Many motorists cannot be prosecuted.

Ziggy said:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:20:32 +0100, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>

Quoted message said:

So if we removed the need to arrange your own insurance that would
eliminate one of the major causes for concern. What other regulations
are being flouted?

Parking,

Because of unjust and ineffective measures being used to manage it.
Deregulate, as opposed to "decriminalise" it, and manage the demand and
supply intelligently and apolitically. Then if the problem still exists
start worrying about it.

Quoted message said:

congestion charging,

Another dishonest, immoral, unjust and ineffective method of collecting
tax that should never have even been contemplated.

Quoted message said:

speeding

Assumes that having speed limits is an effective policy for something,
and that attempting to enforce them is somehow worthwhile when what we
should actually be doing is trying to eliminate road casualties rather
than punishing drivers.

Quoted message said:

... Anything for which a statutory notice
may be sent.

I've yet to hear of any worth the effort - can you think of any?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> There is a significant minority of motorists who can and do flout the law to a
>> ridiculous extent and on a regular basis.
> Possibly partially because of the size of the raft of unnecessary laws.
Well, *you* might think some (all?) of them unnecessary - others might not
agree.

They might if they thought about the reasons and the alternatives. ;-)

Obviously.

Yes, to us, at least. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And if you actually want anything done aboyt it, here is probably not the best
place

Except here you do get a good feeling for the levels of the "pre" and
"mis" /conceptions/ that are inherent in the justifications of our
current measures.

Well, only according to your(my/others) own perceptions.

You and I might have different notions of just which preconceptions are
misconceptions.

Of course.

Quoted message said:

However, although I don't agree with some of what you say I also don't agree
that you're a troll (that's just a cheap shot made by people who either don't
have an answer to one of your points or who can't be bothered to argue it), so I
doubt that they are wholly at odds.

I think we're in the majority here.

--
Matt B

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:54:14 GMT, _ <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ziggy said:

...the majority of motorists who (apart from
the odd excursion over the speed limit)...

Do you have a cite for any facts to support this view?

Do you mean 'a citation'?

Quoted message said:

I rather suspect that it is by far the majority of motorists who disobey
speed limits, rather than "the odd excursion".

If you look carefully you'll see that 'the majority of motorists' is *exactly*
what I said.

Let's not have an argument about something we agree upon.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:59:09 +0100, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>

Quoted message said:

Ziggy said:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:20:32 +0100, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>

Quoted message said:

So if we removed the need to arrange your own insurance that would
eliminate one of the major causes for concern. What other regulations
are being flouted?

Parking,

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

congestion charging,

snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

speeding

snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... Anything for which a statutory notice
may be sent.

Quoted message said:

I've yet to hear of any worth the effort - can you think of any?

You asked which other regulations were being flouted.

I answered that.

I've no intention of getting into a discussion about which motoring regulations
are worthwhile or not. It's not relevant.

No one is going to junk them just because you or I don't like them and it is
grossly unfair that the law abiding go to the trouble to obey them and the
oafish element just ignore them and get away with it.

Ziggy said:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:41:02 +0100, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>

Quoted message said:

Ziggy said:

On 19 Apr 2007 04:22:59 -0700, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> Well it would be something for PCSO's to do I suppose but with the
> hundreds of cars parked in a road there would need to be an army of
> PNC opperators to do the checks for them. And then if they are parked
> without the driver we would be back to square one.
Why on earth can't you clamp a car without a driver present? They seem to manage
to do it for parking offences.

You'd encourage clamping without the right to contest the grounds for so
doing?

Just as is the case with clamping at the moment, yes.

Which should also be banned.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All you need to do is download the list of cars who's keepers have not responded
to (say) more than one statutory notice for over two months (or is more than a
month out of date on its car tax), into a cheap hand-held.

At which point it would be even more out-of-date than the data on the
computer it was downloaded from.

No it wouldn't, it would be exactly as out of date - i.e. less than 24 hours.

Ah, so the "source" isn't real-time either.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, I would expect that the clamping team's despatcher would do a check on
live data so your objection disappears.

Except that the data isn't reliable anyway.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then an unskilled
operative paces the streets typing registration numbers into the device and if
one is flagged, calls up a clamping squad.

It'd be like the so-called "decriminalised parking". There would be
scams, corruption, incompetence, and "incentive" schemes, all resulting
in large volumes of incorrectly served notices.

Not at all.

All the decisions about which cars could be clamped would be based soley on data
derived from noices issued and replied to. There could be no incentive for
corruption or invalid notices generated by error on the part of the operatives.

How would they be motivated to carry out such an unworthy act then?

Quoted message said:

There would, of course, be scope for errors in the system but you cannot abandon
all justice just because it isn't foolproof.

That's why you need the right to contest it /before/ it happens though,
not after.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even with technology at today's level I expect that a handheld with an inbuilt
camera would be capable of automatic character recognition meaning that one
operative could potentially check a couple of thousand cars a day in densely
parked areas.

But the data isn't reliable enough to trust the outcome.

Your opinion.

How accurate is the vehicle register - 50% or so IIRC.

Quoted message said:

In my opinion it would be more than adequately trustworthy.

50% of all actions would be in error.

Quoted message said:

Of course you would need a system that would respond very rapidly to any
mistakes that were made. Given the way beauracrats work, the lack of such a
system would be my main worry.

That would rule it out completely then - given the speed of appeals etc.
against parking miscarriages.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't doubt that scheme would need fine tuning, but I'm sure it could be made
to work.

It'd bring more scorn to bear on the already beleaguered "justice" system.

Only by criminal element, and I care little for their opinion.

No, from those accused and targeted in error - which could be about 50%
of the actions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's doomed to failure though if it relies on government computer data,
and trustworthy operatives.

Vast swathes of our lives rely on accurate 'government data', and work pretty
much correctly, pretty much all of the time, so no change there.

I disagree. Many large government systems are notoriously inaccurate.
How many social security numbers are in circulation?

Quoted message said:

And the system does not rely on trustworthy operatives.

If the car isn't on the centrally produced list it doesn't get clamped.

How would you guarantee that?

Quoted message said:

And if it does, it's very clear who (and it would take at least two people) made
the [censored].

That's no comfort to those who lose the use of their car for an extended
period whilst trying to convince some "ombudsman" that it is covered by
a group insurance policy or that the ANPR must have confused a "5" with
an "S" or whatever.

--
Matt B

Ziggy said:

No one is going to junk them [motoring regs] just because you or I don't like them and it is
grossly unfair that the law abiding go to the trouble to obey them and the
oafish element just ignore them and get away with it.

Yes. That is one very good reason /to/ "junk them". I resent a system
which creates regulations that prevent me (as a law abiding citizen)
from doing something which is completely harmless to others, yet which
tolerates others (the law breakers) doing the same thing because there
is no practical way of actually stopping them. I'd rather such
regulations were abolished so that we could all "enjoy" doing it when we
wanted/needed to.

--
Matt B

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

(Ziggy) said:

email hidden said:

> Now all we need is for the police and traffic wardens to enforce the
> law.

Quoted message said:

> (The fact that they evidently do not, to a satisfactory degree,
> probably =
being
> more down to home office targets rather than incompetance on their
> part).

Quoted message said:

Police officers issue form CLE28 and advise DVLA of offence. DVLA
then prosecute registered owner or driver reported on CLE28. Not down
to police or CPS.

Then it needs to be made (at least partly) down to the police.

We need a system where police and traffic wardens (and community support
officers) pro-actively check parked vehicles against a database of
vehicles whose keepers have not responded to a (or perhaps two)
statutory notices. When these are found a clamping unit should be sent
in.

There's altogether too much of this 'not down to us, guv' attitude.

They did have a phrase for it: 'Joined up thinking'.

Not down to the individual plod, of course, but it should be addressed.

Well it would be something for PCSO's to do I suppose but with the
hundreds of cars parked in a road there would need to be an army of
PNC opperators to do the checks for them. And then if they are parked
without the driver we would be back to square one.
For myself I just don't have the time to check any number of things
that are more important that I have promissed myself or been assigned
to do in a normal 'patrol' day as opposed to an administration period
or courts day.

Actually, it would be fairly simple to write a wee program to run on a
mobile phone with which you'd point the phone camera at a registration
number, click a button, and the image of the registration plate would be
uploaded to a server where the number would be automatically read and
checked against the database of 'wanted' cars, and record location/time of
observation; you could even automatically issue a work-order to the
nearest clamping crew.

I've recently written a fairly similar thing for fisheries inspectors; it
isn't rocket science.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space

Quoting Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Actually, it would be fairly simple to write a wee program to run on a
mobile phone with which you'd point the phone camera at a registration
number, click a button, and the image of the registration plate would be
uploaded to a server where the number would be automatically read and
checked against the database of 'wanted' cars,

Yes. However, a problem that's out of Sniper's hands is that the Police
[1] are probably institutionally incapable of doing something like this
as a wee program on mobile phones.

[1] I don't mean specifically the Police - I mean the way governments and
large companies can never just hack something out in a week when they can
spend a million pounds on something that doesn't quite work.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Leicesterday, April.

David Damerell said:

Quoting Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Actually, it would be fairly simple to write a wee program to run on a
mobile phone with which you'd point the phone camera at a registration
number, click a button, and the image of the registration plate would be
uploaded to a server where the number would be automatically read and
checked against the database of 'wanted' cars,

Yes. However, a problem that's out of Sniper's hands is that the Police
[1] are probably institutionally incapable of doing something like this
as a wee program on mobile phones.

[1] I don't mean specifically the Police - I mean the way governments and
large companies can never just hack something out in a week when they can
spend a million pounds on something that doesn't quite work.

This is, sadly, all too true.

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ziggy said:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:29:55 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>

Quoted message said:

> Plus, they should have records of which cars are insured so that they
> can catch
> some more of the idiots driving without insurance.
Alternatively, if all cars were covered for 3rd party liability through,
say, some of the proceeds of fuel duty, then just think of the
bureaucracy, aggravation and inconvenience that would be eliminated.

Why make life so difficult by adding ever more technical and
unenforceable offences when simpler and more effective solutions are
available.

Purely from the insurance POV, I agree. Whack up the fuel duty and use
the
proceeds to pay for third party insurance. WOuld have the added benefit
of
placing more of the burden on those who drive more or who drive less fuel
efficient (and thus more polluting) cars.

However, that would not remove the need to beef up the law to deal with
the
criminal motorists who can currently flout some of the regulations with
impunity.

So if we removed the need to arrange your own insurance that would
eliminate one of the major causes for concern. What other regulations are
being flouted?

[snip]
Making 3rd Party Insurance part of VED as happens in some countrys would not
remove the need to arrange your own insurance if you wanted anything more
than 3rd party.
This would push up the price of TPFT and Full Comp insurance as the
Insurance companies would be looking to deal with their loss in income.

Other than that it does make a lot of sense to get everything arranged
together, this would mean that number plates woudl also have to be pulled
into the system. Then you could have Safety and Emissions checks (MOT),
Vehicle registration, Tax and 3rd Party insurance.

Judging by what this costs me each year around 650 quid (Have taken 3rd
party as half cost of Fully Comp), thats one hell of a whack in one go.
If you also made it only possible to pay for this in full before you recieve
it....

Having an MOT doesn't guarantee that the car is safe, only that it passed
the tests at the time.
Having isnurance doesnt' mean that the Tax and MOT haven't expired.
Having Tax doesn't mean the Insurance and MOT hasn't expired.

If your buying rust buckets for 100 quid which still have remaining MOT and
Tax time left on it, you know your going to run it until it dies then
abandon it at the side of the road and find another one where is the
incentive to actually bother with the rest. It's pretty much 1 stage short
of stealling a car.

Niall

Quoted message said:

Purely from the insurance POV, I agree. Whack up the fuel duty and use
the proceeds to pay for third party insurance. WOuld have the added
benefit of placing more of the burden on those who drive more or who
drive less fuel efficient (and thus more polluting) cars.

But perhaps not of pricing the most incompetant off the road, as the
current scheme does. Sort of.

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:35:27 +0100, "Dave"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I was under the impression too that it is an offence to sell a vehicle
without informing the DVLA that you have done so and to who.

So they should be fining the last known owner for that offence even though
they cannot do so for the original offence.

Yes, but the last keeper cannot be held responsible for the new keeper
using an
incorrect address.

I've tried to follow this thread but sadly the resident group pudding is
confusing it - yet again.
The truth is, whatever motorists assert, in general they are the most
irresponsible crowd of law evasive fools imaginable.
In short, they break the law , pedestrians and us get hurt.
Any argument?
I believe not.

John
www.calder-clarion.co.uk

On Apr 19, 6:17 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Dave said:

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:35:27 +0100, "Dave"
<[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>I was under the impression too that it is an offence to sell a vehicle
>without informing the DVLA that you have done so and to who.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>So they should be fining the last known owner for that offence even though
>they cannot do so for the original offence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, but the last keeper cannot be held responsible for the new keeper
using an
incorrect address.

Quoted message said:

So in those cases it should be as suggested - on a database so that when
spotted the driver is pulled.

They do, and they are when possible.

Quoted message said:

I work with a chap who has a good friend who works for a government
department involved in traffic. I can't remember which one but apparently
they have more powers than the police to stop and impound a vehicle.

VOSA

Quoted message said:

They have a computer mounted in a car on the motorway (or other road) and a
camera that scans number plates and it is fast enough to be able to check
them all as they approach. If anything is put up on screen the vehicle is
stopped.

ANPR

Quoted message said:

Perhaps this is what needs to happen more on normal roads too - they could
get all those without VELs of which there are plenty. Generally meaning no
MOT or insurance and lots of other offences.

Quoted message said:

Get this sort of [censored] off the road.

Whilst we do these types of operations the numbers of vehicles that
can be seized is limited by the number of vehicles we have to take
them away and storage. One can't just crush it because the computor
says so, it may be wrong.

Sniper8052

Have you considered a volunteer day? I am sure that you could get
several thousand cyclists with sledge hammers and cutting torches to
take care of the problem. And no need to tow. 🙂

John Clayton said:

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:35:27 +0100, "Dave"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I was under the impression too that it is an offence to sell a vehicle
without informing the DVLA that you have done so and to who.

So they should be fining the last known owner for that offence even though
they cannot do so for the original offence.

Yes, but the last keeper cannot be held responsible for the new keeper
using an
incorrect address.

I've tried to follow this thread but sadly the resident group pudding is
confusing it - yet again.

Is he confusing it by challenging your preconceptions?

Quoted message said:

The truth is, whatever motorists assert, in general they are the most
irresponsible crowd of law evasive fools imaginable.

You'll need to define your use of the word "motorist" so we can grasp
the scope of your assertion. Do you mean anyone who has ever driven a
motor vehicle, those currently at the wheel actually driving, those
whose only mode of transport is a motor vehicle, or what? Do you
exclude those who also use a bicycle sometimes, those who are also
pedestrians occaisionally. Please enlighten us.

Quoted message said:

In short, they break the law ,

Some do, and some are quite reckless and blatant, but I would suggest
that the majority only break a few "technical" laws occasionally - with
no ill effect.

Quoted message said:

pedestrians and us get hurt.

"Us" being non-pedestrians and non-motorists? Are you ignoring, or
don't you care, that for every bicyclist killed on the road there are
about 4 innocent car passengers killed, 7 car drivers killed and 4
motorcyclists killed.

The roads /are/ still dangerous, and not really getting any safer, not
least for car drivers. This is why we cannot tolerate the ineffectual
and counter-productive measures being foisted upon us now, along with
the junk science, "smoke and mirror" tactics, and quite frankly
dishonesty, being deployed in an attempt to convince us otherwise.

You only have to take a cursory glance at the statistics to see that
current measures are not working.

Quoted message said:

Any argument?

Yes. Why do many continue to flog the current "dead horse" policies as
if they will in some way give any worth-while results? There /are/
better ways - lets explore them.

Quoted message said:

I believe not.

Ah.

--
Matt B

Niall Wallace said:

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ziggy said:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:29:55 +0100, Matt B
<"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>
wrote:

>> Plus, they should have records of which cars are insured so that they
>> can catch
>> some more of the idiots driving without insurance.
> Alternatively, if all cars were covered for 3rd party liability through,
> say, some of the proceeds of fuel duty, then just think of the
> bureaucracy, aggravation and inconvenience that would be eliminated.
>
> Why make life so difficult by adding ever more technical and
> unenforceable offences when simpler and more effective solutions are
> available.
Purely from the insurance POV, I agree. Whack up the fuel duty and use
the
proceeds to pay for third party insurance. WOuld have the added benefit
of
placing more of the burden on those who drive more or who drive less fuel
efficient (and thus more polluting) cars.

However, that would not remove the need to beef up the law to deal with
the
criminal motorists who can currently flout some of the regulations with
impunity.

So if we removed the need to arrange your own insurance that would
eliminate one of the major causes for concern. What other regulations are
being flouted?

[snip]
Making 3rd Party Insurance part of VED as happens in some countrys would not
remove the need to arrange your own insurance if you wanted anything more
than 3rd party.

no, but it would remove, at a stroke, the problem of uninsured cars on
the road. If you want extra insurance that's your call, and you are the
only one who cares if you get it or not.

Quoted message said:

This would push up the price of TPFT and Full Comp insurance as the
Insurance companies would be looking to deal with their loss in income.

That's what the OFT, or whoever, are there to guard against.

Quoted message said:

Other than that it does make a lot of sense to get everything arranged
together,

You assume though that VED is here to stay, and that only road users
subject to VED need insurance.

Quoted message said:

into the system. Then you could have Safety and Emissions checks (MOT),
Vehicle registration, Tax and 3rd Party insurance.

I think they should all be kept separate as they are all unrelated, and
all political devices (except MOT, perhaps) which should be abolished in
turn anyway.

Quoted message said:

Judging by what this costs me each year around 650 quid (Have taken 3rd
party as half cost of Fully Comp), thats one hell of a whack in one go.

Another reason to keep them apart. ;-)

Quoted message said:

If you also made it only possible to pay for this in full before you recieve
it....

Why?

Quoted message said:

Having an MOT doesn't guarantee that the car is safe, only that it passed
the tests at the time.

A reason to continue with it, or a reason to find a better solution?

Quoted message said:

Having isnurance doesnt' mean that the Tax and MOT haven't expired.

So?

Quoted message said:

Having Tax doesn't mean the Insurance and MOT hasn't expired.

So?

Quoted message said:

If your buying rust buckets for 100 quid which still have remaining MOT and
Tax time left on it, you know your going to run it until it dies then
abandon it at the side of the road and find another one where is the
incentive to actually bother with the rest. It's pretty much 1 stage short
of stealling a car.

Eh?

--
Matt B

Hi jasmin

how can be sent AT command over control channal to a cell
phone , to change it as microphone

Regards
Pradeep shukla
Delhi india

n Apr 19 said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

(') said:

(Ziggy) said:

On 19 Apr 2007 03:22:07 -0700, "[email hidden]"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Now all we need is for the police and traffic wardens to enforce the
>> law.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> (The fact that they evidently do not, to a satisfactory degree,
>> probably =
>being
>> more down to home office targets rather than incompetance on their
>> part).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Police officers issue form CLE28 and advise DVLA of offence. DVLA
>then prosecute registered owner or driver reported on CLE28. Not down
>to police or CPS.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then it needs to be made (at least partly) down to the police.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We need a system where police and traffic wardens (and community support
officers) pro-actively check parked vehicles against a database of
vehicles whose keepers have not responded to a (or perhaps two)
statutory notices. When these are found a clamping unit should be sent
in.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's altogether too much of this 'not down to us, guv' attitude.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They did have a phrase for it: 'Joined up thinking'.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not down to the individual plod, of course, but it should be addressed.

Quoted message said:

Well it would be something for PCSO's to do I suppose but with the
hundreds of cars parked in a road there would need to be an army of
PNC opperators to do the checks for them. And then if they are parked
without the driver we would be back to square one.
For myself I just don't have the time to check any number of things
that are more important that I have promissed myself or been assigned
to do in a normal 'patrol' day as opposed to an administration period
or courts day.

Actually, it would be fairly simple to write a wee program to run on amobilephonewith which you'd point thephonecamera at a registration
number, click a button, and the image of the registration plate would be
uploaded to a server where the number would be automatically read and
checked against the database of 'wanted' cars, and record location/time of
observation; you could even automatically issue a work-order to the
nearest clamping crew.

I've recently written a fairly similar thing for fisheries inspectors; it
isn't rocket science.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke)http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

shukla said:

n Apr 19, 7:37 pm, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Hi jasmin

Shome mishtake shurely.

--
Dave...

Niall Wallace said:

Making 3rd Party Insurance part of VED as happens in some countrys would not
remove the need to arrange your own insurance if you wanted anything more
than 3rd party.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

into the system. Then you could have Safety and Emissions checks (MOT),
Vehicle registration, Tax and 3rd Party insurance.

If I was king (there would be a line of organizations that would be
first against the wall, but that's not important now), I would abolish
both vehicle excise duty and the MOT.

I live somewhere where there is no MOT. I did some IT work for an
insurance broker a while back. I couldn't find a single accident in
their database which was caused by a badly maintained car. All the
accidents were caused by someone screwing up.

The MOT in the UK is basically a way of subsidising the car repair
industry, since the foxes are guarding the hen house so to speak (the
same people who make the repairs are also doing the test, so they have
an incentive to fail cars). Take for example the windscreen test. If you
have a 11mm crack just above the wiper, through which you can only see
the bonnet of the car, it fails on "driver's view of the road", despite
the fact the tax disc obscures more of the road than the crack would,
and in any case all you can see through the crack is part of the car.

Vehicle excise duty can be taken care of by adding an extra penny to
fuel duty. It would wipe out at a stroke the massive bureaucracy
required to account for VED, and roll it into an already extant tax
structure. It would also be progressive, automatically being less
expensive for drivers who drive few miles or own economical cars, and
more expensive for drivers of high polluting vehicles or who drive a
great deal.

If you take the further step of rolling a statutory 3rd party insurance
into fuel duty, again - that would be progressive - those who don't
drive much will automatically pay less, and those who drive more miles
or drive larger, more dangerous vehicles pay more.

It would also move much of the cost of owning a vehicle from fixed costs
to variable costs, which would also aid in the decision whether to use
alternate means of transport. If you have to pay high fixed costs and
low variable costs, the cost of driving, say, from London to Glasgow
appears artificially cheap compared to taking the train (although you
could argue anything seems cheap compared to taking the train). Once
you've paid the fixed costs of motoring, since you've already shelled
out so much it becomes a disincentive to use anything other than your
car. The unintended consequence of the punitive VED levied on chelsea
tractors is that owners of said vehicles will probably be
disincentivised to use other methods of transport since they've already
paid such a lot of money just to tax the vehicle - and would feel they
are wasting their money if they then don't make as much use of the
vehicle as possible - and thus having the opposite to intended effect.

I don't think "road pricing" (we already have it, fuel excise duty which
is effectively paid per mile) will be effective as anything other than
an additional tax. If people already aren't discouraged from driving by
the disincentive of wasting an hour stationary in traffic, an extra few
quid is hardly going to discourage them either, unless they are in a
situation where they can barely afford a car in the first place. If a
disincentive to drive would make people change their habits, then the
traffic jams alone would cause people to drive less, and businesses to
be more flexible to eliminate rush hours, but this hasn't happened and
road pricing won't make it happen.

Driver training is also an issue. Motorcyclists are already forced to go
through a much more rigorous training programme than car drivers, yet
motorcyclists generally pose mostly a risk to themselves, and car
drivers pose mostly a risk to others. Politicians haven't got the guts
to actually make the changes here, and merely make the driving test more
and more pedantic (such that student drivers are taught to make hugely
exaggerated head movements so they don't get failed on "observation",
and that the margin between undue hesistancy and dangerously emerging
from a junction is razor-thin, making passing your driving test a bit of
a lottery).

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Matt B 'matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

That's no comfort to those who lose the use of their car for an extended
period whilst trying to convince some "ombudsman" that it is covered by
a group insurance policy or that the ANPR must have confused a "5" with
an "S" or whatever.

This comes up in comp.risks on a regular basis - a recent example in the
digest was someone being stopped and prevented from driving in the UK by
a police officer who'd checked the insurance database, and saw no record
for the vehicle being insured. However, the vehicle was insured, and the
motorist was carrying his insurance certificate. But just like in 'Little
Britain', the officer's response was "The computer says no", and the
driver had to leave his car.

Even more so is a problem that we have here. I live in the Isle of Man,
where there are two styles of numberplates - the "Ellan Vannin" style
(with a red triskelion on the left, and "Isle of Man" in small Celtic
writing above the registration, similar to how US States have the state
name above or below the registration, and the registration itself
written in a narrower font than is used in the UK, and dashes separating
the groups of letters and numbers). The other style is the UK style
plate - which uses the same font and appears identical to UK number
plates.

When Manx people with the latter style of plate take their car into the
UK, it's not that uncommon that they get stopped by the police who want
to know why their registration doesn't appear to exist, and why they
don't have an MOT certificate. Many police officers are ignorant of the
fact that the Isle of Man is not part of the UK and has an entirely
separate vehicle registration system which means they often delay
drivers they've stopped for some time while checking up on their story.
I've also heard of Manx drivers being stopped for having "illegal
numberplates" when they have the former "Ellan Vannin" style plate
because the police officer is unaware that the Isle of Man is not part
of the UK - and they often just get more suspicious when you present
them with an Isle of Man driving license and an Isle of Man passport as
additional identity.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith said:

If I was king (there would be a line of organizations that would be
first against the wall, but that's not important now), I would abolish
both vehicle excise duty and the MOT.

I live somewhere where there is no MOT. I did some IT work for an
insurance broker a while back. I couldn't find a single accident in
their database which was caused by a badly maintained car. All the
accidents were caused by someone screwing up.

The MOT in the UK is basically a way of subsidising the car repair
industry, since the foxes are guarding the hen house so to speak (the
same people who make the repairs are also doing the test, so they have
an incentive to fail cars). Take for example the windscreen test. If you
have a 11mm crack just above the wiper, through which you can only see
the bonnet of the car, it fails on "driver's view of the road", despite
the fact the tax disc obscures more of the road than the crack would,
and in any case all you can see through the crack is part of the car.

Vehicle excise duty can be taken care of by adding an extra penny to
fuel duty. It would wipe out at a stroke the massive bureaucracy
required to account for VED, and roll it into an already extant tax
structure. It would also be progressive, automatically being less
expensive for drivers who drive few miles or own economical cars, and
more expensive for drivers of high polluting vehicles or who drive a
great deal.

If you take the further step of rolling a statutory 3rd party insurance
into fuel duty, again - that would be progressive - those who don't
drive much will automatically pay less, and those who drive more miles
or drive larger, more dangerous vehicles pay more.

It would also move much of the cost of owning a vehicle from fixed costs
to variable costs, which would also aid in the decision whether to use
alternate means of transport. If you have to pay high fixed costs and
low variable costs, the cost of driving, say, from London to Glasgow
appears artificially cheap compared to taking the train (although you
could argue anything seems cheap compared to taking the train). Once
you've paid the fixed costs of motoring, since you've already shelled
out so much it becomes a disincentive to use anything other than your
car. The unintended consequence of the punitive VED levied on chelsea
tractors is that owners of said vehicles will probably be
disincentivised to use other methods of transport since they've already
paid such a lot of money just to tax the vehicle - and would feel they
are wasting their money if they then don't make as much use of the
vehicle as possible - and thus having the opposite to intended effect.

I don't think "road pricing" (we already have it, fuel excise duty which
is effectively paid per mile) will be effective as anything other than
an additional tax. If people already aren't discouraged from driving by
the disincentive of wasting an hour stationary in traffic, an extra few
quid is hardly going to discourage them either, unless they are in a
situation where they can barely afford a car in the first place. If a
disincentive to drive would make people change their habits, then the
traffic jams alone would cause people to drive less, and businesses to
be more flexible to eliminate rush hours, but this hasn't happened and
road pricing won't make it happen.

Driver training is also an issue. Motorcyclists are already forced to go
through a much more rigorous training programme than car drivers, yet
motorcyclists generally pose mostly a risk to themselves, and car
drivers pose mostly a risk to others. Politicians haven't got the guts
to actually make the changes here, and merely make the driving test more
and more pedantic (such that student drivers are taught to make hugely
exaggerated head movements so they don't get failed on "observation",
and that the margin between undue hesistancy and dangerously emerging
from a junction is razor-thin, making passing your driving test a bit of
a lottery).

Let's hope that you, or someone with similar enlightened views, becomes
king fairly soon then. ;-)

Excellent post. Of course the UK establishment is too entrenched for
anything so sensible to happen. Besides there is no revenue gain - so
it is doomed.

--
Matt B

John Clayton said:

"Ziggy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 10:35:27 +0100, "Dave"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I was under the impression too that it is an offence to sell a vehicle
without informing the DVLA that you have done so and to who.

So they should be fining the last known owner for that offence even though
they cannot do so for the original offence.

Yes, but the last keeper cannot be held responsible for the new keeper
using an
incorrect address.

I've tried to follow this thread but sadly the resident group pudding is
confusing it - yet again.
The truth is, whatever motorists assert, in general they are the most
irresponsible crowd of law evasive fools imaginable.
In short, they break the law , pedestrians and us get hurt.
Any argument?
I believe not.

You'll get one from TrollB - it's all he's after.