Safe Speed Forums

I'm still in two minds about all this ANPR business.. I think it could be useful for getting a lot of your average untaxed/uninsured vehicles off the road. At the end of the day if you're driving with no insurance or no tax, then you should be punished.

Insurance needs to be more cost effective for newer drivers. Maybe limiting the size/power of car that can be driven for 2 years post-pass like the restricted motorcycle test would make insurance more reasonable and reduce the percentage of young guns who don't buy insurance because they just can't afford it.

I think the fines for drivers with no insurance should be substantial which would hopefully put people off risking it. What is it now, £200 and up to 6 penalty points? With some people paying £2-3k for first year insurance at 17 on an old banger, it's hardly a deterrant!

Make an advanced driving course compulsory before moving up to the more powerful vehicles.

With regards to the issues with ANPR, If the system is intelligent enough to recognise plate cloning (for example two cars detected with the same plates within 20 minutes of each other, one in London, the other in Newcastle) it could be useful - if someone was alerted to do something about it!

It would also be interesting if the system could pick up vehicles with no plates (obviously it would have to be rear facing) - however I don't know what you'd do with the data - maybe collate a days worth and send the pictures off to the local nick, at least they could be on the lookout when doing patrols, etc.

However at the end of the day no matter what you introduce, be it old fashioned policing or some multi billion pound IT system, crimes will still be commited!

Agreed... But it's only going to have any noticeable effect on anyone "stupid" enough to have the car registered to themself yet not tax / insure it.

I can't see the system working at all against the "invisible" cars as there's not the police resource available actually to catch these people while they're on the road. Existing ANPR systems are backed up by a clutch of police vehicles who actually stop the cars that get ANPR "hits"... What's the new system going to do, put an advert in the local paper asking the miscreant to give himself up??

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

My reaction to this sort of scheme is the same as it always has been. It should be put out of business by any means at our disposal, preferably before anybody wastes too much of our money on it, and I would be willing to play any part I can in seeing it off pronto.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

This came to light from 2001: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online ... 13,00.html

contains:

"We don't build a database of where people are," says Tim Pidgeon, Visionics' business development director. He says that would breach the Data Protection Act, as it is illegal to build a database on the activities of the public.

Perhaps the police have an exemption? If not, this is very interesting.

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

Wouldn't be necessary if they were covered in the fuel duty. The situation would be that if it's moving then it has fuel, and if it has fuel then (rare cases of fuel theft aside) it's covered and taxed. I suspect the big disadvantage is that a simple low tech solution isn't sexy enough to interest governments and comes with the danger that hugely expensive hole ridden high tech stuff like ANPR might be left without a justifiable function.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

But - and this is slightly "devil's advocate", fuel thefts would rise if this were to happen surely? Also it might even make electric vehicles a worthwhile investment (I wonder what the equivalent of "red diesel" would be - red electrons? )

I doubt that fuel thefts will be much more frequent than they are now. Pretty much every forecourt has got CCTV covering all the pumps to read reg numbers so I imagine the most likely "drive away" is the driver in a stolen car. And he's just as likely to do it anyway. Even if it became a problem it would simply mean paying for the fuel in advance like they do in certain other countries (or so I hear). Pay for a certain amount of fuel and the pump clicks off when it gets there. Since I use the credit card operated pumps I sort of do this already (yeah I know it's not exactly the same, but you get the picture). It would make it very hard to fill the tank to the brim, so there'd be loads more people driving about with tanks that are closer to 3/4 full or so. But is that a big deal? I always top it right up, but I know it's not doing me any fuel economy favours dragging the weight of all that extra petrol around for days. I think we might all go back to the way our parents used to fill up and just stick a tenner in at a time.

Electric cars though, hadn't thought of that. Well, something has to make them more attractive I suppose but possibly they'd have to pay for insurance and VED more conventionally unless anyone comes up with a better idea.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I was more worried about chavs stealing from cars rather than from forecourts.

Does that actually happen still now that almost every car on the road has a locking fuel cap? Still, if it does that's one for the motor trade. It can't be too hard for the car manufacturers to build a metal grill down the filler pipe to prevent anyone sticking a hose down there, if they haven't begun to already. There are at least some manufacturers that have some sort of anti siphon device. Someone I know bought a Merc (C class I think) and didn't get on with it. But he found he couldn't siphon the nearly full tank when he flogged it. Don't know what was stopping him, but something like a grill or bars that lets fuel down while stopping hosepipes well short would do it. Okay, fuel tanks still have drain plugs (or so I assume) but I'd have thought that you'd have to be a really determined fuel thief to go to that much trouble - stealing a car full of fuel and taking your time would probably be easier, and if someone nicked my car the loss of the fuel it contained wouldn't be much of a priority for me.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

It's just the chavs balancing reward for risk. At today's rates the locking caps and grilles make it not worthwhile stealing. However, I'd venture to suggest that if fuel goes up to (at today's rates) £250 per tankful, anti-syphon devices won't defeat a purpose-designed hand operated boring tool jammed into the tak floor and the collecting vessel purpose-designerd for the job from collecting the fuel and then sealing itself shut for the journey home..

In principle, anything that gets real-life coppers to stop vehicles for genuine reasons (rather than just fishing) is a good idea.

Anything that just ends up with fines being sent out in the post is a bad idea and simply encourages evasion and disrespect for the law.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Possibly not, but then nothing is ever going to be absolutely secure from a really determined thief. But the question still stands, why go to that much trouble when you can simply nick the whole car including the fuel it contains? Lots of anti theft devices? So nick one of the millions of cars without them. Like you said, they're going to balance risk and reward as they always do and always have. That means taking the path of least resistance, and I reckon we're could as easily reach a situation where it's less hassle to either buy fuel honestly or steal the entire car than it is to steal fuel from tanks with specially developed tools.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Recently there was a news story where police were binning quite recent records of un-convicted people accused of child abuse as they were not allowed to keep records of unconvicted persons. This hindered thier investigations and abillirt to keep tabs on some undesirable people.

I think there is a fine line between "intelligence" on interesting people. and collecting data on the movement of the mass population.

Did we give therm permission to do so?

You could argue that it would only be correct to collect information on a person who has a current criminal record or who is under investigation of a curent case file. Any other data is a bread of the data protection act?

You could track someone for instance for 5 years after being convicted for burglary or ten years after a serious drugs offence or 15 years for child abuse. but information on an un known car should be disgarded within 24 hours

_________________
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

Indeed. We will need to get notices printed similar to those on tills and slot machines that say "This vehicle is emtied nightly of fuel" or similar. I can foresee lots of cars running low or out of fuel as owners get into the habit of fuelling only enough for a journey or two.

The long and short of this is, much as cameras were a bad idea, any step function alteration to any status quo has a quid pro quo - which needs full consideration before acting if at all possible.