patently Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 This is not prompted by a nasty letter on my mat (honest!). I'm aware that the drill is that Plod writes to the registered keeper and asks them to name the driver at the time of the offence. Failure to do so is an offence in itself. Then assuming the driver is someone else, Plod writes to the driver notifying them of an intent to prosecute. Does anyone know what happens if, say, I am the RK and say it was my mate Dave. He gets the NIP and denies it, saying it was me. Assume we are both insured for the car. I am not liable for failure to name the driver, because I have done so and Plod can't prove otherwise. In respect of the speeding offence, Plod only has my word against Dave's that he was the driver, and his word against mine that I was the driver. If both of us maintain our story then neither can be prosecuted, surely? Likewise, one of us is lying and is liable for prosecution either for perjury or perverting the course of justice, but Plod has no evidence as to which one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_s3 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Knowing Plod, they will do both of you for the offence and both of you for wasting their time....... w4nkers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted January 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 But ... only one of us is guilty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_s3 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I am sure they (filth) won't let a small point like that get in the way of their intended prosecution! I am only guessing by the way!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazdot Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I am sure they (filth) [/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ] w4nkers! [/ QUOTE ] No need really is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daz Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Yeah no need for that sort of language - we have very helpful police persons on the forum and they don't appreciate being spoken about like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_s3 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I am sure they (filth) [/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ] w4nkers! [/ QUOTE ] No need really is there? [/ QUOTE ] Agh, yes there is actually! Thank you for your concern though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_s3 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Yeah no need for that sort of language - we have very helpful police persons on the forum and they don't appreciate being spoken about like that. [/ QUOTE ] Oh i am sorry, am i not allowed an opinion??? Free country and all that................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve2 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 what we are saying is dont tar them all with the same brush, Obviously we do not know the exact circumstances of what is going on so perhaps you would like to enliten us as to why you are so annoyed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daz Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 You can have an opinion just tone your language down a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shark_90 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 jules - free country, moderated forum. Keep your views to yourself. patently - they will have a picture mate. And trust me, it will be easily printed on an A4 sheet of paper, in full colour, and the driver will be easily identified. I asked for a picture as one of my fleet's drivers had 9 points and with the conviction it would have been 12. Sure enough, there he is clear as a bell, leaning on his arm. I could even make out the colour of the stripes on his tie without squinting. I hope your query was hypothetical, otherwise either you or your name "Dave" are going to take it I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_s3 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 [ QUOTE ] what we are saying is dont tar them all with the same brush, Obviously we do not know the exact circumstances of what is going on so perhaps you would like to enliten us as to why you are so annoyed [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough, point taken! I won't bore you with the details, but it's not an opinion that has been formed over night!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_s3 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 [ QUOTE ] You can have an opinion just tone your language down a bit. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, message received & understood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_s3 Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 [ QUOTE ] jules - free country, moderated forum. Keep your views to yourself. [/ QUOTE ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] what we are saying is dont tar them all with the same brush, Obviously we do not know the exact circumstances of what is going on so perhaps you would like to enliten us as to why you are so annoyed [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough, point taken! I won't bore you with the details, but it's not an opinion that has been formed over night!!! [/ QUOTE ] ....Why not "bore" us with the details? Who knows, we might all learn something and you might even feel more tolerant or understanding of the police as a result, possibly not, but it sounds as if you have some serious issues to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenjaminTDI Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 patently i think you need to give a bit more detail as to what you are asking about before anyone can give you any pointers. i.e was it a truvelo/gatso/mobile? what speed was it? etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patently Posted January 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I hope your query was hypothetical, otherwise either you or your name "Dave" are going to take it I'm afraid. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] patently i think you need to give a bit more detail as to what you are asking about before anyone can give you any pointers. i.e was it a truvelo/gatso/mobile? what speed was it? etc [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it was hypothetical. No, really. See line 1 of the post. I don't actually recommend it as a course of action, of course, as it involves an outright lie and I wouldn't be happy to do that. I could also face serious professional problems if I was done for perverting the course of justice, and that would hurt me a lot more than a speeding fine. Plan 'A' is still to drive safely, Plan 'B' is to avoid getting flashed/filmed/whatever, and there is no Plan 'C' yet! I'm just curious - if it doesn't work, why not? If it does work, why are people with fewer scruples still accepting fines? Maybe they're not! I suspect the quality of the photo is relevant though, as mentioned - thanks shark. Perhaps in a few years time the only people left with driving licences will be identical twins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chazzy Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I suspect the quality of the photo is relevant though, as mentioned - thanks shark. Perhaps in a few years time the only people left with driving licences will be identical twins [/ QUOTE ] And people who don't speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilp Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Back to the question: Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act says that the vehicles Registered Keeper has a legal obligation to identify the driver, in order to do this he must use reasonable dilligence. In your scenario a court may find that you (hypothetically of course!) have not used reasonable dilligence to sucesfully identify the driver so you could be held accountable for the offence. this is being seen more and more with Company Pool cars and companies are being told to keep records of who had the car at what time, it has been known that company directors have picked up points and a fine when there's been a dispute over who's driving as the company held no records. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mb Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 [ QUOTE ] I am sure they (filth) won't let a small point like that get in the way of their intended prosecution! I am only guessing by the way!!! [/ QUOTE ] This is a defence that is often used & I am sure is being used by the 6 "gentlemen" charged with kidnap/murder etc. in the news - only 1 person must have shot her but if all deny it was them gets very difficult to prove unless there is additional evidence (in this case the photo ?) Of course with these defenses you are seamlessly moving outside of motoring law & into the realms of criminal prosecution, tempting as it is far harder to get a job with "perverting the course of justice" on your CV than a driving ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenny007 Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Jumping onto the picture side of this debate, something interesting happened at work last week. I was talking to a delivery driver from one of our wholesalers and he informed me that he had just been sent a letter stating he was being prosecuted for driving with undue care - basically they were stating he was filling in his delivery sheet whilst on the go. To back this up they kindly sent him the original photo from the mobile scamera which showed his van, the large windscreen and basically a black blur (due to the way the light was falling on the windscreen). As the killer point to the argument, they had blown up the picture to prove that he actually was writing whilst driving and yes, you've guessed it, a close up of the Transit's windscreen with a big black blur on it showing nothing.......... He paid the fine and took the points because he didn't want to put his job in jeopardy but if it had've been me, i'd have sent the letter and photo's back asking what exactly they proved. Anyway, going back to the original point, just because they have gotten a photo of the incident doesn't necessarily mean it shows the individual concerned. (Got there in the end). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRobin Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 He did very well to get sight of the photo - I thought that the fact that the authorities were usually extremely unwilling to show you their photo evidence was a subject of major controversy. Like you, I would have challenged it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now