Cheap off roader anyone ...

http://www.north-wales.police.uk/en/news/latest.asp?id=1052

"Off road bikes and equipment worth over £50,000 stolen"

 

The pikeys will have had them up to Liverpool and over the water to
Ireland by now.

 

Fucking 'ell

http://www.north-wales.police.uk/en/news/latest.asp?id=1049

How on earth can anyone justify this on the basis of a mickey mouse data
system.
Then again it makes sense to carry copies of all vehicle docs.

 

I hope the ID card database is a bit more accurate.

 

In

I posted this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/6236934.stm

a couple of days ago.

Amazing that even though she had insurance she still had to pay to have the
car back.

 

"This system is owned by the insurance industry. It is not a police
system and the police are not responsible for the data,"

In which case, they shouldn't be able to act upon the data in the first
instance.

 

I don't understand how the Police can say that something is suitable
as use as evidence for a crime and yet they can't be held responsible
if that evidence is wrong.

 

From the previous link "North Wales Police shares Mrs Parry’s concerns
about the inaccuracy that lead up to this incident and will be
cancelling the ticket, reimbursing the family and supporting them in
their efforts to get the insurance details recorded correctly. "

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

The trouble is that they've not sufficiently educated the driver as to
their own responsibility: if it was made clear that it was mandatory
to carry required documents, as it is in most other countries (well,
the two I live in, plus Germany that I know of, then this really
wouldn't be an issue.

And TBH, I can't see why anyone would object to the law being applied
like this; after all, it's not like it's a personal ID card or
anything...

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ

"You have twelve seconds to comply".

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Podium Placed Ducati Race Engineer as featured in
Performance Bikes and Fast Bikes

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (Falling apart) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Honda ST1100 wiv trailer

 

In

Wonder how much of that is attributable to the media getting involved
though?

 

In

The being left at the side of the road bit is the bit I *really* object to,
for the sake of someones clerical error any of us (as road users) could end
up miles from home in the same situation for no fault of our own. Then
expecting people to pay to have their vehicle back after the cock up is
rubbing salt into the wound. If plod are relying on the insurers database
for the info then as they should be the ones to claim any funds from the
insurers not expect the victims to cough. IMHO

Agreed, it's a totally trackable, traceable form of vehicle / person ID.

 

Not so. It's always been a requirement. The fact that it's not been
enforced, and that the 'producer' has become accepted, has never
altered the fact that you should theoretically have the documents with
you.

Look at it from the other angle - is it reasonable to require that a
motor vehicle user can show proof of insurance? I believe it is.

This doesn't mean I think the process currently being used is
satisfactory - far from it - but the underlying problem, of people not
having to carry docs, and therefore many of them getting away with
having no insurance, is not the fault of the new process.

I think it is. If I charter a yatch, it's reasonable that they ask for
my qualifications, if WUN wants to fly his new plane, he'll have to
submit his PPL for inspection; when you turn up at pahnd island for
the MGP you'll expect them to ask to see your ACU licence. Why should
road vehicles be any different?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Le plod.

 

Foreign law-makers, is who. You may get away with it some of the time,
but AFAIAA there's no exemption from the requirement to carry driving
and vehicle 'license' at all times when driving. They're very unlikely
to ask for insurance details, since in France that's always displayed
a bit like a tax disk and in CH and other countries it's included on
the vehicle license and/or is part of the state-issued plates.


--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

They wouldn't know an MOT if it but them. Most foreign plod will be
happy if you have driving licence and vehicle licence/V5. I've never
even been asked for insurance, for reasons explained earlier.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

To improve their reading English?
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

Teach a man to fish and he and his pikey mates will have the
river cleaned out in a day.