Caught speeding?

Ok I said I would not argue the issue but for the benefit of others i will state some facts based on professional experience so please dont take this as a rant toward anyone here .

Saying that your vehicle was being driven by someone at the time of the offence, but, being unsure who that person was never will lead to or has anything to do with perverting the course of justice.

If you lie and thereby prevent or mislead an investigation then you are perverting the course of justice...no ifs, no buts! Despite common myths you will be required to provide this information it is not a get out clause!

Yes some people do it and yes some get away with it but if there is doubt there, no matter where that doubt originates from, it will be investigated and you may get caught out! The outcome of this is not worth the hassle for trying to avoid 3pts and a fine IMHO!

It is down to the police to prove you are guilty.

The police DO NOT have to prove you guilty! They provide the evidence that goes to a court that may deem you guilty of an offence if proven beyond reasonable doubt. (excluding reprimands andcautions that can be administered at apolice station if the person accused admits guilt to an offence).

The Police have to prove "beyond resonable doubt" that it was you in control of the vehicle at the time of the incident.

If you don't know who was in control you don't have to implicate yourself.

If you don't know, then you are not lying.

Originally Posted by P-J

The police DO NOT have to prove you guilty! They provide the evidence that goes to a court that may deem you guilty of an offence if proven beyond reasonable doubt. (excluding reprimands and cautions that can be administered at apolice station if the person accused admits guilt to an offence).

Alright, they don't have to prove you are guilty, but, they have to prove b.r.d. that it was you and not someone else. If the officer present at the time of the incident can not, then, you don't have to incriminate yourself by saying it was you

I am not trying to argue with you P.J., but, are you or do you know a Police officer or are you a solicitor or lawyer?

I know an officer very well (he has been in the police for over 29 years) and I have asked him about this issue many-a-time, everytime it comes down to the same point, if they (the police) can not prove "beyond resonable doubt" who was in control of the vehicle, then they can not procescute, not even the registered owner of the vehicle in question.

This would be very dangerous territory to be going into. Trust me on this the evidence would be sought and highly likely found.

Like I said before its a free choice to everyone but i would not recommend it.

No you dont have to incriminate yourself but someone was riding/driving that vehicle at that time on that road! If not you then who? People who try this route get tripped up very quickly! Unless you know WHERE to exploit the system you will probably fail miserably!

In my experience its far better to take the points and fine.

The prime example is a husband and wife who drive the same car, if via the evidence presented by the police it can not be sourced to the likely driver of the vehicle, the request is made from the "offending party" to who was driving at the time of the incident, if the "offending party" can not categorically prove which of them was driving they do not have to admit who was driving at the time if they do not know.

My insurance for my bike allows me to ride anyone else’s, so, there is a chance I could be caught by a camera while out riding said vehicle. But, if I can't remember exactly where and when I took the vehicle and my friend can not remember either, we do not have to incriminate ourselves to aid the police's investigation

[Messie]

Originally Posted by Cymraeg_Atodeg

The prime example is a husband and wife who drive the same car, if via the evidence presented by the police it can not be sourced to the likely driver of the vehicle, the request is made from the "offending party" to who was driving at the time of the incident, if the "offending party" can not categorically prove which of them was driving they do not have to admit who was driving at the time if they do not know.

My insurance for my bike allows me to ride anyone else’s, so, there is a chance I could be caught by a camera while out riding said vehicle. But, if I can't remember exactly where and when I took the vehicle and my friend can not remember either, we do not have to incriminate ourselves to aid the police's investigation

I can see that the husband and wife scenario may have some legitimacy, where one car is driven by both.

However this is not the case you seemed to be implying here. In this case it was have a look around to see who else 'could' - nudge nudge, wink, wink - have been riding your bike. I may be wrong, but I think that's what PJ is getting at. This would clearly be perjury and the police would have a good reason to check out the story. That's where the likelihood of getting caught out lies, quite rightly.

[skeetly]

I thought it was like this:
You don't get prosecuted by the police. They enforce the law.
Its the courts that prosecute you and they need evidence to do this.
The evidence here is a speed camera van film and a written note recording the plate.
That proves that a bike with that plate was exceeding the speed limit at that time.

It's at this point that I think that we arrive at the real problem people have with speed cameras.
In the old days you would have been stopped by a real policeman and known you'd been done.

As regards the 'dont know who was driving' issue.
If hovis had a pal with identical leathers who rode his bike and they swapped frequently during ride oputs he could quite properly say he was not sure who was riding and the onus would be on the courts to prove which rider it was.
As it is; the courts seem to be able to say *you* have to prove it wasn't you riding.
This would not happen if you had actually been stopped instead of having your bike photographed.

Edit: I am NOT reccomending this as a course of action BTW.
Just a bit sore about it all after being the one half of the 'husband and wife' situation last christmas....

Cymraeg Atodeg

Yep I understand your point and these issues do arise daily. However the owner/registered keeper has an obligation within the law to be responsible for that vehicle regardless as to who is driving/has possesion of it. Not as serious as it appears but it is the case for a reason.

Now put yourself in a police officers/staffs shoes... A vehicle has been clocked via speed trap in excess of the speed limit. The NIP is sent out and it comes back stating that the registered keeper does not know who was driving, sorry cant help you and I wont incriminate myself! I am sure you dont believe that they will sit back and go " Alrght then Mr/Mrs Smith i wont bother investigating this motoring offence"

The system ain't that easy to fool! It exists for a reason and not to be abused!
If you get caught then you man up and take the punishment! Whips and all (far more bearable than marriage )

Skeetly you have my symathies and agreement! Yes more blue on the streets physically stopping vehicles would be the way forward thats a fact! Speed cameras dont catch the drink/drug driver, uninsured or general numpty behind the wheel but they do have some uses.....give me time to come up with some other than revenue

[skeetly]

Originally Posted by P-J

However the owner/registered keeper has an obligation within the law to be responsible for that vehicle regardless as to who is driving/has possesion of it. Not as serious as it appears but it is the case for a reason.

Really?
I'm pretty sure it's the driver at the time that has to be responsible.
Imagine the fun lawyers would have if the registered owner was actually responsible.
Where is this law and how does it define this responsibility?

The registered keeper of the vehicle is at all time responsible for it's where abouts and its law abiding-ness... But, in a case where there registered keeper has given permission for someone else to drive the vehicle (i.e. a friend/partner etc) it then falls to them, but, it is down to the police to prove who was driving the car at the time of the incident, not the registered keeper

[21QUEST]

Originally Posted by Cymraeg_Atodeg

Saying that your vehicle was being driven by someone at the time of the offence, but, being unsure who that person was never will lead to or has anything to do with perverting the course of justice.

I won't argue about this as I know a Police Officer very well and he advices me on such issues.

The officer at the time of the incident can not prove "beyond resonable doubt" that it was you riding/driving the vehicle in question if he was sat in a van.

It is down to the police to prove you are guilty.

Jesus on a Cross ...that is all



Ben