Safe Speed Forums

At 8pm this evening...

On uninsured driving.

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

Just watched it and saw how a properly insured woman was stopped on the road and would have had her car taken away from her and crushed, but for being able to get her sister to bring along a copy of the insurance certificate.

This is yet another lawfull driver who has now come to see the injustice for motorists.

Yes we need to stop uninsured drivers, but these heavy handed methods are not the way to do it.

Wait for it - the legal fraternity is just waiting for something like this - "unlawfully crushed carowners 4 u" - will get you maximum payout if your car is illegally crushed because the police decided it was not insured,without getting advice from your insurer
ANd when the local authority is bankrupt - who pays more --- yes thats right - the council tax payer.
Hapening with road damage complaints - car damaged -sue LA - who then cannot find money to repair roads ---ad infinitum

I watched it too and as has been said before the Information is not smack upto date as Ladyman said. The young girl who got stopped had me shouting at the television for the officer or her to suggest telephoning her Insurance company which should have been done,without going through another thread like the other not so long ago,her car wouldnt have been crushed she would just have had an argument over who pays over the recovery charge, the power of media they make it look how they want.
Stephen

Stephen - in the UK - INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY (OR ARE DRIVERS DIFFERENT)

In case of doubt - take car and driver to a secure place and start PROVING GUILT - thats the essence of MAGNA CARTA - or do British Drivers have to take the same steps as those that forced the King TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT

Perhaps some police officers should remember that they police WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PUBLIC,Not because of indifference.

Those who giveth, can soon taketh away -- old biblical proverb.

Steven, yours is a nice bit of theory, which does not work in practice.

If I was stopped in such circumstances, I don't even know the name of my insurance company, let alone their telephone number and my insurance policy number.

Is this now such a police state that people like you can drag someone from their car and comfiscate it from them without any proof on the matter.

yes totally Ilegally as well as it falls foul of the English Bill of Rihts act 1669

it is Null and Void!

_________________
Welcome to the UK, the Land of "Selective Freedoms"

i was always under the impression that they will only take the car away if the is no insurance on the vehicle and the driver does not have a full drivers license

On a purely theoretical note, what would be the legal stance if you did either of the following when in the same situation:

a) Locked yourself in the car and refused to get out until the officer either agreed to call your insurer or follow you to where the certificate is kept so you can prove your innocence.

b) Demanded a producer, gave him the required 2 minutes (?) to write it and then drove off siting unlawful detension?

Personally I'd opt for option 1 - you can call my insurer and if you can't you can follow me home so I can prove it.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Surely they should have to provide more than one piece of evidence (the computer) in order to prove beyond reasonable doubt?

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

Apparently not; the computer is always right - just like with the absolutely perfect speed cameras that never give incorrect readings.

The insurance database has definite flaws - I am pretty sure that the same one is used by the DVLA for online tax-disc renewals. However should you purchase a new car and get the insurance starting on the day you purchase it (which I thought was standard practice), then you will have real problems with online renewals. I did this year, and ended up down the Post Office again - the system hadn't got the new insurance details on the database and wouldn't allow the renewal because there was no valid insurance. Presumably I would be likely to be caught by ANPR as driving uninsured during the window between the previous years cover expiring and the new policy being loaded, and I never carry insurance documents in the car.

Not to mention that there's no legal requirement to insure vehicles. It's drivers that require insurance.

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

But she would have had the car taken away, and she would be left in the middle of nowhere with no transport, and she would have the hassle of having to prove her innocence.

To me that is punishment for no crime whatsoever.

But she would have had the car taken away, and she would be left in the middle of nowhere with no transport, and she would have the hassle of having to prove her innocence.

To me that is punishment for no crime whatsoever.

since when were the Police both "Judge and Jury"?

the only way anyone can be punished, (Fined, imprisoned or made to pay a "Forfeiture" such as having their car crushed or even just removed or impounded) is by being found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a Court of Law, it realy is as black and white as that

_________________
Welcome to the UK, the Land of "Selective Freedoms"

Not to mention probably having to pay the release and storage fees regardless.

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

The national database of insurers is supposed to be updated straight away as they have access to it, or within I would say 24hrs if they dont do that then it is the inurance companys responsibility to do this, if they dont then they should and sometimes do foot the bill.

The ANPR vehicles should all be live linked to the PNC then this would cut out a lot of the problems that we are having,however in defence to that if you geta a hit of no insurance then we would always get a live check done to elliminate this error prior to any action being taken.

The officers in the programme did not come across well in this case and they were officers from my force and i can tell you that how they operated was not the normal procedure, perhaps and it is no excuse they were under pressure to show a 165 seizure takeing place on camera.

we/ most have a comprehensive list of the major insurance companies so that we can telephone for verification prior to seizure, no matter what you say it works and works well in most cases. In fact over a 2 month period over 2550 cars were seized and out of all of them only 225 were claimed back so what does that tell you.
Stephen

... that your data is incorrect in about 10% of the cases?

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

That 225 people were illegaly deprived of their vehicles?

1) The Police are seizing cars of little value that their owners do not care about and that are very easily replaced.

2) That the risk of seizure remains very low. A typical Police force area has more than 50,000 uninsured vehilces.

3) That the Police force effort required to deal with uninsured driving is totally unsustainable.

4) That inadequate roads policing has enabled uninsured driving to spiral out of control (so far out of control that these seizures can't even keep up with the growth in uninsured driving (my estimate)).

5) And we should surmise that 2,500 of those drivers were back on the road in a month in another uninsured wreck.

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

of those 2550 cars how many un insured driving convictions were secured?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

That nearly 4 people a day are being wrongly punished for crimes they did not commit.

It doesn't matter how much compensation they get or who foots the bill they are put through the stress of being called a criminal at the roadside, having their transport taken away, having to go through more stress to get it back and to get some form of compensation.

All because you are relying on evidence you know to be wrong at least 10% of the time.

I thought we had a system of "beyond all reasonable doubt", not "beyond 89% of reasonable doubt".

It's sick and should be stopped NOW!