If the police do not stop uninsured cars we scream blue murder. If they do and let the person go on condition of producing documents at a police station the real crooks will disappear as the address given will presumably be fake.
In this *particular* instance, one would've thought that it would be possible to establish the credentials of the driver. Hm?
I think this is a failure of the systems.
I agree.
|
It's a classic case of setting up a system, and then believing that all the data contained/queries returned will be correct.
The problem isn't so much that some data is incorrect, but that there is no way for the innocent victim to show/prove their innocence/compliance with the law on the spot. Clearly an individual can carry a copy of his docs., but who is to say that the officers would have believed the docs? They could have been Photo-shopped.
The officer is between a rock etc., as if he lets off with a producer, and the driver is un-insured, and has a collision, then the victim of that collision then may have a case against the force that allowed him to drive on.
|
Regrettably errors in a Government sponsored computer system have occurred no surprise there and the isolated crass and insensitive action of the authorities have set back people's perceptions of the police despited the fact tht they actually do their best most of the time.
The MID is NOT a government-sponsored computer system. It is a private database to which the police have access. It is also known and acknowledged that the data can be slow to update and in some cases, in error.
When I renewed my insurance recently it did not update on the MID for about 7 days.
The 'blame' here lies squarely with the individual police officers involved. Even if they were SURE that the car was uninsured, they should not have left these people to make their way off the motorway on foot, especially with children in the party.
|
When I renewed my insurance recently it did not update on the MID for about 7 days.
Me too
The 'blame' here lies squarely with the individual police officers involved. Even if they were SURE that the car was uninsured they should not have left these people to make their way off the motorway on foot especially with children in the party.
Aggreed
Edited by Old Navy on 08/10/2008 at 15:02
|
|
|
Even if they wereSURE that the car was uninsured they should not have left these people to make their way off the motorway on foot especially with children in the party.
'Cause we do that all the time..we must do...it said so in the paper (Is the irony obvious!!)
(I really tried to avoid comment..I really did)
|
(I really tried to avoid comment..I really did)
>>
It must be difficult not to respond to our (my) probably misinformed ramblings, I bet this has been well "discussed" in the traffic cop community.
Edited by Old Navy on 08/10/2008 at 16:07
|
|
|
All you Bib bashers please note:
>>>>>It later emerged that his insurers had failed to notify police of the insurance policy's renewal, meaning the details were not uploaded onto a national computer used by police to check driver's details by number plate recognition.<<<<<<
dvd
|
All you Bib bashers please note:
This is not "Bib bashing". I have been careful not to generalise. See above.
>>"It later emerged that his insurers had failed to notify police of the insurance policy'srenewal meaning the details were not uploaded onto a national computer used by] police to check driver's details by number plate recognition."
Yes, I and others read that as well. HSBC had not uploaded details into the MIB's database (not a police database, AFAIK, BTW). Unless this uploading is instantaneous in every single case, which it isn't, there will always be potential for the *still properly insured* driver not to appear on the database.
That the details weren't on the MIB's db does not excuse the reported actions in any way whatsoever, IMO.
|
That the details weren't on the MIB's db does not excuse the reported actions in any way whatsoever IMO.
Surely you don't expect the police the police to traumatise themselves by going through the horrendously laborious step of making a quick phone call to the insurer? [/sarcasm]
Seriously, though, the only plausible explanation I can see for the police action is that the driver had an attitude problem. But even if the drivers was a noxiously aggressive mouthy git (and I see no evidence that he was), there was no excuse for depositing him on the side of a motorway. That children were turfed out in the same way is disgraceful.
The really depressing thing about this is not that it happened, but that the apology-with-compensation came from the insurers rather than from the police. The police didn't apologise, didn't even express any hint of acknowledgement that what happened was wrong, and made no hint of any offer to review procedures and/or chastise the officers involved.
Mistakes happen, and sometimes people do stupid things despite good intentions, but Cumbria Constabulary seems thoroughly unrepentant :(
|
Surely you don't expect the police the police to traumatise themselves by going through the horrendously laborious step of making a quick phone call to the insurer? [/sarcasm]
Or just perhaps it was a time when the Insurance company was closed. After all even Pat and Carl manage to go through 'the horrendously laborious step of making a quick phone call to the insurer'
It never ceases to amaze me how readily people are to take newspapers at face value. If it's written by a journalist..it must be true. They never embellish a story do they [/sarcasm]
Quote from recent poll:-
"That cannot be right, and I hope Ruth Kelly will pay attention to the 87% of motorists who have told this survey that she should do something about it. Motorists have had enough of footing the bill for uninsured drivers."
and further post
"
WHY are the police and government doing nothing about this perverse problem?
It appears that the police and government are determined to take NO ACTION to combat this pernicious crime which is very easy to catch.
Are the police and government in cahoots perhaps with the oil companies to keep as many cars on the roads as possible? One has to wonder!
Why not have regular police checks to take a look on car windscreens for outdated tax disks? DUH!! Check cars in parking lots! DUH!!
This is a very serious problem and it is being ignored by the police and the government. "
My shift averages 60 -70 seizures a month. Strangely, these don't make the paper. I'm surprised considering we apparently make them all walk off the motorway alone..carrying their newborn in swaddling clothes.
|
It never ceases to amaze me how readily people are to take newspapers at face value.
Are you prepared to say that the story is without foundation?
My shift averages 60 -70 seizures a month. Strangely these don't make the paper. I'm surprised considering we apparently make them all walk off the motorway (...)
If you did, I'm sure they might well "make the paper".
|
|
I'm prepared to say a man had his car seized and was subsequently found to have insurance. I'd love to see a reconstruction of his apparent 'abandonment' .
Edited by Pugugly on 08/10/2008 at 18:00
|
So you won't say it didn't happen. Good.
You could, perhaps, listen to the audio clip on the OP's link to hear Stephen Farndon's own version of what happened.
|
It never ceases to amaze me how readily people are to take newspapers at face value. If it's written by a journalist..it must be true. They never embellish a story do they [/sarcasm]
MLC, there is a statement there by Cumbria Constabulary. No regret, no apology, not even an acknowledgement that this family was very harshly treated because of a failure in a bureaucratic system over which they had no control.
I don't see any argument against the principle of cracking down on uninsured drivers, but crcakdowns don't have to pursued without commonsense and without respect for the public. I'm rather scared by the lack of humanity in your reply. Do you really have no sympathy at all for this family, who had done absolutely nothing wrong?
If there really was no way of checking the insurance (which seems unlikely, given the fact that most insurers now run 7-day-a-week call centres), then the questions I find myself asking are what alternatives could the police have pursued rather than sending the family to walk home? For example, how doing an ID check, followed by a producer?
If a serving police officer defends the police handling of this incident, then I'm seriously worried. If you don't see how police good intentions caused a bad result here, then about how far police culture has shifted away from regarding its duty as serving the public. :(
|
No, what I see (read) is an outburst of hysteria. You have conveniently neglected my post regarding the seizure. Person has choice of going with recovery truck to pound or being picked up by friend. The insinuation is he was forced to walk alone along a motorway after being abandoned. I'll bet my children it didn't happen like that.
It's unfortunate that his car was seized, but the Officer acted with the information he had. Did the man know who he was insured with? Perhaps not. Perhaps the Officers explored every avenue possible. As is normal, the poor bloke has been hung, drawn and quartered on scant info provided by a journalist. So you'll have to excuse me if I display a 'lack of humanity'.
Edited by Pugugly on 08/10/2008 at 18:01
|
No what I see (read) is an outburst of hysteria. You have conveniently neglected my post regarding the seizure. Person has choice of going with recovery truck to pound or being picked up by friend. The insinuation is he was forced to walk alone along a motorway after being abandoned. I'll bet my children it didn't happen like that.
So, a choice of get out and walk or get dumped in a recovery pound in the middle of nowhere (or at best in the grotty end of some city), possibly even further from home. Brilliant.
It's unfortunate that his car was seized but the Officer acted with the information he had.
That's precisely the problem. All the info we have is that he assumed that the data which he had was 100% reliable, yet we can see from other post in this thread that it's clearly not the case.
>>Did the man know who he was insured with? Perhaps not. Perhaps the Officersexplored every avenue possible. As is normal the poor bloke has been hung drawn and quartered on scant info provided by a journalist. So you'll have to excuse me if I display a 'lack of humanity'.
This is where it gets interesting. The journalist did seek the police side of the story, and published the police statement, which I presume you have already read. There is scant info in only one part of the story: in the police response. If the police didn't take the opportunity offered to clarify their side of the story, don't blame the journalist.
Your continued defence of the officer involved can have only one reasonable explanation: that you assume that the police press office completely failed to make any attempt to recount the heroic efforts made by the officer-on-the-spot to find any alternative to removing the car, and that the absence of any regret or apology in the police statement is solely down to a rogue element in the press office.
I have very little regard for police press officers; most constables are great folks, but the police press officers I have dealt with are usually of a pretty poor calibre. So I wouldn't have been at all surprised if you put this down a useless press office, but you didn't.
But it doesn't matter in the end whether it's a mistake by the constable or by the press office. Either way, a journalist who tried to unearth the facts could only write a story in which the police involved look like callous jobsworths.
In the end it doesn't make difference to public perception if that's because they really are callous jobsworths or because their spokespeople couldn't be bothered clarifying things. Either way it's yet another own-goal for the police, and blaming the journalist doesn't wash.
|
We generally ignore our press officers on the basis they regulary attribute quotes to us that we never made.
As for me, I'm a callous jobsworth...
|
It's unfortunate that his car was seized but the Officer acted with the information he had. Did the man know who he was insured with? Perhaps not.
So are you saying that it is normal procedure to determine if the database was incorrect, and if the car is insured?
It seems to me either that the system is wrong (essentially the fault of the senior coppers), or the copper(s) in question did not follow procedure. I know from first hand experience that (shock horror) some coppers are dishonest pink fluffy dice and should be held to account. But I also assume they are the tiny minority.
It does seem odd how we scream that the police are doing nothing, then when they do something (but something somewhere goes wrong) we scream.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 10/10/2008 at 13:40
|
know from first hand experience that (shock horror) some coppers are dishonest pink fluffy dice
Note to moderators: How ironic that when I purposefully put * symbols instead of a rude word, so that no rude work could be interpreted, someone replaces it with pink fluffy dice thereby making it look like a swore when I didn't. :(
|
Note to moderators:
As the swearfilter also puts in asterisks when it detects a swearword, we aren't able to tell whether the author of the post or the swearfilter has done it. DD.
|
|
|
'Cause we do that all the time..we must do...it said so in the paper (Is the irony obvious!!) (I really tried to avoid comment..I really did)
mlc:
I think you should use every opportunity not to allow misinformation to go unchallenged.
Apparently, the Police were given an opportunity to comment on this case and did so. If the newspaper is reporting it incorrectly, is it not imperative that Police Press office try to correct the facts if the story is being misreported/commented upon?
|
The obvious way is to call the insurance company (claims lines are open 24-7, so no reason not to get through), but if the driver doesn't know who he is insured with (I don't know who my wife's policy is with as it's done through a broker), what else is the officer to do?
Insurance details in the car is the only answer to this.
|
|
|
|
A most unfortunate incident. Tough call for the police and tough on the family affected. Given all these modern surveillance activities, I always ensure I have at least photocopies of my documents in the car at all times. I keep them in an envelope under the spare wheel on the basis that a casual radio / briefcase thief would have less opportunity to find them. Thankfully I have not had to produce them yet but somehow feel it would go a long way to diffusing such a situation. Maybe it should be a recommended technique ?
|
The Motor Insurance Database (MID) was set up by the insurance industry to help combat this crime, and the police are now the MID's biggest customer, making over 3.8 million enquiries per month. The DVLA, with over 1 million enquiry transactions a month in support of their Electronic Vehicle Licensing operation, is the second largest user of the MID. The MID also helps the UK comply with the 4th EU Motor Insurance Directive, which requires that insurance details of all vehicles in member states can be easily accessed by a national information centre. In the UK, this role is carried out by the MIB via the UK Information Centre.
If your vehicle is privately insured it will have already been entered onto the MID by your insurer. However, if you are a fleet policyholder you need to act now. To read more about your obligation to submit your vehicle details to the MID, please click on the Fleet Policyholders link above.
So it appears that the insurance company were breaking the (some foreign-imposed) law, and so why weren't they prosecuted?
|
|
|
The MID in my experience is very hit and miss. I run a haulage company and have 15trucks and 1 van and 1 pick up. Of our fleet 5 aren't on the database, and in the past it's been the same. Our broker and insurance company are informed of any vehicle changes by fax, yet the MID frequently doesn't get updated quickly if at all. You'd think paying £40,000 per year might get you a better service, but it doesn't.
In this situation the policeman should have used his common sense and written out a producer, unfortunate that small minded individuals can tar the whole force with an uncaring/ little hitler/ jobsworth brush.
Edit to say, just checked again, 3 lorries aren't but 2registration numbers we have on retention and no lorries for are! Work that one out.
Edited by LiverpaulH on 08/10/2008 at 17:56
|
The TV crews WERE there!
www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/v2/play.php?id=120853
|
Deeply impressed by that piece of work.
Should we start calling you "luvvie"?
|
|
Alas, it wasn't my doing. Stolen from another forum.
|
Thanks for the link MLC / a smile to start the shift with.:-))
Phil I
|
|
I believe its only matter of time before someone challenges these incorrect seizures. Depriving someone of their transport and incurring costs whilst totally innocent of anything stinks (whatever the facts are of what happened with this incident). IMHO there are fundamental breaches of two Human Rights' Articles (Right to Privacy and Right of Fair Trial) with these seizures when incorrectly applied. I'm not blaming anyone with this just saying as a dispassionate observer that it seems flawed. Enough of these happens to prove that there is a trend and a problem with the way the system works or is interpreted by Officers.
I have worked closely with the Service for most of my life and am aware of the professionalism and ethical standards that prevail within it. This system is just plain flawed and it needs to be fixed.
Edited by Pugugly on 08/10/2008 at 18:12
|
Pug, I agree with you. But in this day and age you know what will happen.
Lawyer A will challenge this using a case as a guinea pig and will win. Compensation will be paid out. Lawyer A will immediately ask anyone who has had this done to them in the past to contact them. A whole pile of payouts will then happen before it features on the new digital channel "no win/no fee".
And who foots the bill for it?
|
And who foots the bill for it?
The taxpayer ultimately - but that's no excuse for not doing it, quite the contrary...
|
|
If it's wrong, it's wrong, and someone - contributing society, in this case - should pay for it. I think that whowver caused the wrongness should "pay" in some way, too.
|
|
|
|
"... the Police were given an opportunity to comment on this case and did so ... is it not imperative that Police Press office try to correct the facts if the story is being misreported/commented upon?"
Usually the police are more cautious about what they say than are members of the public or the press.
And sometimes the press are reluctant to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
And sometimes the newspapers deliberately misrepresent/distort/omit/spin. That's what you get with democracy.
As we all should know.
|
|
Somebody once said to me that you believe everything you read in a newspaper until its about you.
|
Somebody once said to me that you believe everything you read in a newspaper until its about you.
I have spent a lot of my life dealing with the press, and I long ago learnt to take everything with many pinches of salt. But in this case, we do have a police statement, and it does absolutely nothing to redress public concern about the incident involved.
If there really is another side to this, the police have only themselves to blame for not taking the opportunity to set the record straight.
|
There have been threads on insurance and seizures before. The powers are in the Act to do with combatting serious crime.
Why a policeman would want to use them to lift a car from a family on a day out is anyone's guess. Even a complete wooden-top should be able to imagine the press coverage (whether accurate or not) that is going to result if the database info is inaccurate and even a wooden-top can read this forum and see how often, unfortunately, that's the case
I think the worst thing is the officer's total lack of judgement. Presumably the man said the insurance had been renewed. Why not just issue the producer and send him on his way? Policing by numbers in the hands of someone who can't add up.
Or maybe the 12 month old grandchild had the look of a hardened criminal about him.
|
Anyone see Motorway Cops on Monday evening?
Remember the Chinese guy and his family that got stopped for no insurance?
Remember two hours later the SAME guy was stopped by the SAME BiB?
Whether it is due to not having insurance or the insurance company screwing up, I say get them all off the streets.
|
As I understand it even a certificate is not taking as being valid proof of insurance - it's a real case of "Computer Says No!"
Apparently certificates can be easily duplicated or payments (for monthly premiums can cease) or insurance companies can go bust!
|
As I understand it even a certificate is not taking as being valid proof of insurance - it's a real case of "Computer Says No!"
Apparently certificates can be easily duplicated or payments (for monthly premiums can cease) or insurance companies can go bust!
Well ... Photoshop ... sometimes spotted because of spelling mistakes, though.
And some people take advantage of the distance-selling regulations ...
|
|
I remember when this process first went live that there was an accompanying Home Office circular with advice to Officers - this circular advised caution when a car did not appear on the database. I had a bootleg copy of this but appear to have mislaid it during two office moves. Would do anything to get my mits on this.
|
NW,
Press Officers are not exactly a priority for most police officers working in the 'engine room'...no police manager is going to authorise overtime for the dealing officer to stay on duty and provide a press statement..and.. due to shift work most police officers are very difficult to get hold of and despite popular belief, police officers do actually go out on patrol.
Then combine the fact that the press officers usually only deal with the bigger stuff, not seizures of cars...then the Press Officer not having much to say is not exactly surprising.
|
when people with no insurance are stopped by police....surprise, surprise, they usually tell a pack of lies...some of them most plausible....so perfectly understandably, the officers dealing with stops for no insurance don't tend to believe much of what you say, until you can prove or convince them otherwise
how else would you expect them to behave?
if they rolled over and let everyone on their way with a cheery wave, they'd be neglecting their duty, wouldn't they?
as for making the family walk on the m/way..what a complete non story...they were facilitated safely off there by the officers
I can't imagine the news headline would have been " xxxxxxx family stopped by police on motorway, found to have no insurance on MIB database through an error by their insurance company, safely escorted off the m/way, on foot by police having been offered a lift in the tow truck or help to call someone else and then fully compensated by their insurance company, with an apology"
Don't forget, this legisaltion was enacted through parliament by YOUR elected MPs. The police then try to ensure the public compy with it. We have 'no insurance' difficulties of epidemic proportions in this country... which affects all of us through higher premiums.
There's two sides to the story.
|
>>YOUR elected MPs
YOU may have voted for the current lot; don't expect the rest of us to approve of your decision.
|
as for making the family walk on the m/way..what a complete non story...they were facilitated safely off there by the officer
That they were dealt with in such a way by the policemen in question is precisely the problem (additionally to why the policemen siezed the car in the first place).
|
That they were dealt with in such a way by the policemen in question is precisely the problem (additionally to why the policemen siezed the car in the first place).
well apart from requiring police officers to become psychic...how else do you propose they ascertain who is telling a pack of lies and who is truthful?
there are a whole host of checks and questions you can do/ask....but ultimately they will only give you a pointer...you will end up having to go for a gut reaction
yes there are guidelines, yes there are ideals to adhere to...but ultimately people do commit crime or are 'slippery' when they have their kids with them..a sad fact of life
(see how many young women go on shoplifting sprees with their kids in tow, no doubt hoping they'll look more innocent or end up on the too difficult pile)
in this case the insurance co. made a boo-boo and admitted it..why give the officers the jip?
|
in this case the insurance co. made a boo-boo and admitted it..why give the officers the jip?
Cos you're an easy target? Unfortunate but true.
|
why give the officers the jip? >>
Because the officer used draconian powers relying on an unreliable database.
We all want uninsured cars off the road but you have to know your source of info is reliable before you start lifting cars from families.
Why don't the police refuse to use the insurance database until it's accurate?
|
We all want uninsured cars off the road
Agreed.
Why don't the police refuse to use the insurance database until it's accurate?
As that is unlikely, my suggestion is:
1. every renewal, reminder, and final issue of Certificate to be accompanied by a warning leaflet in large font telling the customer to check that their details are correctly recorded on the MIB database.
2. the MIB and/or the Insurance Company to compensate you on if you spot an error and they do not correct it [compensation to be based on a rising scale based on how long it takes them to correct the error].
3. for every false stop/arrest/confiscation by the Police, the MIB and/or the Insurance Company to pay compensation based on a sliding scale to repay the cost plus exemplary damages [similar to that the airline industry is obliged to pay for bumping you off overbooked flights or for delays].
|
Parliament made the law...if there are holes in it, write to your MP.(If you do, mention the bit about having a reliable database, with sanctions for not properly updating it, rather than relying on the goodwill of an Insurer).
The Insurers take your money to insure you and on some occasions forget/don't bother updating the database.
Meanwhile 'piggy in the middle' who gets ear ache for not doing enough most of the time, now gets ear ache for doing too much when using the legislation drafted by someone else and not updated by others.... and lied to by every single one of the uninsured...whilst trying to achieve the commendable aim of taking uninsured vehicles off the road..which most people want anyway.
|
I'm posting this from Stephen for prosterity, as it contains a number of important points...
" Let me clear up a few things here.
The reason I went to the Manchester Evening News with this story was because the incident led me to some profoundly disturbing and worrying discoveries about our State and how it is run. It is another example of how this Government has castrated itself in favour of the EU and forgotten how to govern. The implications for the vast majority of hard-working, law-abiding citizens are truly soul-destroying.
Let me explain.
Up until 2003 the motor insurance industry used to take part in the scheme to update the police database with insurance policy details on a voluntary basis. That changed in 2003 when the Government was forced to comply with an EU Directive aimed at creating an EU-wide enforcement system. The Government had to make it compulsory for insurance companies to update the database called the Motor Insurers' Database (MID). To make it work the Government had to set the rules on the acceptable level of accuracy of the MID and the scale of penalties that could be applied to the insurance companies if they failed to comply. The maximum penalty is £500,000. The key point is this: The compliance rules say that an insurance company must submit 95% of their database updates within 7 days. There is *no control* over the remaining 5% of updates. The compliance rules 'forget' about this 5% of the turnover, in other words your insurance company can go indefinitely without updating the MID with your insurance details and get away scot-free. Meanwhile, you've had your car seized, been read your rights, been treated like a criminal and had someone put a metaphorical gun to your head and pull the trigger - with no chance to prove your innocence first. The law is rigged so that you have a 1 in 20 chance of having the same harrowing experience as me. If there was a 1 in 20 chance of a speed camara giving you a ticket by mistake, or your DNA record giving a false match or a breathalyser giving a false positive then our police force and justice system would be a laughing-stock. Apply that failure rate to the proposed ID card system and you have a nightmare scenario. This law is saying that the Government compromises in the face of political expediency, in this case to curry favour with EUSSR in Brussels. There is no way that this system should ever have been passed 'fit for service' in the first place. This is a crass piece of amateur legislation and the Government is guilty of gross negligence. Is the Government really saying that the principle of presumption of innocence which our fathers fought and died to secure for us is now so cheap? Parliament is little more than a civil service for anti-democratic Brussels and is starting to adopt its culture too. It is time to get out of the political EU, restore Parliament and govern ourselves again.
Which? Magazine gave a very clear warning in January 2008 that this ridiculous regulation against innocent motorists existed. In Sept.2008 the MID was 97.4% accurate after 7 days which translates in 858,000 innocent motorists at risk. David Jones MP (Con.) called Ms.Rosie Winterton (Minister for Transport) to account in a House of Commons debate 15 months ago regarding compensation for innocent motorists. She promised to look into it. She has done absolutely nothing and still no statutory compensation procedure exists. I have discovered eleven cases similar to mine logged on the Internet, there must be many, many more out there that just haven't been reported. Even the Government itself has admitted that it doesn't know the numbers.
I have rejected HSBC Insurance's offer of £200 compensation. I have asked them for £5,000 compensation which is reasonable considering the scale of penalties that the insurance industry has already agreed for non-compliance. This is the sort of figure that will show up on the radar of senior executives in insurance companies and get them to spend a bit more on ensuring accuracy. This is not about money, it is about justice. If I win my claim for £5,000 I will quite happily share it equally with all the other innocent motorists who have had their car seized in the last 3 years. Maybe this paper and others will advertise this and get fellow victims to identify themselves. I hope that this will set a precedent that get the law changed to ensure compensation of £5,000 to any future victim.
Ms.Winterton, if you're reading this, I'm an I.T.Consultant and I'd like to give you a few free tips on improving the operation and accuracy of the MID: 1. Introduce a simple verification check between the Point Of Sale and the MID at 7 days. At the moment records go from the Broker to the Underwriter to the MID but no cross-check is made by the Broker or Underwriter to make sure that the details have been lodged correctly. The public can do a manual check on their car's insurance status at www.askmid.org - it is relatively cheap for Brokers/Underwriters to extend their systems to do the same thing electronically. There is a technology called Web Services which is well-proven and specifically designed to allow disparate systems, both old and new, to communicate with each other over the Internet. The Brokers/Underwriters system will simply ping the MID automatically at 7 days and check its details agree. If not then it raises an alarm. If this had been in place in March then my bad experience would never have occurred. Its simple and relatively cheap to implement. 2. After that, switch to a real-time system using Web Services and then you will have a proper system not a toy one, and you won't have to face any more complaints like this one.
Stephen Farndon
Stephen Farndon
9/10/2008 at 16:11"
|
Actually, the more I have had the chance to think about this the more outrageous it sounds. I do not dispute the premise that we need the police to be as efficient as modern technology can help them to be. No right minded person wants uninsured or illegal fellow road users.
However, the very fact that we are discussing the relative merits and demerits of this, frankly, awful situation leads me to think that we have become punchdrunk. We are actually accepting to a degree that this is an excuseable situation. "It was the computer guv", sort of thing.
Outflippingrageous.
|
Westpig, I would save your breath.
You know and I know how it is....we're either doing b*gger all or being sanctimonious jobsworth with no 'humanity'. (Apparently)
As I've previously said..it was in the paper..so it must be true! The 'proper' motoring threads are much more fun.
(And the last post just about sums it up...a perfectly reasonable explanation!!) :)
Edited by midlifecrisis on 09/10/2008 at 20:38
|
I've kept out of this, i hope being a reasonable chap that i can see both sides.
To me its just another situation where the innocent law abiding decent person suffers because of the chav/sponger/thief/scrote/insert your own term here.
Its not really the fault of the BiB IMO, they can only work with the tools they've been given, i know i couldn't do the job, nearly as vilified as truck drivers..;)
TBH i've always been treated well by uniformed traffic police officers, a bullying and sarcastic encounter once long ago with a young detective keen to impress his oppo, but it takes all sorts.
As usual its the law makers and our intrepid leaders who live far from the normal world, and some galaxies away much of the time who are fully to blame.
Until we elect a set of leaders who have the guts to say ''enough'' and force through proper punishments that fit crimes such as having no insurance (only one small example, there are hundreds of really anti social crimes that need real punishment, knives, drugs etc), we will all pay the price, whether its in increased premiums or other not so obvious ways.
Not the case here in the BR generally, but i have a strong belief that we have the society we deserve, we as a nation put idiots in charge and we reap what we've sown.
Turkeys voting for Christmas.
|
|
Got to chip in here, although I've tried not to. I have to wonder if the press report is WHOLLY accurate. There are times when a motorist is less than helpful to themselves when asked to provide name of insurance co. and the like. Officers will normally phone aan insurance company from the roadside to establish if a policy exists. It's an obvious, practical thing to do. Equally, I would be very surprised indeed if there was no offer of practical assistance to take the family from the motorway to a safer place. A complaint against the Police involved would serve to allow the officers the opportunity to account for their actions - something they might actually want to do. I suspect, as Westpig says, that there are two sides to this story. Conversely, if their action is inappropriate, or poorly judged in the circumstances, they can expect to be told to use a bit more noddle next time. Either way, the complaint serves more purpose than simply moaning. Mistakes will be made, we have to accept this, and it's right that improvements should be sought. Officers work for the piblic and should always expect to account for their actions. The greater good is well served though, by a very useful, practical piece of legislation, protecting the majority from the minority.
|
This reply by Fullchat in another thread sums it up:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=67...1
[the same paragraph can be found on various other forums via google].
Well intentioned lawmakers pass laws without realising the law of unintended consequences. See here for an American example:
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/08/teen_charged_for_.../
|
See here for an American example:
rather an unfortunately named County, is it not?
|
Gentlemen of the force (some of whom are surprisingly sensitive and thin-skinned) the more I think about this, the less the criticism is of you.
But the Police Federation or whatever representatives you have should be making it absolutely clear that you can't do your jobs with an unreliable system.
We won't overturn the legislation but if you refuse to act on ANPR signals on insurance until you know they are right, I think that would have an impact.
It is a motoring thread because as individuals dependent on our cars we would be rightly outraged if they were taken from us because of an error somewhere in an insurance company.
|
Until we elect a set of leaders who have the guts to say ''enough'' and force through proper punishments that fit crimes such as having no insurance (only one small
[snip]
Gordonbennett, would that be draconian punishments such as having your journey stopped and your car towed away before any due process is applied, and with no right to appeal before the punishment is implemented?
Looks like it worked brilliantly in the case of Stephen Farndon. Taught that "chav/sponger/thief/scrote/insert your own term here" a lesson, didn't it? [/sarcasm]
|
Meanwhile 'piggy in the middle' who gets ear ache for not doing enough most of the time now gets ear ache for doing too much when using the legislation drafted by someone else and not updated by others
I'm referring to this specific instance, and I do not appreciate belly-aching and whinging about generalities.
Whoever did this:
Did not have to do it, and did not have to do it in such a way, did they.
That is the problem.
You cannot defend (whoever) by saying they had to do this. Now that you are aware that the MIB's database is not accurate, perhaps you can spread the word, and things like this might not happen so often.
|
Whoever did this:
>>Did not have to do it and did not have to do it in such a way did they. That is the problem.
Dead right, Fotherington, and it's a bigger issue than just an insurance one.
The police response on this incident raises for us a truly frightening prospect of how we'll be treated when the ID card database screws up ("computer says no", so that's it) , but since this is a motoring forum, it might be more pertient to focus on a wider motoring-realted problem.
In discussions of enforcing traffic laws (speeding, right lights, bus lanes etc) many backroomers bemoan the reliance on heartless machines rather than on real live traffic cops who can exercise some discretion and apply some sense of proportionality to the case. This, it is argued, is the merit of the human touch: that unlike an automated camera-detection system, a real live police officer can reasonably make the call that in some cases it may be better to let a trivial offence pass them by, or in marginal cases to see whether the driver shows due repentence after a stern talking-to.
It's a reasonable aspiration, that the human touch allows human discretion to be exercised in a world which rarely black-and-white. It's one of the reasons many people hate call-centres, with their script-driven serfs who have no discretion to solve any problem and can only tick the boxes. But sadly, the police responses to this thread suggest that they are going down the same path, by saying "we have the power to do this, so we will" ... without assessing whether a heavy-handed response is really appropriate.
If traffic cops no longer exercise discretion, what's the point in having them for tasks which can be automated? If they are going to function as two-legged computers, why not just employ the much cheaper electronic computers?
|
|
I have just got a new car and so swapped the insurance over on Monday. The money has gone out of my bank but I dont appear on the database yet and don't have a cover note. I can carry ID and my old certificate and hope that if I am pulled the copper uses some common sense.
|
|
IMO ID should be enough... however.
|
NW and FT,
Neither one of you has responded to my point that when police stop people to enquire as to whether or not the driver of a car has insurance, because their ANPR is hinting that them might not...that a vast percentage of people who do not have insurance tell a pack of lies, some of them most plausible.
In this case being discussed, the officers have used legislation provided to them and used a computer based information system, that they are supposed to, that was not updated by a company that should have done, having taken the innocent driver's hard earnt cash.
Please consider sending your ire to those that deserve it.
For the record, i too would be distinctly unimpressed if my car was taken off me, despite being legal, but again would need to send a rocket to those responsible, not the poor sod trying to do his/her job in often difficult circumstances.
Let's use another example. Let's say an official, by mistake, enters your details on a court computer as being a disqualified driver, despite the fact you are not. That info gets transferred to the DVLA & Police National Computer and one day you're stopped and arrested for being a disqualified driver...who do you moan at the most? The police officer who completely innocently is acting on the information given..or the person who incorrectly inputted the info in the first place.
by the way if you can let me know where this ideal world is, i'd like to move there
|
If an insurance certificate is regarded as a worthless piece of paper, how come we're still required to produce it when taxing the car?
Theres so many inconsistencies about driving/rules/regulations etc that its become farcical.
|
In this case being discussed
Yes, good..
the officers have used legislation provided to them and used a computer based information system that they are supposed to that was not updated by a company that should have done
But they did not need to do what they did do to the people in this particular case, did they!
Please consider sending your ire to those that deserve it.
Quite.
Let's use another example.
All these examples and what-ifs are utterly irrelevant to what actually occurred.
|
But they did not need to do what they did do to the people in this particular case did they!
no FT they didn't, they could have sat in the canteen swilling tea and scoffing doughnuts. The fact is they weren't, they were out there doing what they are paid to do and what a fair chunk of the public would like them to do, investigate uninsured cars.
The fact that in this case the driver WAS insured and ended up being hard done by, is regrettable, but not necessarily the fault of the officer(s) who stopped him, because of another person/organisations fault.
If you'd bothered to note my examples, you'd realise the point i'm trying to make, which is that it is extremely difficult sometimes to work out who is innocent and who is guilty as sin and telling a load of lies..hence why sometimes the innocent get caught up in this.
They didn't have to take the car off a family, but there again families don't need to go out and commit crime with their kids present..and people don't need to tell lies to police officers when they are stopped, so that when the police stop people they can automatically assume that what they're being told is in fact the truth and familes should automatically be trusted... and if you can work out a way that a police officer can ensure they get the truth out of someone they've stopped, patent it quickly, you'll make a mint
|
Just one thing, all the posts here refer to walking along the motorway, but no one has made the point the Police closed the slip road they walked along. I guess for safety reasons they would have still closed it to drive them up it, and deposit the family at the end, and I doubt there would have been much difference in time.
The other thing was, if there were children involved did the Police have adequate provisions to legally take children as passengers in their patrol car?
Personally, I would prefer to see uninsured cars off the road. I would like to know what solution people would like to see where it cannot be established if the car is insured or not? Take the drivers word for it, let them on their way with a producer and hope and pray they don't have an accident?
There may a lot of other factors that we don't know about it, but with the regular threads about Traffic Cops and similar programs am sure the majority of people here have seen uninsured drivers swearing blind they have cover.
|
I don't think using number plate alone can solve the driving uninsured problem.
Someone even without a license can get an insurance for petty cash claiming he as 20 years of driving experience and 10 years of NCB + some more lies....
He'd probably pay £100 for premium, car will never be flagged by ANPR still will drive essentially uninsured.
|
>>The other thing was, if there were children involved did the Police have adequate
>>provisions to legally take children as passengers in their patrol car?
This bizarre Anglo-Saxon obsession with paedophilia I do not understand. Nowhere else in Europe would anybody even think, let alone write, that.
|
This bizarre Anglo-Saxon obsession with paedophilia I do not understand. Nowhere else in Europe would anybody even think let alone write that.
I thought he was talking about the law that requires children to be carried in cars in appropriate car seats, or with booster cushions, up to a certain age or height. That which you raise didn't even cross my mind.
I thought it was a very good point, maybe there's an exemption for Plod.
|
children to be carried in cars in appropriate car seats or with booster cushion
(..)I thought it was a very good point maybe there's an exemption for Plod.
There's an "exemption" in some circumstances for everyone. ISTR it's for short, unplanned journeys.
|
This bizarre Anglo-Saxon obsession with paedophilia I do not understand. Nowhere else in Europe would anybody even think let alone write that.
I took it to mean the availability of suitable child seats i.e. the ones in their own family car might not fit the police car
|
I don't think you've understood my point mapmaker. It had nothing to do with paedophilia at all, but the fact the law now states all children under a certain height must be in a suitable child/ booster seat. Without knowing the facts of the case it is hard to say if it was possible for the Police to transport the family safely and legally.
Interestingly for me, as there is an ongoing thread about last Mondays motorway cops no one has spotted the similarity with the unlicensed driver who had his car seized, was dropped at a slip road, and a couple of hours later drove past the officers who had seized the car, still unlicensed and uninsured.
|
>>obsession with paedophilia >>
Whats that got to do with the legal requirement to use appropriate child restraints in cars?
|
Personally I would prefer to see uninsured cars off the road.
So would I. Having no insurance is IMO one ne of the worst offences (that don't involve any actual harm at the time, I mean).
I would like to know what solution people would like to see where it cannot be established if the car is insured or not? Take the drivers word for it let them on their way with a producer and hope and pray they don't have an accident?
If their bona fides can be established, then why not? Should someone continue to drive uninsured, then it's their responsibility, and they will catch it when they are properly checked. If it's someone with no checkable details, then that is a different matter.
|
The fact that in this case the driver WAS insured and ended up being hard done by is regrettable but not necessarily the fault of the officer(s) who stopped him because of another person/organisations fault.
It is absolutely their fault that they behaved as they did, and is more than regrettable. It raises my hackles to see such behaviour excused apparently on the grounds that "it was in the press so it can't be true", or "it was the fault of the machinery". The police did not have to do what they did, did they. There was another solution, wasn't there.
|
The police did not have to do what they did did they.There was another solution wasn't there.
what is this other solution FT?
If it's 'let them on their way' then the legisaltion will fail...because if you can't rely on the MIB system and have to take a driver's word for it...then the system will stop.
What's the point of having a vehcile seizure system to prevent uninsured vehicles if anyone can claim they have insurance and despite the database telling you otherwise you let them on their merry way with a producer....you can do that via the old system and it doesn't work very well, because we're one of the worst countries in the West for no isurance
|
what is this other solution FT?
You can satisfy yourself that the person is who they say they are, and that you are likely to be able to find them again.
If it's 'let them on their way'
Correct. Cart your insurance details along to the 'station for verification later.
then the legisaltion will fail...because if you can't rely on the MIB system and have to take a driver's word for it...then the system will stop.
You can't rely on the MIB's database (you must be aware of this now!), and no - you don't *have* to take the word of the driver.
What's the point of having a vehcile seizure system to prevent uninsured vehicles if anyone can claim they have insurance and despite the database telling you otherwise you let them on their merry way with a producer....
If you can't reasonably establish their bona fides, take the car. If you can, don't.
you can do that via the old system and it doesn't work very well because we're one of the worst countries in the West for no isurance
The "old system" didn't allow for confiscating cars directly, did it? Now, it does. I'm all for confiscating cars (see another thread from 2months (?) ago). However, in this particular case, it was done a) wrongly and b) an an utterly outrageous manner.
|
If it's 'let them on their way' then the legisaltion will fail...because if you can't rely on the MIB system and have to take a driver's word for it...then the system will stop.
As pointed out above, the fact is that you can't rely on the MiB, which accepts a 5% error rate. Sure, it's the fault of the insurer that they didn't update the database ... but it's not the insurer who chucked this family out of their car. The car was towed away on the instructions of a police officer who placed 100% reliance on a system only designed to be 95% accurate.
What's the point of having a vehcile seizure system to prevent uninsured vehicles if anyone can claim they have insurance and despite the database telling you otherwise you let them on their merry way with a producer
The point of such a power is that it is available for use when circumstances require it; it's existence does not mean that it has to be used whenever it can be. As others have pointed out, if you can identify the driver with reasonable certainty that they can be tracked down later, then sending them on their way with a producer is exactly the right thing to do.
In recent years, we have seen a massive extension of police powers in many areas, and in nearly every case those powers have been accompanied by repeated assurances to parliament that the powers would be used only when needed, and when alternatives were not sufficient. But what we have seen here is yet another instance of public authority using a power because they had it, rather than because its use was proportional in the circumstances.
That lack of proportionality has also been seen in the use of the Terrorism Act to remove an elderly man from a conference hall, in the use of RIPA powers to spy on litter droppers or snoop on parents who lie about residency to cheat school catchments, and countless other minor wrongdoings.
For the record, i too would be distinctly unimpressed if my car was taken off me, despite being legal, but again would need to send a rocket to those responsible, not the poor sod trying to do his/her job in often difficult circumstances.
The person responsible was the person who took the car away, on the basis of unreliable evidence.
Westpig's answers here suggest that there's a fairly simple rule at work now: give police a power and they will use it, rather than exercising common sense, and that their colleagues will defend those actions regardless. It's not a brilliant case for extending police powers, is it?
Edited by NowWheels on 10/10/2008 at 16:12
|
all children under a certain height must be in a suitable child/ booster seat.
IIRC taxis are exempted from this requirement.
|
Accepting both / all sides of this discussion but also recognising the traumatic effect of the result of incorrect information on innocent members of the population, would it not just make sense for it to be required to carry appropriate documents in either original or copy form in future ?
Or am I missing something ?
|
Think that is a good idea HB. Unfortunately there are a few who cancel their policies after a month or so- have got the certificate still in case of being pulled.
Think only solution is still to carry documents, with insurers number so can call to verify directly.
Seems the minority have made it a lot harder for the majority.
|
Photocopies..can be doctored
Original copies...obtained by taking out insurance policy then cancelling.
|
|
OK fair enough, but if original and official documents are not enough to protect you, what is the solution ?
|
>>would it not justmake sense for it to be required to carry appropriate documents in either original or copy form in future ?
After this thread and recently being insured but off the database I do, but still wonder if one day "documents? tough computer says no" might prevail, and as a pensioner who freqently roams far and wide that could leave me stranded hundereds of miles from home.
Edited by Old Navy on 10/10/2008 at 15:08
|
Whatever happened to "Innocent until proven guilty"?
Surely that's the principle which should be used? Just because a person can't prove they've got insurance on the spot, seeing as it's not a legal requirement to carry docs or be on the MID, doesn't mean they're guilty and should have their vehicle removed.
The fact no-one has even mentioned this so far, and how many are prepared to accept the police's right to do as they wish to innocents, proves how far we've all gone to accepting a police state. Maybe I'll contest that bus lane penalty notice after all, if it proves to be dodgy.
Makes me mad.
Surely an insurance disc on the windscreen is the answer, one which can not be cancelled and refunded without also declaring SORN? No disc, no car. Just like road tax.
|
Surely an insurance disc on the windscreen is the answer one which can not be cancelled and refunded without also declaring SORN? No disc no car. Just like road tax.
You mean similar to the system that the Australians have used for 40 years at least. Too easy for the clowns running our scruffy little island.
|
You mean similar to the system that the Australians have used for 40 years at least. Too easy for the clowns running our scruffy little island.
Never mind the Aussies, there's a closer example in the country with which he UK shares a land border. Ireland has required insurance discs for 20 years or more.
Maybe HMG doesn't want to be seen copying the Irish?
(Though personally, I suspect that the real reason is that HMG wants everything to rely on computers, and a paper disc is far too low-tech a solution. The fact that it works is nowhere near good enough to make it a better choice than yet-another-database).
|
Alanovich, yes, innocent until proven guilty should be how it works, but in cases like this there could be serious implications.
Can you imagine the uproar, and subsequent police bashing threads on here, if an uninsured driver was given the benefit of the doubt, and crashed 5 minutes down the road. We would all then be asking why the driver was allowed to continue when there were doubts over the legality of the car.
Unfortunately it is a no win situation where insurance cannot be definitively ascertained, and I would imagine seizing the cars is seen as the lesser of two evils.
As the officer in Motorway cops on Monday said- he felt obliged to pull the overladen Transit in case it was later in an accident and found to be over its maximum weight.
Regrettably in this case an administration error by the insurer caused the problem. It's not been stated if the driver said who he was insured with, or if the Police tried to verify which on the Police shows on TV seems to be norm now.
|
"and if you can work out a way that a police officer can ensure they get the truth out of someone they've stopped, patent it quickly, you'll make a mint "
Hasn't someone already patented Thumbscrews?? ;-)
I'll get my coat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
