Oi! DVLA! No!

in news: snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk, "Dave Plowman (News)" slurred :

Yup, the MOT is the sticking point - there still isn't a computerised system to log MOT passes/fails. ISTR suggestions that such a system is to be introduced, in which case the need for the RFL as an annual check becomes redundant. We could also do away with the need for 'producers'.

I reckon you would need to add about 10p/litre, which is about 12%

They do keep claiming to intend to implement this, but it's been years - the garages have the equipment and I've heard something about emissions results being logged - but again, it's stuff I've heard and might be bullshit.

I don't see why they need to add anything. People in rural areas already get seriously hit as a result of the fuel tax being primarily justified on the back of getting people to use cars less in cities (i.e. The MPs see the problem on their doorstep). I have no problem with RFL, I have a problem with SORN primarily (once the car is not on the public highway, it's my property, my car, and it's none of their damn business what I do with it until it goes back on the public highway), and backwards measures trying to reduce the cost of new cars (by a paltry amount) when really, new cars should attract a considerably greater tax - the country is full of perfectly good cars that can be used and run with a much smaller environmental impact than producing one new one.

Richard

That may be fine for a car which has at least attempted an MOT, but what about those who haven't?

Same with insurance.

You need an up to date database on each and every car - regardless if it's 'on the road' or not. And this must cost to administer.

Not so. The RFL also checks that the car is registered where it says it is.

So you want to add insurance at any one point in time to this data base too?

Err, are you saying that database can be maintained at zero cost?

So you'd move the costs of that database to the insurance companies? And you think that would make it cost free?

That's a different argument.

in news: snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk, "Dave Plowman (News)" slurred :

They won't be recorded on the database, and if seen on the road would be in violation of the law and automatically fined.

As above.

Indeed, but the system as a whole would be simplified in comparison to the existing one.

I don't quite understand what you mean by that. The renewal form is sent to the registered address, but you can get a RLF without using that form. Insurance doesn't have to be registered at the same address as the car is.

Yes, but that is relatively trivial - there are pre-existing insurance databases. I don't know how universal it is, but even if it isn't, there is no fundamental reason why it shouldn't be.

I don't know about that you need to tell them where the car is kept overnight and if you say it's in your garage and give your address as the 15th floor of a tower block, the bells might start a ringing

Disagree. There are already insurance and MOT databases, they know by auto-reading your number plate if you're taxed/MOTed/insured, having a little round bit of paper and all the administraion that involves is totally pointless?

Yes you need to track who owns what, but typically folks keep a car slightly longer than one year - so the costs of keeping track of the owners are lower than keeping track of tax.

Further - the insurance database pretty much runs itself, some high-level IT input but no masses fo monkeys to adminster it - and the MOT databse can be done in a similar fashion.

You can also subsidise the DVLA with slighly more appropriate taxes - cars are not a problem where there's no public transport (but also no congestion issues). Cars are a problem where there is public transport (rare, I know!), or where the journey hardly warrants a bicycle let alone a car, or where there's massive congestion. Introduce 'registered parking spaces' for places such as London, and prohibit car ownership with a £10,000 a year 'tax' on such spaces. (unless the car weighs less than 750kgs, is smaller than XXxYYxZZ, has a 600cc engine. Basically forces all school-run 4x4s and MPVs off of the public roads and their occupants onto foot or into smalelr vehicles that thy stand a fighting chance of driving...

in news:cmdi1a$he6$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk, " dojj" slurred :

Yup, the car should be kept where you tell the insurers it is, but not necessarily where you tell the DVLA it is. In my case, one of my cars is registered at my parents house, but is insured to be kept at my house.

Are you saying there is already an independant database - not the DVLA one

- that holds records of both insurance and MOT?

I think you'll find not.

That's exactly what there is !

Furthermore, it also contains details of all your previous claims/convictions/etc and it's what the insurance company checks to ensure you aren't lying when you tell them you've not had a claim in the past five years.

Dunno about the MOT. But it would be reasonably trivial to implement, if it doesn't already exist ?

I think you will find it so.

The police use it. They have cars that scan car regno's automaticaly - the driver and passenger need do nothing. It automatically checks the owner, if there is insurance and MOT, plus it checks the owner on the PNC.

I know for sure that it is in use in London, Sheffield and Leeds. Prolly in use in every major city to be honest as it is cheap policing.

------------------------------------------------ "We are all individuals" "I'm not!"

It's currently a paper system, as you can't get all drivers, or alternatively, all MoT testing stations, to do the admin for a computerised one, just at the moment.

Consider another way to approach this: modern cars have the potential to monitor their tyre wear, lights, brake efficiency, body flex, emissions, etc. If the car computer went into crippled mode when there were problems, and shut down entirely when the car should not be out and about, why would you need an MoT? Now consider if the car could be connected to the internet, and check the driver has valid insurance before permitting them to drive it. Maybe breath tests too? Also if the driver is sleepy.

Phase two is where the car tracks itself all the time, reporting its position and controlling the speed automatically. Brakes automatically if it detects an obstruction ahead and maitains a safe distance to the car ahead, automatically. Possibly also drives the car automatically, taking charge from the driver. That would be somewhat possible with technology and would take away tons of paperwork and police time.

So there's no longer a need for a 'producer' since they already have all the necessary information?

Yes. Even the insurance business is too fast-paced to have to rely on 'the civil service' for information, and maintains its own information sources - including who's insured for what and what their 'previous' is.

I'd expect them to keep far more detailed insurance records than the DVLA for obvious reasons. However, making this information available to a third party must come under the data protection act.

Not sure about that. I don't think they 100% trust the info - but hey they have made a load of arrests.

I have been given a producer this week when some stupid woman in a merc smacked my backend when she was changing lanes on a roundabout too busy talking on phone, shuffling papers on passenger seat to indicate or look where she was going. She even denied she had hit me and refused to exchange details. Silly woman.

------------------------------------------------ "We are all individuals" "I'm not!"

Didn't think the authorities gave a stuff about "data protection", I've always assumed that any info I give to anybody except clsoe family and friends may as well be broadcast in public - so far its not been too far off the mark...

I'd love to see the end of the "no claims bonus" farce as it currently stands, including the ability to 'protect' the bonus even if you do claim, the way you can't use the 'no-claims' record on more than one vehicle, the way its a pain in the bum to be insured on more than one vehicle etc. A publicly accessible database (that the organisers can charge for access to but not to be registered on as it were) run by an organisation that is rewarded for eficiency rather than employing as many peole as possible to do the job would be in everybodies niterests. Even if that's not where we will end up, I don't think allowing/encouraging the DVLA to offload their shortcomings onto those they are supposed to serve (in the form of SORN, or £4.50 admin charges etc) is the way we should be headed.