xux42 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) Surprised no-one else has picked up on this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8272054.stm "automatic number plate recognition technology, combined with information from the Motor Insurance Database, leads to as many as 500 uninsured vehicles being seized every day." Obviously the majority will be lowlifes - most people will presumably be pleased to see them hit with fines, licence points, storage charges, confiscation etc. HPC relevancy though might be that a proportion will be the desperate trying to cut back to stave off repossession? Edited September 24, 2009 by xux42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Surprised no-one else has picked up on this:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8272054.stm "automatic number plate recognition technology, combined with information from the Motor Insurance Database, leads to as many as 500 uninsured vehicles being seized every day." Obviously the majority will be lowlifes - most people will presumably be pleased to see them hit with fines, licence points, storage charges, confiscation etc. HPC relevancy though might be that a proportion will be the desperate trying to cut back to stave off repossession? Real relevancy is that the state is so desperate for resources it's engaged in this sort of idiocy. One scam the "crushers" currently have going is to slightly modify the licence plate number on the forms, say it's been destroyed and then sell the seized one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rp08 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 yeah, i drive uninsured, or at least, not properly insured.. I am no lowlife, and am actually well off, but I refuse to pay 2000 pounds insurance on a car I paid £1500 for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 yeah, i drive uninsured, or at least, not properly insured..I am no lowlife, and am actually well off, but I refuse to pay 2000 pounds insurance on a car I paid £1500 for. Take off the big gay spoilers and bean can exhaust accessory and it'll probably cost you £300/year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 yeah, i drive uninsured, or at least, not properly insured..I am no lowlife, and am actually well off, but I refuse to pay 2000 pounds insurance on a car I paid £1500 for. If your insurance is £2000 on a £1500 vehicle, it suggests you are VERY high risk. How are you not 'properly' insured? Do you mean 3rd party only? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 yeah, i drive uninsured, or at least, not properly insured..I am no lowlife, and am actually well off, but I refuse to pay 2000 pounds insurance on a car I paid £1500 for. Whats the value of the car got to do with it? A £1500 car can do just as much damage as a £150000 car. And what's your driving history or local area like crimewise that you can actually manage to spend £2000 on a £1500 car, is that even possible?! Are you 17?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xux42 Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 yeah, i drive uninsured, or at least, not properly insured..I am no lowlife, and am actually well off, but I refuse to pay 2000 pounds insurance on a car I paid £1500 for. Sounds like the problem is age - I pay £250 (70%NCD) to insure a Group 17, but then I'm 46... Thing is, you won't be able to refuse the points and fines if plod nab you using number plate scanning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Sounds like the problem is age - I pay £250 (70%NCD) to insure a Group 17, but then I'm 46...Thing is, you won't be able to refuse the points and fines if plod nab you using number plate scanning. Which is actually the most likely "accident" he will have. Shall we start the debate about why no one should have their property stolen and destroyed in this way yet? If you want to drive without insurance, I have no idea why you should be forced to. Can anyone explain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1888 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 yeah, i drive uninsured, or at least, not properly insured..I am no lowlife, and am actually well off, but I refuse to pay 2000 pounds insurance on a car I paid £1500 for. well if you knock down a child even if its not your fault then those parents will get nothing not that money could compensate that kind of thing you are out of order can afford - wont pay what if you leave someone in a wheelchair for the rest of their lifes without a penny of compensation you are a lowlife - sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rp08 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 If your insurance is £2000 on a £1500 vehicle, it suggests you are VERY high risk. How are you not 'properly' insured? Do you mean 3rd party only? no its cos its a group 20 car, and i'm 20. although, the 2000+ quotes were when I was 19... I havent tested to see if they've come down, since my current insurance hasnt run out yet. by not properly insured, i mean, i took it out in my mums name instead, and just for safety, i scanned the document and added my name onto the insurance docs in paint and re-printed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 no its cos its a group 20 car, and i'm 20.although, the 2000+ quotes were when I was 19... I havent tested to see if they've come down, since my current insurance hasnt run out yet. by not properly insured, i mean, i took it out in my mums name instead, and just for safety, i scanned the document and added my name onto the insurance docs in paint and re-printed. You were wrong, you are a lowlife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xux42 Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 i scanned the document and added my name onto the insurance docs in paint and re-printed. Please say you are joking. This may actually be worse than being uninsured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
since the beginning Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Which is actually the most likely "accident" he will have.Shall we start the debate about why no one should have their property stolen and destroyed in this way yet? If you want to drive without insurance, I have no idea why you should be forced to. Can anyone explain? There were 189,161 road accidents involving personal injury in 2006. If somebody crashes into me or my family, I would want the other person to have insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 There were 189,161 road accidents involving personal injury in 2006.If somebody crashes into me or my family, I would want the other person to have insurance. Well yes - I'd like my neighbours to pay my gas bill as well. Doesn't mean they should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xux42 Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Please say you are joking. This may actually be worse than being uninsured. PS I can see how this will be rumbled quite quickly. I'm not going to say how though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1888 Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Please say you are joking. This may actually be worse than being uninsured. its fraud pure and simple and he's proud of it wont be laughing if he has a crash will he he will get a custodial sentence and rightly so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 You were wrong, you are a lowlife. This case shows the limits of plate scanning. Whilst it can detect cars that have no insurance associated with them, it is unable to spot when the person driving the car isnt insured to do so. That will only come when the police have a database with people's faces on them. Some might object to that. One way in which the Police could catch such offenders is by detecting licence plates at garages. If the person paying for the fuel for a car isnt one of the named drivers on the insurance policy for the car, the police might be able to pull the car over and have a look. They clearly need to think about closing the loopholes like this. The target should be 100% coverage of insurance for cars on the road. It is achievable. Personally I think that all drivers should have their photos taken, and stored on a central database. Now I will wait for the howls of rancour from those who claim they dont like a central database as it infringes their rights. I, on the other hand, have nothing to fear as all that will happen to me is my insurance costs will go down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Melchett Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Which is actually the most likely "accident" he will have.Shall we start the debate about why no one should have their property stolen and destroyed in this way yet? If you want to drive without insurance, I have no idea why you should be forced to. Can anyone explain? I have no problem with someone being allowed to drive without insurance, as long as, by logical extension, no one has a problem with the friends and relatives of anyone he kills, injures or financially inconveniences visiting that person at 4 am with a selection of baseball bats, soldering irons, butane burners etc. Could you explain why you would have a problem with that arrangement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChumpusRex Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I've have driven uninsured for quite a long period this year. Not intentionally, of course. I had set up an automated annual renewal of my policy. Renewal date came and the new paperwork, certificate, etc. all arrived. Thought no more about it, until 4 months later I get a solicitor's letter demanding immediate return of their 'client's property' namely my insurance certificate, and that they remind me that it is an offence to use an uninsured motor vehicle, blah blah. Turns out, that they hadn't actually asked the bank for the renewal premium. Details had been on file as they'd taken the original payment. And, although they claimed that they tried to take the money and the bank refused it, they were unable to provide a reference number, and after a formal complaint to my bank, they investigated and stated that they had no record of any declined transactions, and that I had previously asked them inform me if they ever decline a transaction (which they always had done). While I was careless in not checking that the money had come out of my account, I still thought it was a bit harsh of the insurance company to wait 1 week, then write (1st class, not recorded) saying that my policy will be terminated within 7 days (I never actually got the letter, as living in a large block of flats - many of which have the same number - my mail frequently gets lost). When I telephoned them to clarify what was going on, I think they must have transferred me to a special 'arrears' team. They were incredibly rude and utterly unhelpful. 'So, why didn't you tell my that you were cancelling my policy?' 'We did. We sent you 3 letters' 'What dates? <Turns out that they sent one warning, and one a week after they cancelled the policy saying 'return the certificate immediately or we will take legal action to retrieve it', and the 3rd was sent out on solicitor's headed paper.> 'I never receieved these letters. Did you not think to send them recorded?' 'We can't chase up every non-payer with recorded delivery - how much do you think that would cost?' 'OK. What about a phone call, or a voice mail?' 'You haven't given us your telephone number and anyway we don't telephone clients. It's not our policy'. 'Really. So Why do I get marketing texts from you regularly? What about e-mail? I get enough spam from you as it is' 'We don't do business over e-mail.' 'My bank does, even if it is only to say, 'Your account manager needs to speak with you urgently. Please call the helpdesk as soon as convenient' - that's all it needs to say' Anyway, I got absolutely nowhere with them. The thing that worries me about this automatic tracking, is that I had no idea that I had done anything wrong. I had documentary evidence that I was fully insured, with the renewal receipt and certificate. However, had an automatic camera picked me up, I would have been prosecuted for driving without insurance, and as I did have no insurance, would have had no defense - and the government would have received a huge fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xux42 Posted September 24, 2009 Author Share Posted September 24, 2009 Well yes - I'd like my neighbours to pay my gas bill as well. Doesn't mean they should. You have a very singular and surrealistic view of the world, Injin. I can't argue with you though as I can't understand what you type! I mean I can understand each word in isolation but there is a subtlety I am missing. Re OP. Anyone agree that this crackdown should hurry some Repos along? I've always felt that one way to a severe correction in prices is when we get to the point where everyone knows someone, who knows someone, who has been repo'd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 I have no problem with someone being allowed to drive without insurance, as long as, by logical extension, no one has a problem with the friends and relatives of anyone he kills, injures or financially inconveniences visiting that person at 4 am with a selection of baseball bats, soldering irons, butane burners etc.Could you explain why you would have a problem with that arrangement? Because attacking someone after an accident is wrong. it's like kidnapping to fix littering - it increases the total amount of harm done and so is counterproductive. I'd have no problem with all his stuff being sold and his future pay going to the victims though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevlarhead Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) I have no problem with someone being allowed to drive without insurance, as long as, by logical extension, no one has a problem with the friends and relatives of anyone he kills, injures or financially inconveniences visiting that person at 4 am with a selection of baseball bats, soldering irons, butane burners etc. The biggest insurance claim in British Motoring history is around £4 million pound. I think the victim(s) were left brain-damaged and paraplegic after being hit by (natch!) an uninsured driver, so the cost is paid for out of the £30 Motor Insurance tax. If you were supplying 40years+ 24hr care for wife or kids (or both), I doubt you'd have time to get a posse together and go killing. I'd have no problem with all his stuff being sold and his future pay going to the victims though. The only way you'll get even a fraction of £4mil out of a chav is if you euthanase them and sell their organs to the highest bidder. Edited September 24, 2009 by Kevlarhead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abharrisson Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Surprised no-one else has picked up on this:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8272054.stm "automatic number plate recognition technology, combined with information from the Motor Insurance Database, leads to as many as 500 uninsured vehicles being seized every day." Obviously the majority will be lowlifes - most people will presumably be pleased to see them hit with fines, licence points, storage charges, confiscation etc. HPC relevancy though might be that a proportion will be the desperate trying to cut back to stave off repossession? They are normally either in the low life category or are immigrants who don't know the rules ( or reckon they won't bother) or kids who cannot afford the insurance ...... whatever the reason they need to be cracked down on..... perhaps it would be a good idea to look at again at the laws associated with buying and selling, there may be something that can be added that will make it more difficult for those with no insurance/ no licence to buy a car from either private sources or the trade. I bought a car a while back and no attempt was made to see if I had insurance/or a licence and the car didn't even have a valid road tax sticker. I'd also by the by up the penalties..... its no use banning someone with no licence from driving ( teenagers etc) or banning someone from driving who has no insurance..... many will simply walk out of court and drive again illegally. They should have their licences removed as a matter of course with the chance of taking the test again in five years time... and may add 600 hours communiuty service in one of those bright shiny yellow jackets...... that'd send the right message I feel. And if you add the same punishment to sellers of vehicles where they have not kept a copy of the buyers driving licence and insurance details then we'd find many fewer incidents of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightiesgirly Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 Because attacking someone after an accident is wrong. it's like kidnapping to fix littering - it increases the total amount of harm done and so is counterproductive.I'd have no problem with all his stuff being sold and his future pay going to the victims though. That would be a disincentive to him earning anything in the future though wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saving For a Space Ship Posted September 24, 2009 Share Posted September 24, 2009 (edited) no its cos its a group 20 car, and i'm 20.although, the 2000+ quotes were when I was 19... I havent tested to see if they've come down, since my current insurance hasnt run out yet. by not properly insured, i mean, i took it out in my mums name instead, and just for safety, i scanned the document and added my name onto the insurance docs in paint and re-printed. Sounds similar to the so called 'Norman Bates' insurance scam where high risk drivers drive around disguised as their mum. has sooo much to answer for.. Edited September 24, 2009 by Saving For a Space Ship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.