Some traffic police.....a load of *******!

Maz unlcle aint a 19 year old chav in a corsa hes a propper person in a decent car with a valid excuse for Mids not showing insurance, the copper is just being an arse, i thought you were innocent until proven guilty in this country.
 
DiamondMark said:
Maz unlcle aint a 19 year old chav in a corsa hes a propper person in a decent car with a valid excuse for Mids not showing insurance, the copper is just being an arse, i thought you were innocent until proven guilty in this country.
Click to expand...

I would imagine (with some knowledge) that most non insured drivers are not 19 year old chavs... Also at what point has he been found guilty, all he did was prove he had insurance when the database said he didnt.

Or would you prefer that they uphold the Road Traffic Act and report drivers for non production of documents?
 
It might be down to the history of the car. maybe it has not had insurance for some time?. Then the police have to believe that insurance was taken out just a few days before they stopped it which I'm sure they have heard a million times before
 
Shimmyhill said:
I would imagine (with some knowledge) that most non insured drivers are not 19 year old chavs... Also at what point has he been found guilty, all he did was prove he had insurance when the database said he didnt.

Or would you prefer that they uphold the Road Traffic Act and report drivers for non production of documents?
Click to expand...

So you think its quite acceptable to be made to wake people up in the middle of the night to confirm insurance instead of just giving him a producer?

And what i meant by found guilty was in cases where electronic tests dont work, ie cant call insurance co's in the middle of the night, a producer should be issued not be called a liar and made to wake people in the middle of the night.
 
Last edited:
DiamondMark said:
So you think its quite acceptable to be made to wake people up in the middle of the night to confirm insurance instead of just giving him a producer?

And what i meant by found guilty was in cases where electronic tests dont work, ie cant call insurance co's in the middle of the night, a producer should be issued not be called a liar and made to wake people in the middle of the night.
Click to expand...

The insurance company is Aviva, they are contactable 24 hours a day!
 
It's really not that hard to grasp.

1) Producers are very rarely issued for insurance
2) The Veh would have shown as not insured, no keeper details, in trade, out of area previous keeper details - are you really suggesting a producer should be issued to someone where there are no confirmed R/O details for followup should the person claiming to be the owner not come in with the producer?

Not to mention 'yeah its covered by 7 day insurance by nephews trader policy that i dont have a copy of, honest guv'

I honestly cant think of anything that would make that seem a logical set of circumstances to issue a producer!
 
Shimmyhill said:
It's really not that hard to grasp.

1) Producers are very rarely issued for insurance
2) The Veh would have shown as not insured, no keeper details, in trade, out of area previous keeper details - are you really suggesting a producer should be issued to someone where there are no confirmed R/O details for followup should the person claiming to be the owner not come in with the producer?

Not to mention 'yeah its covered by 7 day insurance by nephews trader policy that i dont have a copy of, honest guv'

I honestly cant think of anything that would make that seem a logical set of circumstances to issue a producer!
Click to expand...

Yea, absolutely a producer should have been issued, it worked for 30 years.

He proved who he was so hes not going anywhere, give the man a producer.

I suppose you would have called for a tow truck and wasted another 500 quid of tax payers money towing and storing it instead. Top man.
 
DiamondMark said:
Yea, absolutely a producer should have been issued, it worked for 30 years.

He proved who he was so hes not going anywhere, give the man a producer.

I suppose you would have called for a tow truck and wasted another 500 quid of tax payers money towing and storing it instead. Top man.
Click to expand...

It didn't work thats why we have MID (paid for by insurance companies)

Tow truck would only be called if he couldn't show a valid insurance cert, at that point its paid for by the driver - no tax payers money wasted!

I honestly dont get it - prove you have insurance - he did and all is ok. Waking someone up is inconvenient but its the drivers problem not the Police - if he had insurance document that he is legally obliged to have then there is no issue. The title should be 'Some people who dont have insurance certs... a load of*********!'

I know its annoying that a traffic cop stopping a car (no doubt showing ANPR no insurance) and asking them to prove they are insured is a dereliction of duty and that they should be in the Police station filling out paperwork instead but lets cut them some slack ehh!
 
Shimmyhill said:
It's really not that hard to grasp.

1) Producers are very rarely issued for insurance
2) The Veh would have shown as not insured, no keeper details, in trade, out of area previous keeper details - are you really suggesting a producer should be issued to someone where there are no confirmed R/O details for followup should the person claiming to be the owner not come in with the producer?

Not to mention 'yeah its covered by 7 day insurance by nephews trader policy that i dont have a copy of, honest guv'

I honestly cant think of anything that would make that seem a logical set of circumstances to issue a producer!
Click to expand...

Insurance was through Aviva, nothing to do with my traders policy.

I even offered the PO the insurance policy number and phone number over the phone.

He had his driving licence with him in his current address, he had various letters etc inc bank statements with him.

Imagine if he had just bought insurance that night through an online company, he'd have been covered straight away but no covernote for at least 2-3 days - what would the police have done then?
 
Gaygle said:
No...no it didn't? Which is why they bought in the power to seize uninsured vehicles...

Personally, i think it is one of the best powers the police have been given.
Click to expand...

Im all for seizing uninsured vehicles, but do wait till its been proven.

This bloke had his driving license and a reasonable excuse, i just dont see why a producer couldnt have been given.

Sure if they cant prove his identity then drag it away, but not in those circumstances.
 
Maz said:
Police refused to do so, I even offered them the 24 hour number and policy number over the phone but they wanted paper proof.
Click to expand...

Now that is pretty lame! Paper proof backed by phone call is usual.

Maz said:
Insurance was through Aviva, nothing to do with my traders policy.

I even offered the PO the insurance policy number and phone number over the phone.

He had his driving licence with him in his current address, he had various letters etc inc bank statements with him.

Imagine if he had just bought insurance that night through an online company, he'd have been covered straight away but no covernote for at least 2-3 days - what would the police have done then?
Click to expand...

In theory called insurance company ;) If the policy is in his name calling Aviva and asking would be the normal course!

I'd complain if i were you ;)
 
Shimmyhill said:
It didn't work thats why we have MID (paid for by insurance companies)

Tow truck would only be called if he couldn't show a valid insurance cert, at that point its paid for by the driver - no tax payers money wasted!

I honestly dont get it - prove you have insurance - he did and all is ok. Waking someone up is inconvenient but its the drivers problem not the Police - if he had insurance document that he is legally obliged to have then there is no issue. The title should be 'Some people who dont have insurance certs... a load of*********!'

I know its annoying that a traffic cop stopping a car (no doubt showing ANPR no insurance) and asking them to prove they are insured is a dereliction of duty and that they should be in the Police station filling out paperwork instead but lets cut them some slack ehh!
Click to expand...

I've been stopped on many occasions at all times of the night, because I have a traders policy it's my responsibility to make sure I update MID, and I'm not obliged to update MID unless the car is in my possesion for over two weeks.

Never have I been forced to prove that I have insurance on the spot, always just been given producers and the latest being about 4 weeks ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom