h a l f b a k e r yFutility is persistent.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Most BP garages in the UK now have number plate recognition installed on their forecourts... this helps prevent theft by not a) not allowing people to drive off without paying, and b) not serving people who have driven off without having paid previously.
If these number plate recognition systems were
also tied into the MOT and insurance systems, then it would be possible to refuse petrol to any car owners without valid MOT or insurance.
The systems would need to be employed at every petrol station in the UK.
The insurance companies would be willing to pay for this scheme, as they lose lots of money each year to non-insured drivers.
Invasive_20government
[hippo, Feb 15 2007]
[link]
|
| |
Not a bad idea. ANPR (automatic numberplate recognition) is mature technology, and the police already use it (linked to DVLA databases) to identify untaxed cars (which are also usually uninsured and without MOT certificates). |
|
| |
//not serving people who have driven off without having driven off previously.// |
|
| |
Those damn Schroedinger's Cars. |
|
| |
This would certainly work for MOT checks. (Non-UKers may need to be informed that the MOT is a mandatory annual roadworthiness test.) It would fail for insurance if the car was covered to be driven by the owner but was currently being driven by someone else. For example, you would be breaking the law by driving my car, but I - obviously - wouldn't. |
|
| |
Yep - definitely in favour of this. Just so long as it's not logged. I'd hate it to be used by the government to track vehicles, or to calculate average speeds or some nonsense like that. |
|
| |
Perhaps log the movements of offenders, but that's about it. |
|
| |
In S.Ireland all cars must display an
insurance certificate beside the vehicle tax
disk - if either are out of date the vehicle
gets clamped, then towed, then crushed...
In N.Ireland, and along the border area,
the diesel supplies are contolled by
paramilitaries, with fuel laundering rife so
the system proposed in the idea here
would not work. |
|
| |
What benefit does the petrol/gas station get out of this other than losing customers? And as [angel] suggests, insurance is given to the driver, not the car. |
|
| |
Well, insurance generally covers the combination of a particular car and a particular driver. I'm insured to drive my car, my brother is insured to drive his, but neither of us is insured to drive each other's (except for the clause that says I can drive any other vehicle with only minimal cover - this clause doesn't appear in all policies). |
|
| |
how about not feeding ANY oil to the cars? At least before those glaciers pop back again to the North Pole. why not turn all the cameras towards North and program them to check for glaciers? if (glaciers) {feed oil;}. |
|
| |
Anything that stops drivers from using oil gets a [+] |
|
| |
So I gather that insurance is compulsory in the UK? |
|
| |
/Perhaps log the movements of offenders, but that's about it./ |
|
| |
Nah, easier just to log everyone's movements, and determine who is or isn't offending by analysing the gathered data. Treat everyone as criminals. |
|
| |
//So I gather that insurance is compulsory in the UK?// What? Where do you live? And who forks out when a family's sole earner gets mown down by an uninsured driver? |
|
| |
// In S.Ireland.....the vehicle gets clamped,
then towed, then crushed// Begorrah,
Patrick, if we haven't run out of clamps
again.... |
|
| |
In very restricted cases,it is possible to drive without an MOT certificate in the UK. But you have to book a test, and be on the way to/from it.
What would you suggest for those that carry a petrol can, and then fill the illegal vehicle at a different location? |
|
| |
/And who forks out when a family's sole earner gets mown down by an uninsured driver?/ |
|
| |
Generally the insurance company of the sole earner, although they may take a bit of cojoling, trying to get the uninsured guy to pay as a first preference. I'm not sure what you mean by mown down. If you're meaning vehicular damage, then as above. If you mean injury, disablement or death, then a combination of the above and government compensation. The at-fault driver will face charges of course, but these will be for either reckless or dangerous driving, not not having insurance. |
|
| |
We once were a litigation/blame-free utopia, but now my impression is that things are becoming more Americanised. Sigh. "Contents may be hot". |
|
| |
Cars on the road without gas... |
|
| |
[Texticle] (and others for whom clarification may be necesary): in UK, cars *must* be covered by at least third-party insurance. Thus, if I hit your car, all of your costs are covered by my insurer, assuming that blame can be attached to me - our respective insurers will fight it out between them. (But they may treat the claim on a 'knock-for-knock' basis, which effectively says 'We won't claim on you this time so you don't claim on use next time'. This is quite rare these days, but was once very common.) 'Comprehensive' insurance is also common; if I hit your car, my costs are also covered by my insurer, even to the extent of replacing my car. |
|
| |
I disagree with the concept of insurance, but since I too live in a sad nation where the government forces us to pay what ammounts to a "protection service," we may as well not sell gasoline to cars that have no insurance or,,, safety check/smog check thingies done on them. |
|
| |
True though, there isn't much incentive for the gas stations to go along with this concept, and I imagine that once implemented, we'll see a dramatic rise in the sale of gas cans, and gasoline pumped into cans "for the lawnmower." But who cares? After all, if our government is already invasive and inconveniencing criminals, we may as well make it more invasive,and inconvenience criminals even more. I'm sure none of us have ever been driving without a properly licensed, registered, and insured vehicle. |
|
| |
The Insurance and MOT laws are a typical example of governments creating unenforceable laws simply because they are either unprepared or unable to finance their policing. The consequence? Law abiding citizens pay up whilst the 'criminals' the law was designed to clamp down on continue with business as usual. In practice, when the perpetrators do eventually come to court, driving without insurance or MOT is merely an aggravating factor to another more serious offence. I really don't see why private businesses/citizens should have to act as policeman if the state isn't prepared to do it themselves. If the law is either unenforceable or generally unenforced then it's a bad law and should be got rid of. |
|
| |
That's largely true, though becoming less so because of the increasing use of mobile ANPR systems in police cars; there's more of a tendency now to nick people *just* for having no VED, MOT and/or insurance, rather than only finding out when they crash it. |
|
| |
[DrBob] makes an interesting point. Are most laws not 'generally unenforced' though? |
|
| |
Indeed, and most people don't have the foggiest idea what they are. For the most part their only purpose is to keep Members of Parliament occupied during the day and lawyers in employment (although, in calum's case, that's probably a good thing). |
|
| |
//keep Members of Parliament occupied during the day//
Yours, maybe; mine's hardly ever there (which is probably also a good thing). |
|
| |