Automated Number Plate Recognition

[BeemerMal]

There are an increasing number of Police and DVL agency vehicles that now carry the latest Automated Number Plate Recognition Cameras. If stopped and your car is not on their list of insured vehicles they can seize and even crush the car, if found not to be an insured vehice.

The CC magazine printed a short article in February's magazine on how to check if our car is recorded on their Motor Insurance Database.

The following website will confirm:

www.askmid.com

If it is not it would be worth checking with your insurance company to ask them why?

 

[Damian]

The askmid website is not as good as it appears, so beware.

I have a car under restoration and it shows as insured, when in fact it is not.

 

[Meister]

A.N.P.R has been in use for at least 4 years and is an excellent system. Not only does it indicate if a vehicle is not on the insurers data base but also gives other valuable info to Police and other agencies.

A.N.P.R. cameras are also frequently used in static locations such as overhead gantrys on motorways, petrol station forecourts etc etc.

Steve

 

[RogerL]

The Motor Insurance Database can take up to a month to update where a private individual changes car or renews with a different insurer. Companies, not insurers, are responsible for updating MID for company cars, some simply don't bother.

If your car is insured, but not on MID, you are more likely to be stopped but if you can show you're insured by producing the cover note then all will be well - unless you've committed some other offence!!

 

[martin_374344332]

This makes the reality seem much more alarming than is actually the case. The only people who need be concerned are those who drive without insurance, as the police can seize an uninsured vehicle under Sect 165 Road Traffic Act. It also applies to unlicenced drivers.

A car would not normally be seized purely on the evidence of the motor insurers database.

If a car is seized under this act, then it is kept for a minimum of 14 days to allow the driver/owner time to produce evidence of insurance.

I would re-iterate that law abiding drivers have nothing to fear.

 

[Angus1]

Just heard the police are to have a clampdown on the use of illegal typeface on number plates in part of Leeds.

About bloody time too!

 

[rayc]

Martin said "I would re-iterate that law abiding drivers have nothing to fear".

Is that a bit like speed cameras which have been well documented for getting it wrong on occasions.[I can give you lots of examples if you like]

Your statement is not true. There was a case on a Police, Camera, Action type of program where a woman was accussed of having no insurance. She was adamant she had but didn't have the details with her. The Policeman obviously had reservations, and sort of believed her, but he could only keep repeating " Computer says No". She was forced to leave her car at the side of the road and walk off with her child in tow and the birthday cake she was taking to her Mother's party in her arms.

At the roundup at the end of the program they said it had been confirmed she was insured.

in a case like hers where the car was taxed and could be proven by the Police on the scene that it was registered to her home address a simple 7 day producer would have been a sensible way forward. Give boys a new toy and they will have to use it - not always for what it was initailly intended.

 

[RogerL]

ray - if a car is flagged as uninsured by APNR, the owner needs to show the insurance certificate - just asserting that a vehicle is insured isn't enough.

Too many uninsured drivers have been given "producers" but never show up, even though they carry on driving uninsured - it's no wonder the police use all the powers they can.

If insured drivers carry the certificate of insurance in their wallet/purse then any discrepancies on MID can be dealt with straight away.

 

[rayc]

Roger said " If insured drivers carry the certificate of insurance in their wallet/purse then any discrepancies on MID can be dealt with straight away".

If that is the case then it should be the law and it should be applied that way. If the Police are going to use the MIB database to determine wether a car is insured then that fact should be publicised by the government and not rely on word of mouth.

I have been driving for over 40 years and it has been accepted practice that a driver will be given a 7 day producer and is not expected to carry the insurance or for that matter their licence or MOT.

I am not against the Police using the powers open to them to keep uninsured vehicles of the road, indeed I congratulate them. It's the inconsistency the annoys me - if it is the law that you must be on the MIB, that you must carry your insurance cert then so be it but it isn't.

 

[emmerson2]

Absolutely ANY means of getting uninsured drivers off our roads is OK by me.Crush their cars by all means, and then crush their b*ll*cks as well!

 

[rayc]

Absolutely ANY means of getting uninsured drivers off our roads is OK by me.Crush their cars by all means, and then crush their b*ll*cks as well!

Hopefully after it has been ascertained that they have in fact not got insurance cover and if they had no cost to them in storage, release or recovery fees.

 

[martin_374344332]

Martin said "I would re-iterate that law abiding drivers have nothing to fear".

Is that a bit like speed cameras which have been well documented for getting it wrong on occasions.[I can give you lots of examples if you like]

Your statement is not true. There was a case on a Police, Camera, Action type of program where a woman was accussed of having no insurance. She was adamant she had but didn't have the details with her. The Policeman obviously had reservations, and sort of believed her, but he could only keep repeating " Computer says No". She was forced to leave her car at the side of the road and walk off with her child in tow and the birthday cake she was taking to her Mother's party in her arms.

At the roundup at the end of the program they said it had been confirmed she was insured.

in a case like hers where the car was taxed and could be proven by the Police on the scene that it was registered to her home address a simple 7 day producer would have been a sensible way forward. Give boys a new toy and they will have to use it - not always for what it was initailly intended.

Ray,

Do not believe everything you hear on tv or read in the press.

By the way neither S165 or anpr are new toys, they've both been around for several years and are both damned effective tools in the fight against unlicenced/unisured drivers.

I only replied to your post to make the point that law abiding drivers have nothing to fear from S165 or anpr.

 

[emmitdb]

Roger said " If insured drivers carry the certificate of insurance in their wallet/purse then any discrepancies on MID can be dealt with straight away".

If that is the case then it should be the law and it should be applied that way. If the Police are going to use the MIB database to determine wether a car is insured then that fact should be publicised by the government and not rely on word of mouth.

I have been driving for over 40 years and it has been accepted practice that a driver will be given a 7 day producer and is not expected to carry the insurance or for that matter their licence or MOT.

I am not against the Police using the powers open to them to keep uninsured vehicles of the road, indeed I congratulate them. It's the inconsistency the annoys me - if it is the law that you must be on the MIB, that you must carry your insurance cert then so be it but it isn't.

RayC,

The law relating to the production of Insurance Certificates is clear and unambiguous.

A driver commits an offence if he fails to produce a certificate of Insurance when demanded by a PC in uniform(and I know I've missed out a lot of superfluous literature in order to keep this short)

BUT he will not be prosecuted if a certificate is poduced within seven days.

How much clearer do you want?

You commit an offence if you don'y carry the Certificate and I for one would (and did) report people for the offence if they did not produce it.

They only got out of receiving a summons if they produced it. I didn't have to go chasing them to report the offence when they failed to produce.

 

[GeorgeB]

Another problem with MID is that cars insured under a "company car" policy, i.e. blanket cover for any vehicle owned by the company, will show up on MID as uninsured!

I know because my present company car (new this Jan) and my previous car show up as uninsured!

 

[rayc]

del said "RayC,

The law relating to the production of Insurance Certificates is clear and unambiguous.

A driver commits an offence if he fails to produce a certificate of Insurance when demanded by a PC in uniform(and I know I've missed out a lot of superfluous literature in order to keep this short)

BUT he will not be prosecuted if a certificate is poduced within seven days.

How much clearer do you want?

You commit an offence if you don'y carry the Certificate and I for one would (and did) report people for the offence if they did not produce it.

They only got out of receiving a summons if they produced it. I didn't have to go chasing them to report the offence when they failed to produce".

Del, thank you that is what I have said. That is perfectly clear to me and I am happy that you have agreed with me.

Has that been superseded by a computer saying No? If the computer says No is there an assumption that there is no insurance so the issuing of a producer is considered to be a waste of time?

I am quite happy to do whatever is required but it would be very helpful if there were advertisments on TV explaining the current rules. cars can be driven by several drivers and it appears to me very important that they all carry a copy ( I hope a hard copy or email copy of the cover note is acceptable). Does the same apply to the MOT certificate?

Many thanks for taking the time to explain the change of practice nobody else has.

 

[rayc]

Martin said "Ray,

Do not believe everything you hear on tv or read in the press.

By the way neither S165 or anpr are new toys, they've both been around for several years and are both damned effective tools in the fight against unlicenced/unisured drivers.

I only replied to your post to make the point that law abiding drivers have nothing to fear from S165 or anpr".

I am sure that the content of the TV program was seen by the Police before being transmitted after all they allow the camera operator / sound recordist to be in their cars. I have reported the particular incident exactly as it happened. This woman had insurance but couldn't prove it, the ANPR check said she didn't The Police made her lock her car and and walk. They pasted stickers all over the car windows stating No Insurance etc.

If that means to you she had nothing to fear then so be it.

There is an easy way to prevent it happening again and that is to make it the Law that a copy of the insurance certificate must be carried by the driver. This would allow the Police to check with insurance companies but I do not know if that is reasonable at 10 pm on a Saturday night.

Many thanks for clarifying the new procedures - the Government and the Police havn't.

 

[martin_374344332]

Martin said "Ray,

Do not believe everything you hear on tv or read in the press.

By the way neither S165 or anpr are new toys, they've both been around for several years and are both damned effective tools in the fight against unlicenced/unisured drivers.

I only replied to your post to make the point that law abiding drivers have nothing to fear from S165 or anpr".

I am sure that the content of the TV program was seen by the Police before being transmitted after all they allow the camera operator / sound recordist to be in their cars. I have reported the particular incident exactly as it happened. This woman had insurance but couldn't prove it, the ANPR check said she didn't The Police made her lock her car and and walk. They pasted stickers all over the car windows stating No Insurance etc.

If that means to you she had nothing to fear then so be it.

There is an easy way to prevent it happening again and that is to make it the Law that a copy of the insurance certificate must be carried by the driver. This would allow the Police to check with insurance companies but I do not know if that is reasonable at 10 pm on a Saturday night.

Many thanks for clarifying the new procedures - the Government and the Police havn't.

Ray,

Just to clarify a few points. Police don't have any great input into the content of such programmes, individual oficers have none. You keep harping on about one incident several you saw on tv several years ago, yet have no knowledge of the incident itself. The footage you saw on tv would have been heavily edited to only show the bits that the producer considered would make good viewing. You will have no idea as to how the incident was resolved. Unless you were there or personally know the people involved you cannot really come to any accurate conclusion.

As others have already pointed out it is and has been law for many years that drivers must carry licence/insurance etc but will not be prosecuted for failing to do so if they produce within 7 days. For S165 seizures this is extended to 14 days.

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make but you seem to take issue with the fact that police have anpr technology and the power to seize uninsured cars. Unless you drive around uninsured yourself I don't understand this. Anything that gets uninsured drivers off the road is ok by me even if that does mean having to produce my insurance once in a blue moon. The fact of the matter is as I said before, law abiding drivers have nothing to fear. After all how many times have you or anyone you know been routinely stopped and asked to produce?

 

[rayc]

martin, in a previous response to this post I said "I am not against the Police using the powers open to them to keep uninsured vehicles of the road, indeed I congratulate them". so do not know why you think I am against ANPR.

The program was on TV THIS year and was a special edition regarding the use of ANPR which was sponsored by the Police. If we are to believe the positive things that came out of the program then why not the negative ones?

Personally, as you made a personal comment, I'll answer it. My car is a company one, it is not on the MIB database but I carry the insurance certificate.

What you haven't explained in all this talk about 7 day producers is what happens in practice . Are you left to drive on as per normal prior to ANPR or secondly is the car impounded at the roadside , or removed at your cost until you produce the insurance at the Police Station with further release fees?

If the 2nd then the Police and Government should be publicising this as you could be hundreds of miles away from home when stopped and it would appear to be imperative to carry your insurance certificate. That would be easy wouldn't it, a few commercials on the tele? I have carried out a straw poll in the office and nobody out of 20 knew the likely outcome of being stopped by an APRN check for no insurance when in fact they had some.

Still I'll remember your words of advise "innocent people have nothing to fear" and sleep soundly at nights.

 

[CheapnCheerful]

And of course we have not even got on to the issue of number plate cloning, so that innocent people are presumed guilty of an offence cos the computer says so, unless they can prove otherwise!

 

[martin_374344332]

martin, in a previous response to this post I said "I am not against the Police using the powers open to them to keep uninsured vehicles of the road, indeed I congratulate them". so do not know why you think I am against ANPR.

The program was on TV THIS year and was a special edition regarding the use of ANPR which was sponsored by the Police. If we are to believe the positive things that came out of the program then why not the negative ones?

Personally, as you made a personal comment, I'll answer it. My car is a company one, it is not on the MIB database but I carry the insurance certificate.

What you haven't explained in all this talk about 7 day producers is what happens in practice . Are you left to drive on as per normal prior to ANPR or secondly is the car impounded at the roadside , or removed at your cost until you produce the insurance at the Police Station with further release fees?

If the 2nd then the Police and Government should be publicising this as you could be hundreds of miles away from home when stopped and it would appear to be imperative to carry your insurance certificate. That would be easy wouldn't it, a few commercials on the tele? I have carried out a straw poll in the office and nobody out of 20 knew the likely outcome of being stopped by an APRN check for no insurance when in fact they had some.

Still I'll remember your words of advise "innocent people have nothing to fear" and sleep soundly at nights.

Ray,

If you are stopped because of an anpr hit a producer would be issued and you continue your journey. If you subsequently produce then the matter is at an end. If you don't produce you get summonsed. All quite simple really and providing you have insurance/licence there is nothing to worry about.

Of course if the person concerned happens to be in a hoodie and driving a

 

[Damian]

Quote from martin "If you are stopped because of an anpr hit a producer would be issued and you continue your journey. "

Not true!!!!

My daughter was stopped as her car was flagged by the ANPR as being uninsured, the vehicle was impounded immediately, taken away to storage and started to incur

 

[rayc]

Damian, that is what I have been saying and what was actually depicted on the TV program which was devoted to the ANPR checks. The woman I have mentioned was middle age, smart, had a child with her, the car was modern, taxed and registered to her home address.

Martin may not mind his family being turned out of their car hundreds of miles from home because the computer says no - but hey if your innocent you have nothing to fear!

 

[rayc]

Damian, that is what I have been saying and what was actually depicted on the TV program which was devoted to the ANPR checks. The woman I have mentioned was middle age, smart, had a child with her, the car was modern, taxed and registered to her home address.

Martin may not mind his family being turned out of their car hundreds of miles from home because the computer says no - but hey if your innocent you have nothing to fear!

I think that warning us of the fact that the car could be seized at to road side was the purpose of beemermal posting originally on this subject.

 

[emmitdb]

Quote from martin "If you are stopped because of an anpr hit a producer would be issued and you continue your journey. "

Not true!!!!

My daughter was stopped as her car was flagged by the ANPR as being uninsured, the vehicle was impounded immediately, taken away to storage and started to incur

 

[BeemerMal]

I have watched this debate since posting the lead comment and it seems most people are happy with ANPR detecting uninsured drivers but there is a worrying trend that the system is not robust enough and innocent, insured drivers, are being deprived the use of their cars without any consideration.

Clearly a case of "Guilty" until proven "Innocent".

If, as some say, an insurance document MUST always be carried, then isn't it about time this information was communicated to every motorist. I have been driving for 40+ years and I was not aware the law required me to carry an insurance certificate. I had a company vehicle for 25 years and at no time did my employer provide me, or any of the 3000 drivers in our company, with a certificate. The policy was that if a driver was asked to provide proof of insurance the company would send them a sample certificate to present to the police.

However, with the increased use of ANPR it could be easily done now by the DVLA and Insurance companies making motorists aware of the requirment to carry insurance proof. However, insurance documents can be forged so uninsured drivers could easily obtain a forged certificate anyway.

It seems far too simplistic for the police (well maybe not!) just to say "The Computer Says No". Surely, if they do suspect a crime to have been committed then it is them who has to prove a crime was committed and not rely on a decision made by a computer that is known to be somewhat flawed in the data it holds.