Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue May 05, 2026 06:19

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Ladyman Speech today
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Please read this and comment urgently:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 12647.hcsp

The theme of my rebuttal is 'DfT driving crime' because technology is circumvented.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 13:00 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
The over-reliance on technology is very clear - I agree that the general direction for rebuttal is as you say.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 13:04 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
prof beard wrote:
The over-reliance on technology is very clear - I agree that the general direction for rebuttal is as you say.


I've been working on it, but the thrust of the argument is ending up outside of Safe Speed's core messages - in fact it isn't really a 'road safety message' at all. Clearly there are overlaps, but the degree of 'indirectness' is large enough that it's looking like I'm staying out. Which is actually a shame.

Unless someone can suggest just the right emphasis...

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 13:19 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
They are using technology like a two year old with a hammer, hitting motorist and crushing cars with similar lack of skill. It is time they stopped fining motorcyclists for leaving them in the shed or garage and worked out the profille of real criminals. Also the claims of GMP seizing 1000 cars seams excessive. North Wales police too.

If you park on the street or in a council owned parking bay, forgetting to get your tax disk on the exact day is now a car crushing offence even if you are not driving it and are in hospital. That seams a bit draconian.

Car dealers are having the same problems with DVLA losing SORN notices and then issuing tax fines.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 13:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 15:30
Posts: 643
Most of the stuff he talks about still requires proper Police to catch the offenders at the time. The vehicles are not likely to be kept at the registered address so they are not going to be caught by following up afterwards on information from a database.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 13:53 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
There is a bit there about making it an offence to be the registered keeper of an uninsured vehicle. Firstly where does SORN come to play in this? Bearing in mind the recent figures from the compliance report showing the insurance database to be inaccurate then how many people are going to be slapped with a fine for no good reason? Thus it will further fuel people to get cloned plates so they can pretend to be someone else without the bother of constantly chasing Govt departments when their information is incorrect or out of date. I think something like 12% of people stopped had insurance even though the database said they didn't.

The road safety parts comes in with further loss of respect for law enforcement as they rely even more heavily on inaccurate data to enforce technical infringements rather than spend time chasing proper criminals doing proper crime eg burglary, robbery, mugging etc. Until the data is good enough to have only a handful of false negatives then it is only going to cause more problems. Legitimate owners of vehicles need an easy way to check their car is insured as they think it is before they get slapped with a fine. This check must not be open to people checking randomly to find plates of cars with insurance!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 15:07 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 14:41
Posts: 5
Location: Thames Valley
teabelly wrote:
There is a bit there about making it an offence to be the registered keeper of an uninsured vehicle.


Am I right in thinking that, currently, it's NOT an offence to drive a car without any insurance policy for the car so long as the driver has a policy on another car and that that insurance allows them to drive any car?

My insurance allows me to drive my own car (fully comp) and any car not owned by me (third party only). I'd always assumed it was the driver who needed insurance - not the car.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 15:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Stormer wrote:
I'd always assumed it was the driver who needed insurance - not the car.


ABSOLUTELY.

There are so many false positives with the ANPR uninsured list that the system is useless. And always will be because vehicles don't 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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 15:17 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
As aLWAYS - excellent idea - excellent theory --- crap production


Sounds like a film about HMG , n'est pas ??

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 15:26 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 14:41
Posts: 5
Location: Thames Valley
So what do you think Ladyman was on about when he said:

"The Road Safety Bill contains the legislation needed to make it an offence to be the registered keeper of an uninsured vehicle - and we hope to receive Royal Assent in November. However, the provision to allocate a penalty or use wheel clamping will be subject to a formal consultation exercise prior to the regulations coming into force." ?

"Sending a signal" or some such b*****ks no doubt.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 15:39 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Stormer wrote:
So what do you think Ladyman was on about when he said:

"The Road Safety Bill contains the legislation needed to make it an offence to be the registered keeper of an uninsured vehicle - and we hope to receive Royal Assent in November. However, the provision to allocate a penalty or use wheel clamping will be subject to a formal consultation exercise prior to the regulations coming into force." ?

"Sending a signal" or some such b*****ks no doubt.


Oh, worse. The Road Safety Bill (so called) creates a new offence. Google: "continuous insurance from the record".

It will be an offence punishable by a fine (no points) to fail to reinsure a vehicle that isn't SORNed. So if you're in hospital when your insurance runs out it'll cost you. But if you drive an improperly registered wreck, it won't.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 15:42 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Quote:
One of the recommendations was to reduce the interval between an insurance policy being issued - and the details getting on the Motor Insurance Database. The aim has been to go from 14 to 7 days by the end of 2006, and this will certainly help improve accuracy.


So that explains why the road side estimate is 100.000 uninsured cars?
and thos owned by people with "motor trader" policies.

_________________
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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 16:09 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 19:41
Posts: 201
Location: North East Wales
The North Wales Police claim in the regular ANPR stings to be acting on behalf of the DVLA using 'devolved powers' to confiscate cars belonging to those who have no recorded insurance listed for that car reg or who have out of date tax disks. Many of the owners are imtimidated into having the cars crushed.

While a large number of these cars are driven by evaders and some appear in a dubious state several people have been reported as having had cars confiscated due to errors in the database and given neither apology nor compensation when they turn up later with proof.

Greenaway is in the pay of Norwich Union who wish to introduce the concept of insuring drivers for cars only by the back door. I pointed out half a dozen anomalies in the DVLA white paper ( classic cars, competion cars etc) that claiming that a car was SORN'ed in mitigation was inappropriate but I and others were ignored.

There is a serious deficit in analysis and intellectual capacity in those who rush to legislate for cures to these apparent problems. Paul is absolutely spot on in the the govt Departments are driving crime in this way. I assume these people serving ladyman et al are young law graduates with naive faith in technology and no experience in life. My first reaction when I hear of these ill thought out ideas is to where their failure point is and I'm amazed to find them within minutes. I have a cure for SORN that has been proved. There are simple ways to circumvent most of these stupid ideas. And If I as an engineering Director am doing this there are other people who will do this more effectively for crime. So the later failures of these expensive measures will require propiing up with draconian legal measures which take us further down the police state road and drive a wedge between us and them.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 16:29 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 09:13
Posts: 771
There are two parts in this that I don't like:

- Adding identification technology to cars.

I can see their arguments, but I think it's crossing the line between necessity and personal freedom. Putting chips in cars that can be read externally is just the start of monitoring our every move and I'm dead against it for that reason. Of course they want to do it because then they can further automate enforcement.

- Mandatory insurance for the registered keeper

This is not essential at all. Provided the driver of the car is insured whilst driving there are no insurance issues at all. Again they want this because they can then remove the presumption of innocence yet again and let the computers send out FPNs. At present there is no automatic way of verifying if a car is insured because it depends on who's driving.

I can see a real trend emerging here where "Judge Dredd" is in fact the computer (not the humble PCSO :evil: )


I think both these are more issues for Liberty than SafeSpeed though..

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 19:34 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Thought I should put this here.

MEN

Quote:
10,000 cars seized in clampdown
Wednesday, 4th October 2006
John Scheerhout

POLICE have seized 10,000 cars in Greater Manchester since they began using new powers to crack down on the "staggering" number of rogue drivers.

About 3,000 of the seized vehicles have been crushed, and the rest handed back to their owners once they paid fines and recovery fees and made the cars roadworthy.

Police believe the crackdown, launched nine months ago, is helping make the streets safer by forcing rogues off the road.

Each driver was issued with a £200 on-the-spot fine or handed a greater fine in court - depending on the state of their car and whether it had the correct documentation.

Officers say they have reached a major milestone since they started to use new powers to seize uninsured or untaxed cars.

During the summer, we published a picture of a mountain of the crushed cars.

Police say uninsured drivers are six times more likely to have convictions for driving unroadworthy vehicles and nine times more likely to have convictions for drink-driving.

They are also more likely to flee an accident and put lives at risk.

'Staggering'

And their crimes are said to put an extra £30 on every car insurance premium.

Sgt Paul Philbin, who co-ordinates the seizures, said: "The number of drivers on the road illegally is staggering. We are determined to stop this and make roads safe for everyone."

Chief Insp Haydn Roberts said: "We are leading the way in preventing criminals using the region's roads. In nine months, we have worked tirelessly to seize 10,000 vehicles. We aim to continue to work closely with insurance companies and the Motor Insurers' Bureau to ensure drivers who continue to drive illegally will be brought before the courts."

To find the rogues, officers use Automatic Number Plate Recognition System cameras alongside an insurance industry database of uninsured drivers.

Vehicles not registered on the database automatically trigger an alert to officers who, under new powers, can seize cars.

Drivers unable to produce proof of insurance have their vehicles impounded.

Ashton West, from the Motor Insurers' Bureau, said: "Greater Manchester's efforts are a shining example of what can be achieved by police."

To reclaim their vehicles, owners must pay £105 for recovery, £12 a day storage, and a £200 fixed penalty notice or a fine imposed by a court. If an owner fails to reclaim the vehicle within 14 days, it is crushed, scrapped or sold.


Looks like a big buisness to me.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2006 20:43 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 14:47
Posts: 1659
Location: A Dark Desert Highway
Christmas eve 2004 about 6pm. On my radio came a dude from the DVLA. He said how they were going to crack down on the untaxed vehicles on our roads and reeled off all the reasons why they should be off the roads. I jumped and cheered in my kitchen as I listened , I jumped and cheered some more when he said "we don't make mistakes". Great illegal motors off the road thought I.

October 2006 is it the case? Each year we have some east europens come to help up and they come in a different heap of scrap each year and each year there is an out of date tax disc in the corner of the windscreen. But The man said "we don't make mistakes". So how is this short, fat, unwashed, bewhisked, lazy pillock driving on our roads putting us at risk driving without tax?

It's all very well having a fancy data base (government IT systems??) but if some one hasn't filled a particular form in or has filled it in fraudulently then the data base is useless. and don't even think about putting a tag or any other electrical thingy in my car. It's taxed and legal and I don't want tracking. I would expect that the electrical tag would be the easiest thing for wrong 'uns to forge.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 00:45 
Offline
Police Officer
Police Officer

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 22:37
Posts: 279
Location: Warrington
Whilst I whole heartedly agree that the information that is supplied and loaded onto the ANPR databases is slightly out of date. Take yesterday for instance I uploaded details of 250,000 vehicles alledgedly without any Insurance and I drove around for 2hrs and in that time I got 4hits for no insurance but when checked via the Insurance company only two had none so were seized.

The point is a good system but it is by no means infalible but we have direct links with Insurance companys, upto 10pm at night after that you have to use your experience and discretion in a lot of cases, but on the whole it works and works well.

Before I seize a vehicle and this goes for most of my colleagues we exhaust every avenue there is firstly before seizure, then after that it has to be done in accordance with the rules and after all I only have to have reasonable suspicion to suspect no insurance and thats that, if the insurance company doesn't put the vehicle on the MID then thats between you and the insurance company.

So, that is why we telephone where possible or allow them to make a phone call to have the policy brought to the scene for inspection, then verification via the insurance company. As at the moment there are an ever incresing number of people who take out a policy of Insurance then cancel it but dont send the policy back and produce it to you when stopped these get looked at very carefully especiallly when the database states no insurance.

The other problem is with traders policy's bent or dodgy garages are letting the criminal element use there policy to avoid paying large premiums for performance cars or stolen cars on false plates, when stopped they pay about £20 to borrow the policy to produce and state that they work for the garage, I know of one garage that is only as big as a shed has at the last count got 20 mechanics working for them and they are supposed to be on work business at 2am in the morning.

The police are doing whatever they can to stop these vehicles staying on the road but it is hard as Insurance companys are a business and they want to make money so tightening up to much might mean they loose money, but I think they are realising that it is costing them more in cicil claims every day so they are responding slowly to our requests.
Stephen


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 00:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 00:54
Posts: 327
Location: Rural Somerset
Richard C wrote:
The North Wales Police claim in the regular ANPR stings to be acting on behalf of the DVLA using 'devolved powers' to confiscate cars....Many of the owners are imtimidated into having the cars crushed.


North Wales?
"Coco the Clown" Brunstrom?
Why am I not surprised by all this?

Answers on a postcard, please.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 01:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Stephen wrote:
Whilst I whole heartedly agree that the information that is supplied and loaded onto the ANPR databases is slightly out of date. Take yesterday for instance I uploaded details of 250,000 vehicles alledgedly without any Insurance and I drove around for 2hrs and in that time I got 4hits for no insurance but when checked via the Insurance company only two had none so were seized.


And in the old days, when you used your nose, how many worthwhile stops would you have made in the same time?

ANPR might be OKish if you're going after a particular target, but I place my bet that experience is a better guide when you're out there lookiing for 'trouble' in all its forms.

But the hellish thing about the future of ANPR is that pretty soon all the criminals will have sussed that all you need to do to keep out of the way of the law is to have a legit number plate. And that's just too easy.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 06, 2006 08:06 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
Stephen wrote:
people who take out a policy of Insurance then cancel it but dont send the policy back


How is this possible? I have always been told, in no uncertain terms, that if the policy is not sent back then it is not cancelled.

This is how it should work IMO. It then becomes a contractural issue between the insurance company and the customer. Might make them a bit more careful about who they send out policies to.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 288 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.039s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]