On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 23:44:00 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

MOT, yes. But there's no explicit insurance check any more - either
online or in the PO (where you still need to take a paper MOT in - if
they check MID online, why not MOT too?). There hasn't been since late
last year, after the continuous insurance regs came in.

Thy check. If you don't believe me go and try and tax an uninsured car.

Thanks, but I tend to insure my off-the-road cars before driving 'em to
the MOT station.

If you don't believe me...

Here's the Gov't consultation response that says they're about to do it
in Dec '13, and why :-
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tachment_data/
file/267400/Annex_A_-_consultation_responses_summary.pdf

Here's the late '12 announcement that they're going to do it :-
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/d...t-red-tape-by-
removing-insurance-check-when-taxing-a-vehicle

Here's a press report that says they did it :-
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...eed-insurance-
certificate-buy-car-tax-axed.html
Read that last one carefully - it does actually point out that the reason
the explicit check has been removed is because of the ONGOING MID checks
against tax because of CIE, and not that MID is checked at the time of
sale.

On 05/10/2014 09:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 17:12:18 +0100, Clive George wrote:

In Kent in 2010, the ANPR system 'read' over 220,000,000 plates
and
'hit' on 560,000 that weren't taxed or insured.

Drugs/serious crime/immigration squads etc can have a particular
plate
flagged so they get a report every time it is 'read'.

Yes, but none of this is the extra step required to work out if the
plate is appearing at places/times which would be impossible with only
one of them.

Even the dimest wooden top given a list of date/time/location reports
for H982 FKL would probably notice if it "moved" a distance that
would be "difficult" to do in the time.

For a single vehicle, yes.

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking for clones.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 12:04:06 +0100, Clive George wrote:

Even the dimest wooden top given a list of date/time/location
reports
for H982 FKL would probably notice if it "moved" a distance that
would be "difficult" to do in the time.

For a single vehicle, yes.

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking for
clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and where
the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is analyse the times
bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from one
camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus a margin,
flag it as a possible clone.

You don't think that this numberplate/date/time/location information
is discarded do you? I *think* it is after a while, FSVO "a while".
Wasn't there a bit of fuss about the retention of this sort of data a
while back and some limit is now applied, a year, 6 months?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:08:55 +0100, polygonum wrote:

Of course you pick the plates of a legit car of the same
make/model/colour in the area that you are going to use the false
plates in and you'd avoid the static ANPR cameras, so only the
mobile
ones in traffic police cars are a "problem".

?

That restricts you to routes without static ANPR cameras.

I don't think there are any static ANPR cameras within 15 miles of
here maybe 20... As for traffic police, the only ones vaugely in that
line are trainee police motorcyclists out for a runs along roads that
are really rather nice for driving. Gentle curves, hair pins and
sections where you can see three or four bends ahead. Allowing you to
"use" the road. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

Adrian wrote


On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 23:13:03 +0100, Jabba wrote:

With the advent of SORN all the logical pieces are in place.

As for SORN, it keeps changing since Andy Nicholson invented it - the
****.

Eh? The only change to SORN since it came in in 1998 was recently
stopping it expiring after a year...


SORN used to stop if the vehicle changed hands. Now there's some
insurance issue.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 15:05:22 +0100, Jabba wrote:

With the advent of SORN all the logical pieces are in place.

As for SORN, it keeps changing since Andy Nicholson invented it - the
****.

Eh? The only change to SORN since it came in in 1998 was recently
stopping it expiring after a year...

SORN used to stop if the vehicle changed hands.

It still does.

Now there's some insurance issue.

Yep, it's illegal to have a car that's taxed but not insured. If it's
uninsured, it's got to be SORNed. But that's not a change to SORN.

On 05/10/2014 13:26, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 12:04:06 +0100, Clive George wrote:

Even the dimest wooden top given a list of date/time/location
reports
for H982 FKL would probably notice if it "moved" a distance that
would be "difficult" to do in the time.

For a single vehicle, yes.

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking for
clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and where
the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is analyse the times
bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from one
camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus a margin,
flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones. And that's almost certainly not done.

On 04/10/2014 7:52 PM, Jabba wrote:
Bob Henson wrote


On 04/10/2014 3:17 PM, Jabba wrote:
Adrian wrote


On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 14:11:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I should hang on to it because you might need it again once they
realise just how easy it will be for any DIY number plate maker to
avoid road tax MOT and insurance.

Indeed. simply find a car that looks like yours and steal or duplicate
the plates

Because, obviously, a small round piece of paper is all that's been
stopping people from doing that for years.


Hundreds have been nicked for not showing it, when they have been taxed.
Some for sticking it on the wrong side of the windscreen.

Beer bottle labels used to be a good replacement if you lost one.


There used to be a requirement to display it on the nearside of the
windscreen within eight inches, I think, of the bottom corner. I got
told to move mine from the middle behind the mirror (I thought it was
safer out of my sight-line) by a copper in Manchester once, and actually
got a ticket issued by a Yellow Banded Vulture (now Blue banded) in
Malmesbury because mine had fallen off the windscreen. The car was brand
new, hence had to be taxed, and it was visible on the floor of the car
whence it had fallen, but I got done because it was not correctly
displayed. I sent the bill to the garage whose crap disc-holder had
fallen off the screen, and they refunded the fine. They were both a long
time ago, but I haven't heard that the law has changed.

Thinking back again, I was negotiating a five minute parking truce with
a Yellow Banded Vulture in Nottingham whilst I picked up a new, heavy
HiFi from a shop when he suddenly whipped out his pad and started
writing a ticket. I thought he had decided to book me, but he had
spotted a car driving past with no disc in the windscreen, noted the
number. and started issuing a ticket all in one movement. You have to
admire talent - even with a YBV.


Traffic wardens reckoned that a disc on the drivers side meant they had
to walk into the traffic to look at it. Right load of ********, as many
cars are parked with driver side closest to pavement. As for coppers...


When the law was first introduced, I don't think Traffic Wardens existed
anyway - it was for the benefit of the rozzers on foot patrol (remember
them?). In those days, if you parked on the "wrong" side of the road
after lighting up time you got nicked for that too.


--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

In a democracy it's your vote that counts. In feudalism it's your count
that votes.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:42:42 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for
clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where
the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is analyse the
times
bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one
camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus a
margin,
flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 05/10/2014 19:47, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 17:42:42 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for
clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where
the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is analyse the
times
bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one
camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus a
margin,
flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

On 05/10/2014 13:26, Dave Liquorice wrote:

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and where
the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is analyse the times
bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from one
camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus a margin,
flag it as a possible clone.

But unless there is someone to physically stop the car what use is it to
detect the problem with a camera?


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In message , Brian Gaff
writes
This no disc seems a strange way to proceed. If as we are all told, there
are many untaxed and uninsured people on the roads, a member of the public
could easily look at a vehicle and tell the authorities if it was expired.
Now however how would anyone know?


I suspect the number of times a member of the public would tell the
police there is an untaxed vehicle was rather small.

And anyway, now (are for some time already) why would that matter? They
have got a list of all the untaxed cars already
--
Chris French

In message , Adrian
writes
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 21:36:34 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

The DVLA doesn't know if a car is insured or not. They are only
concerned with tax, MOT, SORN and registered keeper.

They do know it was insured at the time the tax [disc] was paid for.

No more or less than at any other time. Taxing hasn't required proof of
insurance since last year.

Yes it has, you have to be on the insurance database.

Only in the same way as tax and insurance are compared throughout the
year.

The post office just enter the details and the computer says yeah or
not. It also checks the MOT status at the same time.

MOT, yes. But there's no explicit insurance check any more - either
online or in the PO (where you still need to take a paper MOT in - if
they check MID online, why not MOT too?).

Someone was taxing their car a few weeks ago in my local PO, he realised
he didn't have the MOT, but they weren't bothered about checking the
docs as 'the computer does it all'.

Dunno if this is knew, or unoffical, or because they were tuned into one
of the post offices with the counter by the main shop tills when they
computerised it a bit more apparently



--
Chris French

In message sting.com,
Jabba writes
Tim Watts wrote


On 04/10/14 19:46, Jabba wrote:
Tim Watts wrote


On 04/10/14 08:31, Brian Gaff wrote:
This no disc seems a strange way to proceed. If as we are all told, there
are many untaxed and uninsured people on the roads, a member of
the public
could easily look at a vehicle and tell the authorities if it was
expired.
Now however how would anyone know?

Well the DVLA computer knows whether you have tax, insurance, an MOT and
whether any of that's needed because you haven't done a SORN.

So it should be a matter of automatically issuing a fine and telling the
ANPR cameras to bust you in addition for driving without insurance.


The DVLA doesn't know if a car is insured or not. They are only
concerned with tax, MOT, SORN and registered keeper.


OK - I assumed they did.

It would not be a huge leap forward to make that addition though...

With the advent of SORN all the logical pieces are in place.


Many

?? I suspect it isn't many.

people buy insurance by DD or other monthly payment. They get the
insurance certificate and stop paying.

Then the insurance would soon lapse, and the insurance would disappear
of the MID. Having the paper wouldn't help.

As for SORN, it keeps changing
since Andy Nicholson invented it - the ****.


what are you on about?
--
Chris French

On 04/10/2014 18:38, Bob Henson wrote:
....
There used to be a requirement to display it on the nearside of the
windscreen within eight inches, I think, of the bottom corner.

They have varied over the years, but under the 2002 regulations the
requirement was that, on a vehicle fitted with a windscreen that
extended across the vehicle to its near side, the licence be affixed on
or adjacent to the near side of the windscreen, in a manner that allowed
the particulars on it to be read from the near side of the vehicle in
daylight. No height was set, except that, in the case of 'other
vehicles', it should be between 760mm and 1.8m above the ground.

I got
told to move mine from the middle behind the mirror (I thought it was
safer out of my sight-line) by a copper in Manchester once, and actually
got a ticket issued by a Yellow Banded Vulture (now Blue banded) in
Malmesbury because mine had fallen off the windscreen. The car was brand
new, hence had to be taxed, and it was visible on the floor of the car
whence it had fallen, but I got done because it was not correctly
displayed. I sent the bill to the garage whose crap disc-holder had
fallen off the screen, and they refunded the fine.

Very generous of them, given that you were the one responsible for
ensuring that the disc was properly displayed.

They were both a long
time ago, but I haven't heard that the law has changed....

With effect from 1st October 2014, The Finance Act 2014 removed the
offence of failure to display a vehicle excise licence by deleting the
relevant sections from the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.


--
Colin Bignell

On 05/10/2014 10:14, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 23:44:00 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

MOT, yes. But there's no explicit insurance check any more - either
online or in the PO (where you still need to take a paper MOT in - if
they check MID online, why not MOT too?). There hasn't been since late
last year, after the continuous insurance regs came in.

Thy check. If you don't believe me go and try and tax an uninsured car.

Thanks, but I tend to insure my off-the-road cars before driving 'em to
the MOT station.

If you don't believe me...

Here's the Gov't consultation response that says they're about to do it
in Dec '13, and why :-
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tachment_data/
file/267400/Annex_A_-_consultation_responses_summary.pdf

Here's the late '12 announcement that they're going to do it :-
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/d...t-red-tape-by-
removing-insurance-check-when-taxing-a-vehicle

Here's a press report that says they did it :-
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...eed-insurance-
certificate-buy-car-tax-axed.html
Read that last one carefully - it does actually point out that the reason
the explicit check has been removed is because of the ONGOING MID checks
against tax because of CIE, and not that MID is checked at the time of
sale.


They check at the time you apply for the tax when you do it online, they
check the MOT at the same time.

They do the same checks when the post office person enters the details.

You really shouldn't read stuff that isn't true.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:35:01 +0100, Dennis@home wrote:

MOT, yes. But there's no explicit insurance check any more - either
online or in the PO (where you still need to take a paper MOT in - if
they check MID online, why not MOT too?). There hasn't been since
late last year, after the continuous insurance regs came in.

Thy check. If you don't believe me go and try and tax an uninsured
car.

Thanks, but I tend to insure my off-the-road cars before driving 'em to
the MOT station.

If you don't believe me...

Here's the Gov't consultation response that says they're about to do it
in Dec '13, and why :-
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...tachment_data/
file/267400/Annex_A_-_consultation_responses_summary.pdf

Here's the late '12 announcement that they're going to do it :-
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/d...-cut-red-tape-
by-
removing-insurance-check-when-taxing-a-vehicle

Here's a press report that says they did it :-
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/c...eed-insurance-
certificate-buy-car-tax-axed.html Read that last one carefully - it
does actually point out that the reason the explicit check has been
removed is because of the ONGOING MID checks against tax because of
CIE, and not that MID is checked at the time of sale.

They check at the time you apply for the tax when you do it online, they
check the MOT at the same time.

They do the same checks when the post office person enters the details.

Yet the PO can't check the (far more reliable and "inhouse") MOT
database, which is why you still need to produce the paper certificate in
the PO?

Now, should I believe some random tit on usenet over the Gov't when it
comes to changes in Gov't processes and procedures? Hmm, lemme think...

You really shouldn't read stuff that isn't true.

You're right. I'll just ignore you from here on in.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:49:49 +0100, alan_m wrote:

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where
the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is analyse the
times
bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one
camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus a
margin,
flag it as a possible clone.

But unless there is someone to physically stop the car what use is it to
detect the problem with a camera?

Next time it passes a Traffic Car with the ANPR active it gets
flagged up to the coppers inside as a possible clone. They can then
decide to put down their tea or not...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:29:15 +0100, Chris French wrote:

MOT, yes. But there's no explicit insurance check any more - either
online or in the PO (where you still need to take a paper MOT in - if
they check MID online, why not MOT too?).

Someone was taxing their car a few weeks ago in my local PO, he realised
he didn't have the MOT, but they weren't bothered about checking the
docs as 'the computer does it all'.

grabs V11 from last month

Yep, explicitly says I need to take MOT to PO... yet no mention of
insurance apart from to say that all drivers need to be insured.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:17:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is
analyse the
times bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build
a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus
a
margin, flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database
looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

No you are missing the point. Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

This also means that to some extent a vechicles movements over the
period of the stored data can be recalled. Big Brother?

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 05/10/2014 21:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:17:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is
analyse the
times bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build
a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus
a
margin, flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database
looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

No you are missing the point.

No, I really am not.

Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

Yes - and working out if the time between the locations is too short is
the trawling I'm talking about. And I don't believe that's done. It can
be done manually when a car is flagged up for some other reason - and
people have mentioned examples earlier in this thread.

What's not done is automatically working it out, and adding it to the
"wanted" list as a result.

In message , Adrian
writes
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:29:15 +0100, Chris French wrote:

MOT, yes. But there's no explicit insurance check any more - either
online or in the PO (where you still need to take a paper MOT in - if
they check MID online, why not MOT too?).

Someone was taxing their car a few weeks ago in my local PO, he realised
he didn't have the MOT, but they weren't bothered about checking the
docs as 'the computer does it all'.

grabs V11 from last month

Yep, explicitly says I need to take MOT to PO... yet no mention of
insurance apart from to say that all drivers need to be insured.

Indeed, it still is a requirement to have the MOT, but it seems that at
least some PO's can do and online check.

And no you are right, no need to have insurance docs.

--
Chris French

On 05/10/14 23:52, Chris French wrote:
In message , Adrian
writes
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:29:15 +0100, Chris French wrote:

MOT, yes. But there's no explicit insurance check any more - either
online or in the PO (where you still need to take a paper MOT in - if
they check MID online, why not MOT too?).

Someone was taxing their car a few weeks ago in my local PO, he realised
he didn't have the MOT, but they weren't bothered about checking the
docs as 'the computer does it all'.

grabs V11 from last month

Yep, explicitly says I need to take MOT to PO... yet no mention of
insurance apart from to say that all drivers need to be insured.

Indeed, it still is a requirement to have the MOT, but it seems that at
least some PO's can do and online check.

Its not hard

https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-status

And no you are right, no need to have insurance docs.


Also checkable online.

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 05/10/2014 23:52, Chris French wrote:
In message , Adrian
writes
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:29:15 +0100, Chris French wrote:

MOT, yes. But there's no explicit insurance check any more - either
online or in the PO (where you still need to take a paper MOT in - if
they check MID online, why not MOT too?).

Someone was taxing their car a few weeks ago in my local PO, he realised
he didn't have the MOT, but they weren't bothered about checking the
docs as 'the computer does it all'.

grabs V11 from last month

Yep, explicitly says I need to take MOT to PO... yet no mention of
insurance apart from to say that all drivers need to be insured.

Indeed, it still is a requirement to have the MOT, but it seems that at
least some PO's can do and online check.

And no you are right, no need to have insurance docs.

Unless you are paying at a Post Office in Northern Ireland.

--
Colin Bignell

On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 08:58:06 +0100, Nightjar \"cpb\"@ wrote:

Indeed, it still is a requirement to have the MOT, but it seems that at
least some PO's can do and online check.

And no you are right, no need to have insurance docs.

Unless you are paying at a Post Office in Northern Ireland.

Because the continuous insurance regs don't apply to NI. Yet.
http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/ne...nounces-new%20

On 05/10/2014 10:51 PM, Clive George wrote:
On 05/10/2014 21:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:17:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is
analyse the
times bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build
a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus
a
margin, flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database
looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

No you are missing the point.

No, I really am not.

Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

Yes - and working out if the time between the locations is too short is
the trawling I'm talking about. And I don't believe that's done. It can
be done manually when a car is flagged up for some other reason - and
people have mentioned examples earlier in this thread.

What's not done is automatically working it out, and adding it to the
"wanted" list as a result.



I think you are correct, but may not be for long. The time and resources
taken to correlate all references to one number would have been so
great that, as you suggest, it would surely never have been done,
unless for, say, a specific police request. Now it would appear there
may be a very easy way to cheat the tax system, I wonder if they will
have to reconsider anyway? On the other hand it may still be too
expensive an undertaking - but if they don't do it, tax evasion may
rocket up.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Six out of seven dwarves are not Happy.

On 05/10/2014 9:34 PM, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 04/10/2014 18:38, Bob Henson wrote:
...
There used to be a requirement to display it on the nearside of the
windscreen within eight inches, I think, of the bottom corner.

They have varied over the years, but under the 2002 regulations the
requirement was that, on a vehicle fitted with a windscreen that
extended across the vehicle to its near side, the licence be affixed on
or adjacent to the near side of the windscreen, in a manner that allowed
the particulars on it to be read from the near side of the vehicle in
daylight. No height was set, except that, in the case of 'other
vehicles', it should be between 760mm and 1.8m above the ground.

I got
told to move mine from the middle behind the mirror (I thought it was
safer out of my sight-line) by a copper in Manchester once, and actually
got a ticket issued by a Yellow Banded Vulture (now Blue banded) in
Malmesbury because mine had fallen off the windscreen. The car was brand
new, hence had to be taxed, and it was visible on the floor of the car
whence it had fallen, but I got done because it was not correctly
displayed. I sent the bill to the garage whose crap disc-holder had
fallen off the screen, and they refunded the fine.

Very generous of them, given that you were the one responsible for
ensuring that the disc was properly displayed.


True - but the salient point is held in the phrase "their crap
disc-holder" - I told them they should supply good ones - theirs just
would not stick. I made the error of assuming not even a YBV could be
that picky.


They were both a long
time ago, but I haven't heard that the law has changed....

With effect from 1st October 2014, The Finance Act 2014 removed the
offence of failure to display a vehicle excise licence by deleting the
relevant sections from the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.


We know that - OK, I should have said "had" changed - not "has" changed.
When anyone, as they regularly do, calls me a pedantic old sod, I'll
defer to you and tell them you are the real champion :-)

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

The light at the end of the tunnel is probably the headlights of an
oncoming train!

On 06/10/2014 8:58 AM, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 05/10/2014 23:52, Chris French wrote:
In message , Adrian
writes
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:29:15 +0100, Chris French wrote:

MOT, yes. But there's no explicit insurance check any more - either
online or in the PO (where you still need to take a paper MOT in - if
they check MID online, why not MOT too?).

Someone was taxing their car a few weeks ago in my local PO, he realised
he didn't have the MOT, but they weren't bothered about checking the
docs as 'the computer does it all'.

grabs V11 from last month

Yep, explicitly says I need to take MOT to PO... yet no mention of
insurance apart from to say that all drivers need to be insured.

Indeed, it still is a requirement to have the MOT, but it seems that at
least some PO's can do and online check.

And no you are right, no need to have insurance docs.

Unless you are paying at a Post Office in Northern Ireland.


Heh, I was right - you're good. :-)



--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Naturist - a person who prefers to go about naked, thus reminding others
why they prefer wearing clothes.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 05/10/14 23:52, Chris French wrote:
In message , Adrian
writes
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:29:15 +0100, Chris French wrote:

MOT, yes. But there's no explicit insurance check any more - either
online or in the PO (where you still need to take a paper MOT in - if
they check MID online, why not MOT too?).

Someone was taxing their car a few weeks ago in my local PO, he realised
he didn't have the MOT, but they weren't bothered about checking the
docs as 'the computer does it all'.

grabs V11 from last month

Yep, explicitly says I need to take MOT to PO... yet no mention of
insurance apart from to say that all drivers need to be insured.

Indeed, it still is a requirement to have the MOT, but it seems that at
least some PO's can do and online check.

Its not hard

https://www.gov.uk/check-mot-status

Yes, I know, but that doesn't mean the system being used in a post
office for the tax renewal does that checking.

As I said our PO was changed last year, from a normal PO counter at the
back of the shop to a counter right next to the shop tills. (on the
whole a good thing IMO) As part of this they installed a new system to
deal with the transactions, maybe this does the MOT but those in older
PO's don't?




--
Chris French

On 06/10/14 09:34, Bob Henson wrote:

Now it would appear there
may be a very easy way to cheat the tax system, I wonder if they will
have to reconsider anyway? On the other hand it may still be too
expensive an undertaking - but if they don't do it, tax evasion may
rocket up.


I don't think ANPR is involved with catching VED evaders - as you must
either have VED or SORN the vehicle, any vehicle that is un-SORNed and
has no current VED is guilty - it does not have to "be caught on the
public road" like the old days...

Tim Watts wrote:

I don't think ANPR is involved with catching VED evaders - as you must
either have VED or SORN the vehicle, any vehicle that is un-SORNed and
has no current VED is guilty - it does not have to "be caught on the
public road" like the old days...

THough ANPR will catch those who have declared SORN, but use the car on
the roads anyway, which amounts to evading VED.

On 06/10/14 09:34, Bob Henson wrote:
On 05/10/2014 10:51 PM, Clive George wrote:
On 05/10/2014 21:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:17:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is
analyse the
times bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build
a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus
a
margin, flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database
looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

No you are missing the point.

No, I really am not.

Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

Yes - and working out if the time between the locations is too short is
the trawling I'm talking about. And I don't believe that's done. It can
be done manually when a car is flagged up for some other reason - and
people have mentioned examples earlier in this thread.

What's not done is automatically working it out, and adding it to the
"wanted" list as a result.



I think you are correct, but may not be for long. The time and resources
taken to correlate all references to one number would have been so
great that, as you suggest, it would surely never have been done,
unless for, say, a specific police request.

Not at all true. I can search a database of 2.5 million postcodes in a
tenth of a second here.


on a crap PC.

On decent database and hardware its infinitely faster. Once you have a
time/gps/number plate triple, its trivial to do a search to identify
anomalies.

just don't tell anyone.



Now it would appear there
may be a very easy way to cheat the tax system, I wonder if they will
have to reconsider anyway? On the other hand it may still be too
expensive an undertaking - but if they don't do it, tax evasion may
rocket up.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 05/10/2014 22:51, Clive George wrote:
On 05/10/2014 21:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

Yes - and working out if the time between the locations is too short is
the trawling I'm talking about. And I don't believe that's done. It can
be done manually when a car is flagged up for some other reason - and
people have mentioned examples earlier in this thread.

What's not done is automatically working it out, and adding it to the
"wanted" list as a result.

I watched a programme recently that showed a foreign registered HGV
being pulled over and having its tachograph checked after ANPR cameras
had logged it in two different locations that it could not have been in
if the driver/time regulations had been adhered to. The check didn't
appear to be anything other than auto-generated.

--
F

On 06/10/14 12:13, Andy Burns wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:

I don't think ANPR is involved with catching VED evaders - as you must
either have VED or SORN the vehicle, any vehicle that is un-SORNed and
has no current VED is guilty - it does not have to "be caught on the
public road" like the old days...

THough ANPR will catch those who have declared SORN, but use the car on
the roads anyway, which amounts to evading VED.


That is true -

On 06/10/2014 11:21 AM, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/10/14 09:34, Bob Henson wrote:

Now it would appear there
may be a very easy way to cheat the tax system, I wonder if they will
have to reconsider anyway? On the other hand it may still be too
expensive an undertaking - but if they don't do it, tax evasion may
rocket up.


I don't think ANPR is involved with catching VED evaders - as you must
either have VED or SORN the vehicle, any vehicle that is un-SORNed and
has no current VED is guilty - it does not have to "be caught on the
public road" like the old days...


But if there are no checks done by the camera operators, anyone with a
genuine number plate on a "wrong" car will get away with it - on or off
the road.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

A book is a man's best friend, outside a horse or a dog - inside a horse
or a dog it's too dark to read anyway.

On 06/10/2014 12:17 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/10/14 09:34, Bob Henson wrote:
On 05/10/2014 10:51 PM, Clive George wrote:
On 05/10/2014 21:56, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 20:17:02 +0100, Clive George wrote:

The missing step is automatically trawling the database looking
for clones.

You don't need to. When you do the look up you check when and
where the ANPR system last "saw" it. What you could do is
analyse the
times bewteen vehicles appearing on different cameras and build
a
"knowledge base" of how long it would normally take to get from
one camera to the ones within an area. Less than that time plus
a
margin, flag it as a possible clone.

What you're describing is automatically trawling the database
looking
for clones.

"trawling" to me is a separate process independant of the normal
lookup.

And that's almost certainly not done.

Quite likely, a waste of resources when you can do a simple
comparision during a normal look up and seta flag (and return the
result to the enquirer).

But it's the only way to pick up a cloned car if it's not otherwise
behaving suspiciously enough to trigger an individual lookup.

No you are missing the point.

No, I really am not.

Every time a vehicle passes an ANPR
camera a lookup is done to see if it's a "wanted" vehicle, when that
look up is done the date/time/location information is stored against
that registration mark. Next look up on that registration compares
where "it" is now against when/where "it" was last seen. If the time
bewteen those two locations is too short to get between them
something "odd" is going on...

Yes - and working out if the time between the locations is too short is
the trawling I'm talking about. And I don't believe that's done. It can
be done manually when a car is flagged up for some other reason - and
people have mentioned examples earlier in this thread.

What's not done is automatically working it out, and adding it to the
"wanted" list as a result.



I think you are correct, but may not be for long. The time and resources
taken to correlate all references to one number would have been so
great that, as you suggest, it would surely never have been done,
unless for, say, a specific police request.

Not at all true. I can search a database of 2.5 million postcodes in a
tenth of a second here.


on a crap PC.

On decent database and hardware its infinitely faster. Once you have a
time/gps/number plate triple, its trivial to do a search to identify
anomalies.

just don't tell anyone.



With the number of cars on the road, are you sure they'll bother to
continuously monitor every car, 24 hours a day, every day of the week,
and get someone to check and action the results? The computer can be set
to follow certain criteria as to whether or not the car could have been
in the places the cameras say on the same day or at the same time. Many
people will have to be employed to check the results and action them -
you can't just hurl court summonses at people because they apparently
drove a long way in a day according to an arbitrary computer algorithm.
Well, you could, but they won't. There aren't even any cameras round
here anyway - if you stay off the motorway, they'd probably never find
you anyway.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

A slug is just a homeless snail.

On Monday, 6 October 2014 13:51:31 UTC+1, Bob Henson wrote:
On 06/10/2014 12:17 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:



On decent database and hardware its infinitely faster. Once you have a

time/gps/number plate triple, its trivial to do a search to identify

anomalies.

just don't tell anyone.



With the number of cars on the road, are you sure they'll bother to
continuously monitor every car, 24 hours a day, every day of the week,

I doubt that's what's meant.

and get someone to check and action the results?

I thought they were only looking for lorry drivers driving for too long or too far, I don;t think car drivers have a legalm restriction.

The computer can be set
to follow certain criteria as to whether or not the car could have been
in the places the cameras say on the same day or at the same time. Many
people will have to be employed to check the results and action them -
you can't just hurl court summonses at people because they apparently
drove a long way in a day according to an arbitrary computer algorithm.

They'll check their figures if tehy are suspoious, then they'll recheck hopefully.


Well, you could, but they won't. There aren't even any cameras round
here anyway - if you stay off the motorway, they'd probably never find
you anyway.

Yes cameras aren;t everywhere and niether are cars and lorries.
A patrol car might pick up a driver on a local road or if it's involved in an accident.

On 06/10/14 12:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On decent database and hardware its infinitely faster. Once you have a
time/gps/number plate triple, its trivial to do a search to identify
anomalies.


I agree.

First thing you do is sort the triples by

Number:time

Then you process those in sets of each number-plate looking for
unrealistic time deltas given the 2 GPS points as the crow flies.

All pairs that fail a crow-flies speed test would definitely fail in
reality as the actual route will be longer most of the time so the
average speed needed to achieve the time delta will be even higher.


If you are worried you might be missing some naughty people, and you
want to be really clever, you multiply the "as the crow flies" distance
by a factor (say 0.5) to get a first sweep candidate list. Many of these
will actually be innocent.

Then you run those through routing software to see if they'd fail even
when using "the fastest road route between the 2 points".

The latter is computationally expensive but it would be operating on a
fairly small list.

The former computation is cheap as chips as TNP suggests.


Then you get to decide if the anomaly is due to speeding or cloned plates.

On 06/10/14 13:39, Bob Henson wrote:
On 06/10/2014 11:21 AM, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/10/14 09:34, Bob Henson wrote:

Now it would appear there
may be a very easy way to cheat the tax system, I wonder if they will
have to reconsider anyway? On the other hand it may still be too
expensive an undertaking - but if they don't do it, tax evasion may
rocket up.


I don't think ANPR is involved with catching VED evaders - as you must
either have VED or SORN the vehicle, any vehicle that is un-SORNed and
has no current VED is guilty - it does not have to "be caught on the
public road" like the old days...


But if there are no checks done by the camera operators, anyone with a
genuine number plate on a "wrong" car will get away with it - on or off
the road.


How will ANPR pick that up?

On 06/10/2014 2:31 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/10/14 13:39, Bob Henson wrote:
On 06/10/2014 11:21 AM, Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/10/14 09:34, Bob Henson wrote:

Now it would appear there
may be a very easy way to cheat the tax system, I wonder if they will
have to reconsider anyway? On the other hand it may still be too
expensive an undertaking - but if they don't do it, tax evasion may
rocket up.


I don't think ANPR is involved with catching VED evaders - as you must
either have VED or SORN the vehicle, any vehicle that is un-SORNed and
has no current VED is guilty - it does not have to "be caught on the
public road" like the old days...


But if there are no checks done by the camera operators, anyone with a
genuine number plate on a "wrong" car will get away with it - on or off
the road.


How will ANPR pick that up?


It won't - that's what I was saying.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Some days, you're the dog; some days you're the lamppost.