and delivers them to a particular plate producer. This produces traceability of a supplier of a plate and the manufacturer of the blank. The shop keeps a record of the registration number against the address, name and licence so that particular loop is hopefully closed except for the illegal plate makers. Regards Peter
|
"The shop keeps a record of the registration number against the address, name and licence so that particular loop is hopefully closed except for the illegal plate makers."
In theory!
In practice; a legal plate maker makes up a "show plate" so named because it is for "show" and not "road" use. Illegal font, lettering, spacing what have you. They do not keep the records nor attach their own details to the plate. They do not ask for the required proof of ownership details either.
Sorry loophole just opened again, and it does happen.
FiF
|
|
Flat in Fifth, I agree the supplier does not add his deatails, his details are etched into the rear of the blank so once made up are not removeable without destroying the backing, yes there are some dodgy plate makers but it is a start. Regards Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Well of course you're right about the tax on petrol JBJ but it isn't being used for the purpose I outline (AFAIK) and whatever is going to be done will involve some cost the money for which will have to come from somewhere (petrol duty, income tax or something else). Bear in mind that if automatic 3rd party cover was funded by a small levy on petrol our individual insurance costs ought to come down quite a lot - or am I missing something ? IMO there are really 2 elements to this:
a) proper compensation for the victims and
b) effective detection & punishment of offenders.
Raising money for a) is one thing but isn't doing more about b) the key to it all?
How many times do we have to hear about Mr X who mows down and kills someone and is then found to be driving illegally having already been banned several times before but let off with a fine? It's crazy!
|
What is needed is an externally visible marker which shows that the owner of the car has paid VED, has an MOT, and has insurance.
Of course, there is one - the tax disc. All we need to do now is enforce it against the illegal drivers. However, the main effort by DVLA is against people who have been driving legally but who forget. The (apparently) vast number of illegal drivers are left alone until an accident happens.
I have posted before now on what happens when you report an untaxed car on the road - basically nothing.
|
|
That's a start Patently but surely the owner and the driver may not necessarily be one and the same. Is that where JBJ's idea of insuring the car in some way (not just the driver) comes in and wouldn't adding the cost of this to petrol be the best way to do it ?
|
|
|
I make no claims for superior registration managemetn where I live but I have always thought the system is rather neat. You must display a current security coded sticker on your number plates, all fluorescent, with the year of registration shown, e.g. 03 or o4 etc. Since you must renew your registration annually based on the last digit of your plate (so WMF 488 for example is due in August), if you as of today are not displaying and '03 sticker, then your vehicle is unregistered which also means uninsured, because you have to buy compulsory TPL insurance at the time of registration and inspection.
In your vehicle you must carry your current reg certificate. If stopped, the number of the certificate will be checked against the security code on your sticker to make sure your stickers aren't stolen or forged. Therefore in theory you cannot be insured if your sticker is out of date. If you sell your car the TPL cover passes to the next owner. The car is insured, not you.
Of course this doesn't do anything for unlicensed drivers (especially of buses) but that's another problem. The process lacks a lot in execution but it always seemed to me to be a good idea as a starter. When you re-register your car they also check the body and engine numbers against the ownership certificate as well.
If you lose a plate or have one stolen, believe me this is a nightmare-ish event. You must get a police report, submit an affidavit of loss, duly notarised, to the Land Transportation Office where the vehicle was registered (not just any old office) pay a fee and get a certificate and receipt. Your new plate may take 6 months or more to come through, you can't just nip down to Halfords, this is the government mate. Meanwhile every cop on the lookout for beer money will be stopping you sans your plate. Unsurprisingly, accessory shops sell very nifty security covers for number plates to deter the casual thief.
|
|
|
|
|
".... enforcement seems a bit biased these days"
Well JBJ, if by that you are referring to the focus on speeding, my views are not popular with some here but even I can't help thinking that some government initiatives seem more to do with levying fines to raise revenue than biting the bullet and dealing with tough issues like illegal drivers who are not so easy to catch. Even the recent Tory pledge to remove the 'points' penalty for certain offences smacks of a desire to collect more fines. Let's face it, not too many banned drivers are going to pay fines are they so why not just go on collecting vast sums of money from those serial offenders who are prepared to pay up for the 'privilege'?
|
|
Why dont the government legislate now that all new cars be built with a slot for a credit/debit card in place of the ignition key. The only way you could then start the car is by putting your credit card in it. They could then take insurance, VED, etc etc easily and make sure that everyone paid.
|
It pays to be an illegal driver. The court fines are woeful. Perhaps all cars without tax/sorn should be crushed or sold when found. The money raised would go into the MIB fund so indirectly uninsured drivers would pay. This line of action is guaranteed to cause upset as some old dear in hospital will find that they're car has been crushed or some single mother will have been on holiday and come home to find the same!
But a lot of the uninsured drivers are uninsured because the cost of insurance is too expensive, even for a modest car. Without a car these people couldn't get to work as public transport just isn't flexible enough. If you catch them and fine them or prevent them from driving around uninsured then there is a good chance they'll end up claiming dole rather than working which would cost the taxpayer just as much.
Annual stickers for number plates does sound like a good idea but I suspect they would be forged in no time and cloned quite easily.
I'm with Volvoman on this, stick basic TP insurance on fuel so everyone is assumed to be covered (the insurance industry won't like it). Make the excess quite high eg £400-500 on claiming payable by the guilty party if they have no other insurance to discourage stupid driving. Then one can have top up policies which would make the insurance more as we do have now with normal comprehensive cover. Not many people abscond without paying from petrol stations but an awful lot more will happily drive around without insurance etc.
teabelly
|
|
Re "Without a car these people couldn't get to work as public transport just isn't flexible enough" - however did we get to work before walking/cycling became impossible?
|
To a degree I agree with you. But through circumstance a lot more people are living further away from where they work so the walking/cycling thing isn't an option. Within 5 miles yes fine. But more than that people aren't going to either be able or want to do it. I am sure you would find it hard to cycle to work 5 miles in the pouring rain rather than jump in the car and do the same journey? Work places aren't often conducive to people turning up to work either drenched or sweating like a pig either which is an added complication.
teabelly
|
|
|
|
My idea would to get tough on criminals, and the illegal drivers will subside, as of course they are one of the same.
{Rest of post deleted. DD.}
|
Well I certainly agree that we need to get tough on criminals of all descriptions and origins and that would no doubt have an effect on the number of illegal drivers running around. The trouble is that it's too easy to fleece the normally law abiding and easily traceable majority rather than get tough with the crooked and, I fear, rapidly increasing minority who exist on the fringes and don't give a stuff about anything or anyone. The number of sexual attacks on women by illegal cab drivers is quite frightening yet if you care to visit central London at the weekend you'll come across dozens
and nothing much seems to be done about it. Perhaps the problem's just too big now and the 'Government' would rather stick its collective head in the sand than tackle the problem (thereby admitting to it's failings) and take on the civil liberties/human rights brigade.
|
Less politics, more motoring discussion.
If things haven't improved by lunchtime, I'll simply delete the thread.
--
Dynamic Dave
Back Room Moderator
mailto:dave_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
|
|
Sooty,
Keep your views of who you consider criminals to yourself please?
--
Dynamic Dave
Back Room Moderator
mailto:dave_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
|
|
Most of the suggestions here involve the majority of law abiding drivers having to pay extra, as well as incur even more inconvenience, which the lawless will simply evade or ignore.
Nobody has a right to own a car: it's a privilege which you have to earn. If you can't afford to own and maintain a car then you shouldn't be allowed to have one. People have just got to accept responsibility for their own actions, which the nanny state seems to be removing.
The only real means of enforcing the law, and prevent illegal drivers, is the use of sophisticated technology which can immediately identify them. Of course, this will mean "real" policemen in situ, and not just static machines which can only record and not apprehend.
Punishment is another matter. There is little point in fining people who are unable to pay, so suitable alternatives must be found, and vehicles must be confiscated.
|
Law abiding drivers are already paying extra. We pay extra because of the lack of revenue from those avoiding insurance, we also pay another chunk into the MIB to pay out when those drivers cause damage to others. Putting it all on fuel would probably lessen each person's contribution as it would be spread over a greater number of people.
It would be very nice if those people that couldn't really afford a car would give up on the idea and we could go back to the motoring elite and stick the peasants on public transport but that is not exactly an easy thing to do when the whole country is geared up towards car ownership :-)
I agree with you about people not taking responsibility and I think there should be more campaigning on the basis of the buck stops with you, the driver and nowhere else. It's not your car, the roads or the weather that causes accidents it is you the driver not dealing with the situation properly.
So perhaps the ultimate in personal responsibility would mean that people did not have insurance and any accident they had they would personally have to pay for, out of their earnings/benefits so they would feel responsible for what they have done?
teabelly
|
|
|
Surely the majority always have and always will pay for the minority. As I said before it's very hard to evade petrol duty and the amount you pay would be based on your usage and partially reflected in lower insurance costs with the benefits pointed out by vOn. The administration of the system would be minimal and no costly high technology or extra policing required.
Yes of course people can still steal petrol or money to buy petrol but they can also steal money to buy insurance/VED etc. so there's no difference in that respect. The main benefit would be that the victims of these people would be properly compensated with no argument. As regards the policing - I'm starting to think that the answer lies in more random road checks and far tougher sentencing for repeat offenders, possibly tagging of some sort to monitor/restrict their whereabouts.
|
".. tagging of some sort"
It looks like cars will all be tagged/satellite linked before long anyway, so maybe therein lies the solution (e.g. car won't start unless all documents are in order). Don't like it myself (nanny state* and all that) but it looks inevitable.
*Latest example is proposed compulsory thermostatic bath taps to prevent scalding! Won't be able to make a cup of tea soon...
------------------
Die dulci fruere!
|
|
sorry, JBJ, my Latin isn't good enough to make sense of your sign-off? :o)
|
Die dulci fruere = Have a nice day.
(according to Google, that is)
|
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
|
|
|
|
There are really three issues
1. Identification of those driving illegally - no licence, no insurance no tax. Current methods of identification do not work. As it is estimated up to 1 million(!) drivers may fall into one or more of these categories it is a MAJOR crime.
2. Proper and appropriate punishment
3. Preventing re-offending.
1.. Well the obvious thing is an annual number plate system combining Tax, insurance. (I ignore MOT as I assume you will be unable to relicence the car without it.)
2. Penalties: well a graduated scale. First offence a fine.. rather like now. Second offence lose car.. Third offence.. lose some benefits if on them/huge fine . Fourth - jail...
3. Preventing re-offending is called proper enforcement of the law.. an issue our MPs/Government/Home Secretary seem incapable of understanding..
If the Government WANTED to solve this they could, the technology exists.
The WILL to solve it clearly does not..
madf
|
|
Many of these people are repeat offenders and where serious inury or a fatality results I think jail is the only answer. For the remainder of these people I agree that a sliding scale of punishment and feel tagging/restricting their movement is the best answer. Their movements could be, for example, restricted to their local area and their place of work (if any). This would allow them to work and pay tax rather than claim benefits. Unauthorised movement outside these areas would be a breach of the regulations punishable by jail. I agree it's all starting to sound like something foreseen by George Orwell but he predicted it would be reality in 1984 so at least we've had 20 years grace :-)
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody has a right to own a car: it's a privilege, which you have to earn. If you can't afford to own and maintain a car then you shouldn't be allowed to have one. People have just got to accept responsibility for their own actions, which the nanny state seems to be removing.
I'm afraid things are not that simple anymore. We live in overtaxed society, most of the things we remember being free or simpler when we were kids are now "privilege" indeed. From football matches moved from BBC into pay per view channels to parking wardens all of a sudden walking around our own driveways. It is now officially in the best interest of a county, borough and police to restrict turns, change speed limits on regular basis and remove free parking bays. It is now officially them vs. us. As a society we lost our way completely in the whole fine/permit/charge madness. We almost reached the stage where a guy destroying speed camera, device originally designed to guard our safety, is a hero, a Robin Hood for new era. If you think about it - it is less likely to get caught with fake or cloned registration plates (when was the last time someone in uniform checked your registration documents?) than to be done for doing 34mph in 30 zone. It's cheaper and easier to be scumbag than honest man.
I can almost bet in 9 cases out of 10 when untaxed, uninsured driver is involved in accident it is still cheaper for him to pay for damages than get the proper insurance. But if you look from different perspective - why is TPO insurance so high? Why does Third Party quote depend on the area? Does Ford Granada from Docklands in London really do three times more damage to a Fiesta than the same Ford Granada from Dartford in Kent? Do bull bars of Terrano from Richmond break twice as many bones as Terrano registered in Basildon? This has nothing to do with privilege. This has nothing to do with being able to afford a car. This is more of a "am I going to get penalised for living in the city again?" kind of question. It's the simplest equation on earth - the higher the bill the less people will pay for it. In every aspect. The more expensive train tickets = more people switching to cars, more taxes = less people filling forms, higher cost of servicing the car = more junk on roads, more expensive towing = more abandoned junk on parking lots, higher insurance = less drivers insured.
|
v0n - valid points, however, I can't let your repeated incorrect grammar go unchecked. "...the higher the bill the FEWER people will pay for it....higher insurance = FEWER drivers insured..."
If plural - use fewer, not less.
Sorry. Bee now out of bonnet.
|
So sorry jc33, its not the fact that drivers are plural that means we say fewer drivers not less drivers, its the fact that "drivers" are a discontinuous measure not a continuous measure.
Thus, water can be measured out in any amount - 1 litre, 1/2 litre, 0.9876237 litres etc. So you ask for less water.
Drivers are either 1 or 2 or 3 etc. You can't have half a driver (a horrible scenario has just popped into my head so I'll qualify that as "you can't normally...") so there are fewer driver.
So its a case of right answer, wrong reason.
|
|
Eee. Tha dunt 'alf speak pretty. ;)
|
|
|
|
Thank you patently. I was unaware of that. I'm not going to argue with someone who speaks Latin. Its ten years since I last studied it.
|
Ah, but only one phrase of Latin, all I ever need really.
Of course, every supermarket agrees with you - "5 items or less" etc.
|
|
That doesn't make me right. Nemo sultat sobrius.
|
|
|
|
|
Robbie - I agree with your basic principle, but I would like to adapt it to 'Nobody has a right to drive a car'. I see no harm in owning one, with the important proviso that there is somewhere to keep it without obstructing the highway. The Japanese have addressed this problem for many years since their streets became impossible. But the Englishman's car is an extension of his castle (or council flat) and is seen as an inalienable right, however much it might inconvenience the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
