Seen a lot of talk about this today . People are welcoming the decision with open arms . It raises a question or two .

If you are stopped and found to be just under the limit in England you are ok , but drive north and get stopped again ten mins later you could be just over their limit and you are going to get a ban . If you are below the English limit , but over the Scot one , will you be banned from driving in England ?

The biggest point they keep making is that ONE out of every SEVEN deaths on Scottish roads is caused by drunk drivers . That means you are SEVEN times more likely to die on a road in Scotland in an accident involving a sober driver . Wouldn't they be better off targeting the other six drivers instead of the one that has had a beer or three
Just asking .

As a resident of Bradford, which for many years has had several postal districts at the pinnacle of the annual Uninsured vehicles list, with many tens of thousands of perennially uninsured cars, i don't know why you would think I need "sources" on the endemic problem of uninsured driving. I don't, I have access to more than you could shake a stick at, thanks.

You answer your own question that you raise. Like any offence, the trade-off is the risk of getting caught, and the likely penalty. It is trite to state that these are almost useless to deter uninsured driving, which is endemic not just in Bradford but in the country. Uninsured drivers are indeed a blight on society, but then so are (for example) drug dealers, yet drugs are more endemic than uninsured driving. And you can't simply lock half the population up (and even if you did it's easier to get drugs in prison than outside, though tbf you can't drive in Armley).

If you have a workable policy to change this let's hear it, though I'm not sure what your point actually is.

Can they take and crush your car if found to be driving it with no insurance? That'd be a decent deterrant.

Quote: Errlee Berd "Can they take and crush your car if found to be driving it with no insurance? That'd be a decent deterrant.'" Indeed they can, and do. here's just one example: www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northwes ... cars.shtml I don't know how much of n overall deterrent it is, though; many of the cars aren't worth much and so you mightsay that the risk of having your £300 Astra crushed is worth taking to save on the £5000 cost of a policy? That article suggests that as a result of the crackdown maybe 20,000 extra insurance policies were taken out in the area, so it's all good, and i applaud the campaign, but that would still leave the vast majority of uninsured drivers demonstrably not really bothered. stayinsured.askmid.com/seized.html

Quote: Errlee Berd "Can they take and crush your car if found to be driving it with no insurance? That'd be a decent deterrant.'" Indeed they can, and do. here's just one example: www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/northwes ... cars.shtml I don't know how much of n overall deterrent it is, though; many of the cars aren't worth much and so you mightsay that the risk of having your £300 Astra crushed is worth taking to save on the £5000 cost of a policy? That article suggests that as a result of the crackdown maybe 20,000 extra insurance policies were taken out in the area, so it's all good, and i applaud the campaign, but that would still leave the vast majority of uninsured drivers demonstrably not really bothered. stayinsured.askmid.com/seized.html

Far as I know Ring of Steel ran with a lot of success, but whether it was time limited you'd have to ask the police. Having set up all the cameras i very much doubt they'd take them all out, but do't know.

It obviously couldn't even begin to monitor "every road into the city" though - there's just too many. The main arterial routes were covered and maybe a couple more A roads. Besides which I should think if you know where any given camera is, then it's pretty easy to not drive past it. Also the cameras can do nothing about cars on false plates.