In a preview for the programme "Drivers Uncovered" on ITV Mon 13 Nov.
"Quentin Willson looks into new figures that suggest premiums will be raised to make up for the rising number of accidents involving uninsured drivers, and asks whether the Government is losing the battle for control of Britain's roads"
"In some areas, for one in three drivers, there are "problems" with their documentation.
Quetin Wilson is certainly chasing one scroat with an extensive track record of problems.
|
The ANPRS system is making a difference in Cleveland, but you wonder what the caught vs. missed proportion is.
--
Stevie
Lakland 44-02 Sunburst
Yamaha YTS-23
|
Last week saw the ANPR system deployed and working. Twice.
1. Last Sunday coming out of Stockport up Lancashire Hill (if anyone knows it), a car stopped surrounded by cones and about 6 policemen. Odd I thought. A bit heavy handed for police... then top of the hill a police Sharan with a camera pointed back at the roundabout. So they were waiting down the hill to stop anything pulled up by ANPR and they were doing so. Good.
2. On Wednesday driving from Junc 11 on M62 to Stockport (about 2:30pm) and on the bridge for J11 three cameras (one per lane) looking down at the motorway connected to Police van. Further down M62 in Manchester direction three Police Volvo estates on hard shoulder waiting... one had a "victim" in a P plate Mondeo.
So at least the police are doing something.
|
|
Thing is, the police often get a crime-detecting bonus when they stop someone who hasn't got insurance or tax or whatever, because that's often linked with other unlawful activity.
|
|
Listened to Brunstrom a few months ago (on PM) giving some libitarian a damned good lashing over ANPR but things like that don't make the tabloids - he wiped the floor with him.
|
What happens when they stop these scroats with no insurance?
In 'Legacyworld' they would impound the car, send the occupants home by public transport, and not release it under ALL back insurance/tax was paid..this may be several years worth of unpaid insurance. On top of this a hefty fine, points etc dependent upon how long they had been uninsured. Failure to pay within a reasonable timescale, assuming the car was worth less than the insurance costs, would necessitate sending in the bailiffs to remove goods & chattels to cover these costs, and failing that send them out to Iraq unpaid.
Vote for me!
|
|
S165 RTA has pre-empted you Legacylad !
|
Pugugly (P)
S165 RTA is, I thought, only for the disposal of uninsured vehicles. Nothing about the repayment of insurance costs. In my local paper, the fines levied seem far lower than what the insurance costs would be in the first place, or do these crims have to pay both a fine AND insurance costs backdated (with compound interest) to when they last had insurance?
|
I prefer "LegacyWorld" because I thought actual fines are lower than insurance/tax costs and the need to pay backdated insurance etc. not required.
I actually I hope I am wrong but suspect I am not... unfortunately.
Regardless of value of vehicle, driving uninsured and caught I'd scrap it.... soon get the attention of drivers! Especially if they owe finance. Easily avoided by purchasing insurance. Cannot afford = do not drive. It's not a right after all.
I assume we're all insured/taxed on this forum so no flames.
|
Having caught the uninsured scrote in the act of driving a vehicle, the procedure should be:
1) Check if the vehicle is stolen
2) If no, crush the vehicle
3) If yes, crush the vehicle - but with scrote still in it!
Welcome to Waino's world.
|
|
|
|
They used to send people to prison for driving without valid insurance. These days they don't, so it's really not that surprising that so many are willing to take a chance and drive without any.
First offence likely to be a £200 fine, that's all. I almost feel like taking a chance myself! :)
|
First offence likely to be a £200 fine, that's all. I almost feel like taking a chance myself! :)
I read somewhere that it gets even more ridiculous - once you've got an 'IN' offence code on your licence the premium rises dramatically. Seems absurd if that's true - anyone know?
|
Yes, ironically correcting the error of one's ways by taking out insurance after being caught without does attract a hefty premium. A younger member of our extended family did just that.
To save money he didn't bother renewing his insurance, got caught and was rightly fined with points but then had to pay considerably higher premiums afterwards.
Perhaps the insurance companies use this to "reclaim" the missed premiums.
|
|
Yip in my day job I am aware that Poles, Lithuanians Latvians etc are driving around with relative immunity. Latest thing is to make up your Polish etc plates up on yellow/white GB plates. I have just witnessed an older Audi 100 with blacked out windows and a Peugeot 605 with this done. Look around your local Asda/Waitrose/Tesco at the close of play today and thats where these cars will be. I embrace diversity and welcome the talents the visitors to our country bring. But when in Rome ...
|
>>Perhaps the insurance companies use this to "reclaim" the missed premiums.
No,. they just work on the basis that if you don't care about insurance then speed limits, tyre baldness, brake functionality, roadworthiness and general traffic law ar ento goign to be top of your concerns either.
Personally I would crush any motor vehicle they own, whether or not they were driving it and take their driving licence permanently on a second offence.
|
un-insured drivers are well easy to spot(unless your a policeman)
they are normally older cars(cheap)
uncleaned(why bother when its so cheap)
driven badly(who cares what they hit)
full of people(tooo many for the car)
throwing rubbish out the windows(dont care about ANY law)
foreign (easier to plead ignorance)
arrogant drivers (they can after all drive how and why and where THEY want to
AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU/I CAN DO ABOUT IT
its the way they want to live
--
www.storme.co.uk
|
un-insured drivers are well easy to spot(unless your a policeman)
it's just as easy for the old bill to spot them as it is you, in fact common sense would state they'll be better at it than you..........
it's just that they have been told to concentrate on other things, to the detriment of stopping people for traffic related matters.
If you don't like that, which many don't, then you need to lobby your MP.......... because it is government led priorities that dictate what the modern police service does, not (as it used to be) the local police chief.
the snide remark does not aid the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Suffolk is currently running 'Operation Admiral' where drivers caught without insurance (using ANPR) are fined £200, given 6 penalty points and the car is seized.
The cost of recovering the car is 1) insurance (can't be released without it), 2) £105 initial storage plus £12 per day. 3) £200 fixed penalty notice and 6 points. If the car is not claimed within 14 days it is sold/scrapped. Cars can be disclaimed at the roadside if they are end of life.
This is the way forward!
|
|
|
|
|
Now I hate the idea of the ANPR stuff (far too bigbrother for my liking), but I do applaud it's use in catching un-insured/taxed vehicles and drivers.
What I can't understand is why we do not have to display proof of insurance on the vehicle like we do for tax! I remember a few years ago I was insured with EagleStar and I got a little credit card sized plastic insurance certificate to put in my wallet - was an excellent idea, never really seemed to take off though!! I would imagine people would be far more likely to report an un-insured car then an un-taxed one. I know I would.
|
I agree - same with mot certificates.
In Ireland I think I have seen tax, disc, insurance disc and mot disc all displayed on windscreen and in Germany I think mot is stamped on number plate.
It won't stop all but it will help reduce the size of the problem.
|
I agree we should have mot discs and insurance discs displayed on the screen like tax discs.
|
I agree we should have mot discs and insurance discs displayed on the screen like tax discs.
Agreed. You don't need a hi-tech solution, paper discs are fine.
That way, in order to circumvent the law, the scroats are forced to actively forge official documentation. At which point you can imprison / heavily fine / deport as you see fit. With the current system, the car is impounded and that's the end of it.
|
paper discs are fine
not really - anything easily forged on a home computer would be used, a bit like the 21st Centuary beer bottle label. I think they would create more problems than thy're worth. Automated detection is the way forward on these - town centre CCTV systems are quite cpable of being linkied to ANPR databases. It's game on then.
|
|
paper insurance details on discs are unfortuately not compatible with the way we write insurance policies in this country. The policyholder is the insured entity not the car. So a person can be legally insured to drive any car (the DOC extension on many policies) plus almost all fleet policies cover "any vehicle, hired, loaned, owned or the responsibility of the insured" (this effectively covers them for any vehicle they may need without the need to record the details with the insurer beforehand). Hence getting a disc into each car would be a nightmare for any fleet manager who is dealing with a ton of daily hiring/contract hire vehicles going back and forth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i would be in doubt of any youngster in an expensive and fast car,i mean even if they could afford it , would you want to pay it ever year.
|
Watch the progamme tonight?
(Just to bright this post to the first page)
|
I saw the last 10 minutes and it didn't reveal anyhting new. Top tip is to have a copy of your insurance on your person as the ANPR database contains loads of errors. They stopped a driver for non insurance and had the truck waiting to tow her car away, fortunately her sister arrived with certificate of insurance just in time.
A gaping loophole was found. Once a car is towed for non insurance anyone who has fully comp insurance which includes third party cover for any other vehicle owned by another person can turn up at the compound and get the car released. This seems to suggest for this section of the policy to operate the other car does not have to be insured (a much debated topic on this site). The law needs changing so only insurance in the vehicle owners name will be acceptable - as it is for car tax purposes.
|
|
One fix would be to have universal third party insurance funded by a fuel levy. That way no-one drives uninsured.
|
|
I am getting the impression that it is now virtually compulsory to carry your insurance docs. in the car. Mind you having just received a temp. cover note for one of our cars it would really be so easy to scan it.
|
|
|
|
The law needs changing so only insurance in the vehicle owners name will be acceptable - as it is for car tax purposes.
Why? Surely if car is covered by DOC, or open policy (Drive Any Car) or business/trade policy it is still covered and has insurance. Why would it help to double or tripple costs for someone with multiple cars in household just because insurance database used by Police is lame, not updated fast enough and doesn't take all things into account?
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
Why?
In your case there is insurance in place and following suggested advice you'd have a copy handy to show the police and you'd be off on your way.
It's because of this scenario, which is the loophole being exploited.
I go out and acquire a car. Being a tight wad I drive without insurance. I get caught, my car is impounded. I go to Court who take pity on me because I'm poor and I get a £25 fine and a few points on a licence I don't even have. It's cheaper than £500+ for insurance and driving lessons are just so expensive these days.
Leaving Court I then get a friend with a fully comp policy with third party cover for any car to go to the pound, I give hum permission to drive my car he flashes his certificate about and I get my car back. He drives out of the compound hands keys to me and I drive off. I've only paid £25 fine and impounding fees, but still have my car. In my excitement I crash in to your car and drive off. You then have to claim off your insurance because I still don't have any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I missed the first 10 minutes, but what was most shocking was the minute sentences uninsurred drivers received.
One killed a motorcyclist and received a 2 year ban and a £100 fine (reduced on appeal to £80).
Another driver hit a medical student and drove off, she was subsequently hit by another car as she lay in the road and died. The first driver gave himself up a week later and IIRC he had no licence or insurance. He was jailed for 2 years and fined about £200.
Ladyman, the Minister for Transport, was aware of most of the problems, but failed to give any assurances to tighten the law on uninsured drivers. His reliance on APNR will always give rise to problems if insurance companies do not update their records immediately. An example of a lady stopped because of "no insurance" on the central insurance register meant the Police were going to impound the car. She was luckily able to phone her husband, who appeared with the insurance documents a couple of minutes after the tow truck arrived. A call by the police to the insurance company confirmed she was insured and were ticked off for not keeping their records up to date. If her car had been impounded and she later produced evidence of insurnace, would she have to pay to get her car back? Would she be entitled to compensation for wrongful seizure and inconvience? Could either the police or driver sue the insurance company for costs incurred? I wondered who paid for the tow truck in this instance? This could become another legal minefield.
Even when a car is impounded for no insurance, it can be reclaimed by anyone with comprehensive insurance covering any car. There is a scam going where one man has reclaimed over 60 vehicles this way, returning them to the uninsured driver to continue to use. Surely they should insist on seeing insurance relating to that driver and vehicle. In one area over 7000 cars were impounded but only 3000 were crushed. Most of the impounded uninsurred cars were old and potentially not maintained to a roadworthy condition for insurance, so they should be automatically crushed.
The proposal that death caused whilst uninsured should carry a minimum of a 2 year jail sentence, payment of back insurance and a fine. Most people would consider this as a sensible solution to reduce the number of uninsured drivers. Drivers caught driving without insurance should be made to pay insurance for the period from when they were last insured, plus a fine and/or a driving ban.
Quetin Wilson tried to talk to the UK's most prosecuted driver (about 120 motoring offences) after seeing him driving a car whilst banned. He claimed he did not drive, even though he appeared to work in a garage servicing, repairing and selling cars. He later admitted he only drove for his business as a mobile disco. Unbelieveable, but true.
More could easily be done to substantially reduce the number of uninsured drivers. Once word spread that it was expensive in time and money to be caught without insurance, the risks would not be worth taking.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
I didn't see the programme.
>>One killed a motorcyclist and received a 2 year ban and a £100 fine (reduced on appeal to £80).
I agree that is light for no insurance. But what is the relevance of the dead person (no offence intended) ? Do we punish people for what they did, or the consequences of what they did ? If the latter, then presumably "I didn't hit anyone" is mtiigation when facing a charge of driving through a pedestrian zone at 60mph while drunk ? If the former, then the poor dead person is not relevant to the punishment.
In my world...
If someone is caught without insurance they should be heavily fined and imprisoned if that fine is not paid.
If they are caught again then their car should be crushed
The third time then they go to prison and lose their licence permanently
|
I agree that is light for no insurance. But what is the relevance of the dead person (no offence intended) ?
According to the programme, the relevance is that uninsured drivers are apparently eight times more likely to be involved in an accident . And they're also more likely to drive off without rendering assistance.
|
So as we introduce tougher penalties, even more incentive for the un insured driver to leave the scene.
|
|
|
|
Having seen the notice at Sainsbyurys which says they are using APRN cameras it becomes very simple.
Make it mandatory for anyone selling fuel to operate APNR cameras linked to the database and for their system to prevent pump enabling if the number does not have tax/insurance/MOT.
Won't catch everyone (fake plates) but would stop 90%.
|
|
|
I know someone who drove without insurance and tax. They needed the car to get to work to earn enough money to buy the tax & insurance. Would it be better that those that can't afford to run cars through a legitimate job because it pays so badly to be unemployed?
Anyone working full time should be able to afford to run a cheap car legitimately. If they can't then wages for the poor are far too low. Cars aren't subsidised but public transport is and yet the costs on PT are increasing all the time. Seems rather odd to me. Perhaps the market should be left alone unsubsidised so the full cost of different types of transport are comparable. Trains & buses you only pay by the mile. Cars should be the same - all costs should be on fuel so there was no separate road tax or third party insurance as that would be paid for. Annual mileage also fell in 2005 for the first time so there is no reason to assume never ending traffic growth. I'd imagine it was the fall and the likely loss of revenue panicked the govt into thinking about road charging to squeeze as much as possible out of the motorist and fill up their coffers to waste on other money raking schemes.
All motorists already pay for the roads. We also pay for rail and buses via subsidy so perhaps they should be come free at the point of use as we're already paying for them via taxation anyway?
teabelly
|
Anyone working full time should be able to afford to run a cheap car legitimately. If they can't then wages for the poor are far too low.
When I started work I could not afford a car - I bought a pushbike and improved my health by cycling 5 miles each way! The bike did twice as many miles a year than the car my daughter runs now and she would not consider doing without it.
You are implying that it is right, what they should do is live within their means even if it means more exercise!
|
|
I thought it had been debated many times on this forum that to be legally on the road a car had to have insurance related to it's registration number, a third party with drive any vehicle insurance wasn't enough. If this is the case, why are they letting these cars go back to the owner via this 'loophole'? Are these cars taxed? I'd have thought it unlikely if they don't have insurance.
|
Most of the people stopped get all their money from the taxpayer's handouts and through theft, so why are they going to be bothered?
Easy come, easy go.
You can see that they aren't bothered. "Am a bovvered? do i look bovvered?"
|
|
|
Yes, this has been debated many times.
Any car used (or parked) on the road must have a minimum of third party insurance cover.
If I drive a friends un-insured car (with permission) the car is covered by my DOC on my insurance which meets the legal requirements of third party cover.
If I then park the car on the road and walk away, the car is no longer covered by my insurance.
You must remember that as mentioned in a previous post that insurance is allocated to a person, not the vehicle.
|
|
|
|
|
No FM2R
It was a shame you did not see the program. The driver who killed the motorcyclist deliberately pulled out from a side road because he thought he could do it before the motorcyclist go there, but miscalculated badly. If he had waited a few seconds, the motorcyclist would be alive today. From what was said, the accident happened in good daylight and with no weather factors to influence the drivers judgement and no mention of alcohol. It was simply a bravado manoeuvre by a bad young driver full of testosterone. A ban will only work if the person accepts it, he could still just as easily drive without a licence. So one family have lost a son, the other never had their son even leave home for a day - not justice in my opinion and that of the motorcyclist's family.
The only way we can get the law tightened is if we all complain to our Members of Parliament. Most people would agree with stricter laws for drivers who do not have a licence, insurance and massively unroadworthy cars.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
|
|
|
"The proposal that death caused whilst uninsured should carry a minimum of a 2 year jail sentence, payment of back insurance and a fine. Most people would consider this as a sensible solution to reduce the number of uninsured drivers."
The problem with minimum sentences is that there will always be circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to apply them.
Here is an hypothetical and not impossible example. Imagine someone has returned from holiday last Saturday and his insurance is due today. His fault - he should have paid before he went, but he didn't. He simply forgot. Cheque is in the post now of course, but won't get there till tomorrow. Technically he is uninsured today.
And then this afternoon he is driving and there is an accident that is just that. An accident. Someone runs out under his car and he can't avoid it. Not speeding, not his fault - it's entirely an accident and everyone agrees that to be the case. Accidents happen. But that is death caused whilst he is uninsured.
Does he - should he - go to jail for two years? Certainly he made a mistake not sending thecheque. And certainly he knew he shouldn't have been driving. Is that sufficient reason to impose a jail sentence?
If you think the answer should be "it depends", as I do, then it's good that we have a judicial system that has at least some scope to weigh up the circumstances and come to a judgement.
Nothing wrong with sentencing guidelines - they give some consistency. But the mandatory sentencing route has to be taken very carefully, in my view.
|
>Dipstick
"Does he - should he - go to jail for two years? Certainly he made a mistake not sending thecheque. And certainly he knew he shouldn't have been driving. Is that sufficient reason to impose a jail sentence?"
Yes
Yes
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
And "forgetting" to pay is none either.
Insurance companies advise you about 4 weeks BEFORE insurance is due.
You KNOW when you are going on holiday.
No extenuating circumstances imo.
Lets face it: once you start you'll get the "I was too busy on Friday so I waited a week" sort of nonsense.
The fact is : the penalties for no insurance are so low and the chances of being caught are even lower so it's often condoned. Remember drink and driving? No extenuating circumstnaces made a difference. Over the limit? That's it.
Insurance is binary. there are NO grey areas.. so the law can and should be the same.
As far as frequent offenders, perhaps travelling in the car with a driver whom you could reasonably know was noit insured should be made an offence as well?
madf
|
Well yes - that's your opinion, and of course your are entitled to it. It may even be the opinion of most people in the poor example I drew.
But the point I'm making is that once you have a mandatory sentence then you are locked in to a course of action - there is no room for any mitigation whatsoever. Sentencing guidelines, however, as we have now, leave the judge with the *possibility* to do something other than a very expensive and probably fruitless jail sentence.
|
I'm with you dipstick..........
pleading guilty is automatically less than the full penalty usually............ you are admitting you've done it, which some don't, which means usaully some remorse...........negated the need for the victim/victim's family/witnesses to give evidence......... and saved shed loads of money.
Furthermore the max penalty is for the worst case scenario and you example was not the worst case scenario.
If the chap in your example got the max penalty.......... what would the bloke with a 10 year disqual, 80 previous convictions who has never had any insurance for the past 40 years get?
|
And the woman interviewed who said she had driven for 32 years with no insurance ?.
She stated that there was little chance of getting caught and she always avoided police vehicles when ever she saw any.
What action in this case?
Oh and we are to get more dedicated traffic officers !
Well... a very recent police program showed the traffic boys being, to their obvious frustration, being called away to do other jobs.
It is not simpler to say we will get more police thus allowing traffic boys to do what they joinded the traffic dept for?
Anyone for joined up goverment?
|
|
|
|
|
