UK Plan Would Use CCTV To Stop Uninsured Drivers From Refueling 691
Mr_Blank writes "Cameras at UK petrol stations will automatically stop uninsured or untaxed vehicles from being filled with fuel, under new government plans. Downing Street officials hope the hi-tech system will crack down on the 1.4 million motorists who drive without insurance. Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras are already fitted in thousands of petrol station forecourts. Drivers can only fill their cars with fuel once the camera has captured and logged the vehicle's number plate. Currently the system is designed to deter motorists from driving off without paying for petrol. But under the new plans, the cameras will automatically cross-refererence with the DVLA's huge database."
Re:Correction (Score:4, Informative)
be used to calculate average speed over a section of road (to enforce speed limits)
As someone who has been up and down the motorways of the country at quite a lot faster than would activate your regular speed camera I can state that, unless they are marked as used for speed enforcement, they aren't used for speed enforcement. Yes, the kit is there, and it might be possible, but it isn't done.
Hmmm... Should probably check that "Post Anonymously" box.
Re:ground effects lighting (Score:5, Informative)
I assume you want to block the ANPR.
Drivers can only fill their cars with fuel once the camera has captured and logged the vehicle's number plate.
Re:Gee, why not just send the police then (Score:5, Informative)
There already is a black market for gasoline and diesel. You can buy it tax-free from all sorts of places if you know where to look, and it's a huge, huge source of revenue loss for the government because fuel is so expensive here (you yanks whine and moan about $4 per gallon, I would be ecstatic for prices that absurdly cheap). The most common offenders are cab drivers running their cars on red diesel bought from black market fuel stations. (red diesel is so called because it is for farm and construction vehicle use and not for use on the road and thus sold tax free. It is dyed red to make it easily identifiable.)
And yes, we do have seat belt laws, and baby/car seat laws.
Re:gas can (Score:2, Informative)
Hovercraft, ferries or eurotunnel (trains with car shuttle wagons) - just being an island doesn't mean cars don't transfer in both directions.
Re:gas can (Score:5, Informative)
The UK is an island to the rest of the world, how are you getting your foreign car there? you know they drive on the opposite side as most of the rest of the world too right?
I have seen Hawaii license plates in Texas. How do you think those cars got here? Freight ships carry more than just toys and bananas. Also, you are forgetting about the Chunnel [wikipedia.org]
Re:put the insurance in the gas! (Score:4, Informative)
This is the UK, where we already drive high efficiency vehicles (my own is a minivan that does over 45 mpg [US adjusted figure] and is only middle of the road for efficiency) and pay $8-9 per gallon for fuel. We already think twice about driving short distances for errands.
Adding the insurance to fuel would disproportionately hurt people and industries that drive for a living (truckers, haulage firms, salesmen, on-call service engineers etc).
The UK is not a market where "gas guzzlers" are at all common. More than 50% of vehicles sold are diesels, for that very reason (higher efficiency, cheaper to run).
Re:ground effects lighting (Score:2, Informative)
I just listened to a lecture where the speakers asserted that government mandated government insurance violates the concept of consent in contract law. That seems like some serious moral peril to me. In that light, I vehemently dispute the legality and sense of mandated insurance.
From a market perspective, I think it's bad business. In New Hampshire, auto/driver insurance isn't mandated. My premiums are much cheaper than Massachusetts premiums, where insurance is strongly mandated. I can purchase a rider to cover me against uninsured drivers for about $10/year, so I'm not at risk from their behavior. In Texas, a driver needs to prove fiscal responsibility, and can either be bonded or insured. Most people choose to be insured rather than bonded. In either NH or TX, insurance companies have to compete against a different service or no service at all, which drives their prices down and the quality of service up. Since the cost of basic coverage in NH is so low, most people see it as a real value; and very few people drive without. So, there's another point against mandated auto insurance, based on apples to apples comparisons.
That said, driver/auto insurance *is* a really good idea and I happily purchase it when it's not mandated, and unhappily purchase it when they form a cartel that drives prices up and quality of service down where there's no compelling reason (aside from the remote possibility of being sued for breach of contract) to provide valuable service.
Re:ground effects lighting (Score:4, Informative)
So to have to have the above requirement is absolutely un-reasonable
And yet, it's been the law for a long time (not sure when, but before I was born) and no one seems to have a problem with it. Trailers that are going to be switched between multiple towing vehicles just have somewhere to attach a numberplate and the towing vehicles carry one to attach to whatever they're towing.
Re:ground effects lighting (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, no, its required to be unobscured to all reading methods - many people have tried what you are suggesting already and ended up with fines or imprisonment, it's not a new thing at all as people have been suggesting such things to avoid speed cameras for decades in the UK.
I saw this story posted a few hours ago with no comments and wondered how long it would take for someone to try and make the distinction between human readable and readable - again, sorry but no such distinction exists in UK law.