Handed to you on a plate

Viv Nicholas, European Secure Vehicle Alliance, and Neal Skelton, ITS United Kingdom, looks into abuses of the vehicle registration mark system

A distinguished panel of Parliamentarians and transport experts attended a joint forum held by European Secure Vehicle Alliance and ITS United Kingdom in the House of Lords in early February. They discussed whether or not there was a case for a radical change in the UK’s existing vehicle ‘number plate’, or more accurately, vehicle registration mark (VRM) manufacturing and distribution system.
    
The forum, chaired by Professor Gloria Laycock of the Jill Dando Institute, examined this topic from the viewpoint of a number of stakeholders and invited a number of speakers to represent their organisation’s opinions. Trevor Hall, the Secretary to the ACPO Road Policing Enforcement Technology Committee and National Safety Camera Co-ordinator, was broadly critical of the current system and the relative ease in which illegal plates can be acquired. Kevin Eastwood, Executive Director, British Oil Security Syndicate Ltd, expressed the petrol retailers’ view and provided details of the losses incurred by their industry from ‘drive-off’ type offences that were linked to the display of false or stolen registration marks.
    
John Mason, Deputy Director, Congestion Charging and Traffic Enforcement for Transport for London, gave details of the compliance rate with the Congestion Charge Penalty Notices generated through ANPR systems and was critical of the current VRM system but balanced this by quoting, from official statistics, that the overwhelming law-abiding majority complied with the Penalty Notice requirements. This prompted Neal Skelton from ITS United Kingdom to comment that it was sensible to focus on where weaknesses in current systems can be identified but emphasised that response must be proportionate given the current high compliance levels.

National ANPR infrastructure
The concerns were, however, made more apparent owing to the development of the national ANPR infrastructure whose significant value may be prejudiced through the lack of systemic integrity. This has far-reaching implications when combined with increased thefts of ‘number plates’, potentially as high as 100,000 per annum, and increases in their illegal use as a result. Regardless of any changes to the existing system it is appreciated that determined criminals will always find ways to ‘beat the system’ therefore it is essential to ensure that any proposals for change could be fully justified and are based on proof that the proposed changes would bring about the desired results.
    
Many ITS technologies, especially the charging and enforcement systems, are reliant upon accurate identification of the vehicles and the best way to achieve this is through the visual marker – i.e. the registration mark. Vehicle registration started as an arbitrary system in 1903 when the UK’s vehicle fleet was miniscule but as there are an estimated 33 million vehicles on the UK’s roads there are concerns that the lack of accurate records undermines the true value of the registration system.
    
Even if 99 per cent of vehicle owners comply with the legislation this would still mean that a minimum of 1 per cent are non-compliant. This broadly equates to 300,000 road users but this number may be far greater if offences such as ‘driver licence details being inaccurate due to changes of address’ are included. This situation is unlikely to change until core-police requirements place a higher emphasis on enforcing non-compliance of ‘number plates’; however, making such offences endorseable might prove useful in reducing the overall scale of the problem.

Combating crime
There is a proven evidential base that habitual criminals also routinely commit traffic offences supporting the belief that the scale of vehicle ‘cloning’ and the marketability of stolen plates are probably far greater than generally recognised. The secure fitting of self-destructing ‘number plates’ as a theft deterrent would go some way towards countering this problem.
    
As far as many manufacturers are concerned the current system equates a ‘number plate’ as a mere vehicle accessory; this is an unacceptable state for an identification that has the equivalent of a passport for a vehicle. There are in excess of 40,000 suppliers within the UK and this provides a strong case for a far more secure system.
    
Reducing the number of manufacturers and suppliers to less than ten increases the security exponentially and consideration should be given to the Swedish approach to vehicle registration, which has a single source of ‘number plate’ manufacture. Scandinavian experience places a high premium on security associated with all aspects of design whilst simplifying manufacture and supply to take advantage of issues that make it easier to detect any forgeries.

Increasing compliance
‘Number plates’ offer an overt signal of compliance thereby allowing attention to be directed at targeting non-compliant vehicle owners and drivers through ‘Designing Out Crime’ initiatives that focus on creating well designed products and associated systems that have the propensity to be ‘self enforcing’. In turn these products reduce the requirement for enforcement by police, trading standards and DVLA staff and by incorporating features such as the vehicle’s VIN number and make, model and colour make it even more difficult to replicate, especially if RFID technologies are integrated at some stage in the future. The underlying message is that increasing ‘number plate’ legitimacy enhances security and confidence in the system and helps foster and engender widespread compliance.  
    
Having identified the current malaise in the VRM system the forum agreed that it was imperative that the Department of Transport (DfT) was made officially aware of the concerns. As a consequence a meeting was subsequently convened in early March 2009 with DfT officials to discuss the scope and opportunity for developing a more robust VRM system than currently exists.
    
The stakeholders’ opinions were reinforced with an overview of the inadequacy of the current supply and an associated perspective that the inherent weaknesses and loopholes make enforcement against non-compliant suppliers virtually irrelevant. However, any improvements of security features in the manufactured product such as ‘watermarking’ and more ‘standard’ ways of more securely fixing registration marks need to ensure that they are at a relatively low cost to consumers.
    
The DfT were conscious of the concerns expressed and accepted that need to actively consider the issues given by the stakeholders. The DfT’s intention is to present an internal submission to the Minister with a view to a formal consultation process with the VRM industrial contacts during the summer months followed by an evaluation of the findings in early autumn.
    
In many motorists’ minds the existing VRM system is fine, and until individuals suffer as a result of theft, fraudulent use or ‘cloning’ of a VRM they remain blissfully unaware of the anguish and inconvenience that they will endure. The maxim ‘once bitten – twice shy’ applies perfectly to this situation as a VRM-victim knows only too well. Proportionate changes to the VRM system that encourage proactive crime prevention by eradicating or minimising VRM offences will ensure public acceptance and support.