Caught speeding?

[skeetly]

Originally Posted by P-J

The system ain't that easy to fool!

I'd disagree. It's shortfalls as described earlier make it easy to fool.
It's also open to abuse by its enforcers for the same reason.
Plenty of instances where the speed camera robot policemam system has been found to be wrong.

I think you'll find that any lawyer worth their salt will ask you first if are 'sure' you were the one driving/riding and if there is 'any doubt' about who was driving/riding.
You can only be prosecuted if they can prove beyond reasonable doubt or (handily) if you own up.

At the end of the day speed limits are to prevent accidents; anyone exceeding them is simply 'breaking a law'. If they didn't actually cause an accident then they aren't really evil are they?
A 'trained' driver is allowed to break those limits in certain situations so the act of exceeding the speed limit isn't inherently evil IMO.
I bet a zoned in sports bike rider all charged up with adrenaline is less of a risk that some cough medicine sedated old biddy who cant see 20 yards even if he is doing 55. I wonder how short a distance a 'blade can stop from 55......

Bit daft doing 55 in a 30 mind with regards to keeping your license

[Red Herring]

The power for the police to require the keeper of a vehicle to disclose who was the driver at the time of an offence comes under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. The Act also goes on to say that the police can require any person (ie: not just the registered keeper) to give any information that will lead to the identification of the driver, so technically if they can show you were riding as a group they could try and get you to name each other...which might prove interesting! The only defence to S. 172 is if the person so required can show they did not know who the driver was and could not find out with reasonable diligence, however the onus is on you to prove you did not know, not for the police to prove you did.

[skeetly]

Originally Posted by Cymraeg_Atodeg

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

After posting that I thought about insurance and MOT's etc....

[skeetly]

Originally Posted by Red Herring

The power for the police to require the keeper of a vehicle to disclose who was the driver at the time of an offence comes under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. The Act also goes on to say that the police can require any person (ie: not just the registered keeper) to give any information that will lead to the identification of the driver, so technically if they can show you were riding as a group they could try and get you to name each other...which might prove interesting! The only defence to S. 172 is if the person so required can show they did not know who the driver was and could not find out with reasonable diligence, however the onus is on you to prove you did not know, not for the police to prove you did.

Eek.

Originally Posted by Red Herring

The power for the police to require the keeper of a vehicle to disclose who was the driver at the time of an offence comes under Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. The Act also goes on to say that the police can require any person (ie: not just the registered keeper) to give any information that will lead to the identification of the driver, so technically if they can show you were riding as a group they could try and get you to name each other...which might prove interesting! The only defence to S. 172 is if the person so required can show they did not know who the driver was and could not find out with reasonable diligence, however the onus is on you to prove you did not know, not for the police to prove you did.

The road traffic act 1980 (?) requires the Police officer at the time of offence to give reasonable grounds who he believes was in control of the vehicle at the time of the offence, it is after all down to the police to charge one person with the offence caused by said vehicle, but, if the Police can not prove who was driving the vehicle and can not gain significant evidence to prove who was in control of the vehicle (and no, the registered keeper does not have to say who was driving if they do not know.)

It all come back to the police being able to prove "beyond reasonable doubt."

If they have a photo of the vehicle, but, from the photo not enough evidence can be garnered to ascertain who was in control then who ever could have been in control does not have to implicate themselves.

Hi Skeetly

To be honest it would take a lifetime to explain the many different ways the law can be applied and here is not the best place to discuss it all but I will try with an example of what could be used in a hypothetical situation...

A vehicle is involved in a motoring incident, Lets say for argument sake failing to stop at an accident with witnesses.
The Police make enquiries and turn up on the registered keepers (RK)address who is responsible for the vehicle which is parked outside the house.The registration and description fit so they make enquiries. The registered keeper states that they dont know who was using the vehicle at the time! The first question a police officer would be asking is why dont they? They RK may respond with a lot of people have access to the keys, but then you have a further offence of whoever was driving had taken the vehicle without the owners explicit consent ie TWOC!
The RK may give the name of the driver and further enquiries may show they dont have the relevant insurance. Now you have the RK permitting an uninsured driver to drive their vehicle and another driver driving uninsured!!!!
Or the RK can still stand by their guns and say it wasn't me I have no idea and still be pursued for the original offence and possibly withholding evidence/wasting police time/Perverting the course of justice depending how the investigation goes and how zealous an officer is!!!!

I know.....A bit heavy isn't it but I just want to show to all that the law was not written by idiots! Loopholes are few and far between and when they do show up they are rapidly closed! Those celebrity solicitors get paid a fortune because they have immense knowledge of the law and how to exploit it!

I must also add something that was said to me that I pass on daily...."You maybe the greatest,most confident and safest driver on the road all the time in any conditions.....But the idiot next to you probably isn't" As bikers this is even more apparent we know from experience of the morons on the road! Excess speed is excess speed regardless! Im no angel, far from it,but appropriate use of speed is acceptable in the right circumstances....but never in a 30!!!

There are loop-holes in the law that are constantly trying to be closed, but, there is always the recourse of proving who was driving "beyond resonable doubt."

If the RK says anyone can drive their car and they have valid insurance then the car can not be TWOC, but, it is down to the RK to make sure whoever is driving is allowed to do so

[Red Herring]

Originally Posted by Cymraeg_Atodeg

The road traffic act 1980 (?) requires the Police officer at the time of offence to give reasonable grounds who he believes was in control of the vehicle at the time of the offence, it is after all down to the police to charge one person with the offence caused by said vehicle, but, if the Police can not prove who was driving the vehicle and can not gain significant evidence to prove who was in control of the vehicle (and no, the registered keeper does not have to say who was driving if they do not know.)

It all come back to the police being able to prove "beyond reasonable doubt."

If they have a photo of the vehicle, but, from the photo not enough evidence can be garnered to ascertain who was in control then who ever could have been in control does not have to implicate themselves.

It's the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Section 172 exists specifically so that the police do not have to prove who was driving at the time of a specific offence, it shifts the responsibility onto the keeper, or anyone else the police can show has information that can identify the driver, and it also specifically transfers the onus of proof onto them as well. In other words, if the police can show that you have knowledge as to who the driver was it is up to you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you don't know, and could not have reasonably ascertained, who the driver was.

[skeetly]

Originally Posted by P-J

Hi Skeetly

To be honest it would take a lifetime to explain the many different ways the law can be applied and here is not the best place to discuss it all but I will try with an example of what could be used in a hypothetical situation...

A vehicle is involved in a motoring incident, Lets say for argument sake failing to stop at an accident with witnesses.
The Police make enquiries and turn up on the registered keepers (RK)address who is responsible for the vehicle which is parked outside the house.The registration and description fit so they make enquiries. The registered keeper states that they dont know who was using the vehicle at the time! The first question a police officer would be asking is why dont they? They RK may respond with a lot of people have access to the keys, but then you have a further offence of whoever was driving had taken the vehicle without the owners explicit consent ie TWOC!
The RK may give the name of the driver and further enquiries may show they dont have the relevant insurance. Now you have the RK permitting an uninsured driver to drive their vehicle and another driver driving uninsured!!!!
Or the RK can still stand by their guns and say it wasn't me I have no idea and still be pursued for the original offence and possibly withholding evidence/wasting police time/Perverting the course of justice depending how the investigation goes and how zealous an officer is!!!!

I know.....A bit heavy isn't it but I just want to show to all that the law was not written by idiots! Loopholes are few and far between and when they do show up they are rapidly closed! Those celebrity solicitors get paid a fortune because they have immense knowledge of the law and how to exploit it!

I know what you're getting at but there does sssm to be some special dispensation where speed cameras are involved.
Your example above is where someone has suffered a real loss and someone *is* breaking the law by not being insured.

I have 2 vehicles registered to me that can be driven by 3 other people.
They may drive those vehicles at any time they wish.
I myself have similar permission on 2 other vehicles not registered to myself.
Sometimes it's impossible for the registered keeper to know who was riving at a particular time.
I bet hire cars where there are two named drivers can be fun when there is speeding offence.


In my own case at Christmas there were 3 possible drivers and I took the hit as I was told that they 'may' question the people who could prove why we couldnt tell; 3 sets of extremely elderly relatives.
None of that would have happened if the driver had been pulled over by the police.

I'm not condoning speeding or avoiding the penalties. I'm questioning the way its done and the attitude its nurturing amonst the public.

I know a friend of mine that got out of a speeding offense while driving a hire car. They got a letter through the post from the police saying that they had been named as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offense by the rental company. They just denied that it was them driving at that time. The case was dropped.

Maybe sometimes the coppers can't be bothered to follow it up. Take your chances i guess