Nearly A Boat Question!!

[hlb]

Whilst visiting the boat in Plymouth. (Said it was nearly a boat question!)
I had a photo taken by one of those nice new camera's
they stick at the side of the road these days.
Lovely photo of my car wizzing along. Very impresive!!

Now the question is. Was'nt there some thing in the news a month or two ago, about a copper who got of with it cos he could not remember who was driving.
Could have been me or wife driving Honest!!


Haydn

 

[Geoffs]

I don't think you'll get away with that one, a copper might but not us mortals. Like Jack Straw's police driver 'booked' for doing 105 on M5. He got off, but would you or I, I don't think so!

There was a scam a while back, whereby you sent a cheque for one pound more than the fixed penalty, and no license. This threw computers into a frenzy, and they had to send a cheque for 1 pound back. Apparently if you didn't cash that cheque they never bothered you again. You paid the fine but didn't get the 3 points. For regulars, that's important!

A few people got away with it, but when my ex got done recently the fixed penalty notice insisted on exact amount, otherwise court action. Looks like they've caught up with that one.

Sorry Haydn, but I think you'll have to pay up and take the points. I've just got rid of mine after 4 years.

 

[boatone]

Did they actually send you a copy of the photo then?

boatone@boatsonthethames.co.uk

 

[KevB]

Have a look at this web site, it may have info on how to get away with it.

Worth a try.

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Home/Menu1.htm

 

[byron]

If you can't genuinely answer the question Haydn then don't. I thought under the Brussel Sprouts we had something where we don't have to incriminate ourselves, rather like the USA's
5th Amendment.


ô¿ô
www.education-jobs.co.uk
www.alexander-advertising.co.uk

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Haydn, you dont say whether you've received a summons or not? If you've just seen a double flash in your rear view mirror, like as not the camera was out of film and you wont get done. If you do get a summons, then you have to inform Plod who was driving and since the photo will be of the rear end of your car, it could be anyone, could'nt it? In fact, if a number of drivers use your car, you could probably still make a case that you dont know who was driving but you'll probably have to go to court to prove it. Its probably better and depending on whose licence is more valuable to persaude SWMBO to take the rap; some form of bribery may assist.
If your vehicle is company owned then you have other options; for example I am aware of a certain company who happen to have a director who is an overseas resident. Oddly enough, it's always this director who is driving when any speeding or parking summonses happen to drop thru' the door and, according to my information, Plod never bothers to pursue the case further

 

[Will_M]

Does anyone read the Topgear car mag…

In the November addition, inside the back cover Jeremy Clarkson writes an article, this month about speeding cameras in I think Holland. In the article is a web address which details the motorist’s displeasure at these 8L00DY THINGS! and shows how, out there people are fighting back.

Apparently some incensed motorist targets a given camera, paints it pink and shortly after it is destroyed normaly through the use of f’ing great big fire works…!!!!!

Great….

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

The bloke caught doing 120mph in a Fiesta (see real life examples) ought to be given a medal for bravery not a ban!

 

[Guest]

Re: expert assistance

You must provide full details of the driver. You may have a picture of the driver? No? The name and last known address of the driver is Marie-Louise Leverbre, 1022 Rue de la Republique, Aix en Provence, CEDEX13100, France, and was your au pair/housekeeper at the time in question.

 

[stewart]

time limits

Had the same thing about 10 days ago, but nothing through the post yet. Is there a time limit for them to write to you?

 

[Guest]

Re: time limits

I know of no such time limit for a prosecution. Normally the things come thru inside a couple of months. 10 days wd be quite quick. In the case of your vehicle, I think you said that your au pair/home help was a student, Anne-Marie Boulouris, aged 23, date of birth 22-03-78, address 1034 Boulevard de la Republique, 06402 CANNES CEDEX, France.

 

[markc]

Re: time limits

As I understand it, the Police have 6 months to procecute on speeding - same with parking tickets.

 

[markc]

someone in the office tried the 'i'm not sure it was me' thing as it was a company car and anyone can drive. However, when I spoke to the Police as company representative, after a few letters, the police told me very kindly - "You should have no problem identifiying the driver, the photo was taken from the front" Doh!!! The photo was so clear you could have seen if he had brushed his teeth in the morning!!

He also tried the £1 extra thingy - that didn't work either!

If you and your wife share the driving, how can they prove who was at the wheel at the time if the photo was taken from behind? I'd give it a try

M

 

[Geoffs]

Re: expert assistance

I think you'll find that if the driver is unidentified or unreachable the registered keeper of the vehicle becomes liable for fine and points. Not fair, I know, but since when has the law been fair.

That's why it is not unknown for a sibling to be the registered keeper, you don't have to have a driving license to be the registered keeper. Fine has to be paid, but if they ain't got a license, no points. Unless they can keep them as credit for, if and when, sibling gets a license.

So if Mdme Levebre was driving, I don't think it will help.

 

[hlb]

Re: Up Dates.

Like matt said you just get a. Who was driving it form and hung drawn and quartered if you dont tell them.

And no I'm still waiting for the nice picture.

And web site's crap. It just says plead guilty!!!

What happens if I use Matts girlfriend in Paris.

Or Binladin co. Talisban Afganistan ??

A mate is a rep for a large firm and they have a notice up so they can flog points to thoughs that have'nt got any. Or the ones that dont do much driving.

Did think of telling th-wife of a new incentive they've got for thoughs with no points for ten years.
Three special Browny stars for being a good girl and if she gets 12 a gold star award and holiday for six months!!

Haydn

 

[Guest]

Re: nope

But that wd mean that directors ofcar rental compnaies would be all in priz or at least banned for life? If they know who it is but police decide to prosecute or can't bothered to get the offender, they don't prosecute his best mate, the nearest BMW driver, the garage, BMW, anyone German.

Yoiu're referring to nitpots who claim not to know who the driver was, but don't dispute that it was one of a limited circle. If you do know who it was, then all fine and dandy. Spect they're on the way now to serve a summons.

 

[KevB]

Re: nope

Re crap web page -look further than the front page

Re time to serve NIP... (from crap web page)

NIP - Notice Of Intended Prosecution.
This is that all important bit that people keep asking about. It pertains to the 14 day rule that surrounds service of an NIP. As with all traffic offences in the UK, an NIP is required for prosecution to proceed. If you're stopped at the scene however (for example, by a radar-gun-toting traffic policeman), then a verbal NIP is sufficient. Otherwise it must be in writing. So theoretically, if you've not heard anything after 3 weeks, you got away with it. Not, of course, that the police don't get the calculations wrong from time to time - there's no better way to knock the smile off a prosecutors face than to ask if they can prove service of an NIP.

 

[KevB]

Re: nope

A bit more from "crap" web page.......

In the case of a number of moving traffic offences, the driver, if not stopped and interviewed by the police at the time, may experience considerable difficulty in recalling the circumstances some weeks after the event. For this reason, the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, section 1 states that, in relation to certain named offences, a person shall not be convicted unless:

he was warned at the time of the possibility of prosecution for the offence;
or
he was served with a summons for the offence within 14 days of its commission;
or
a notice of intended prosecution specifying the nature of the alleged offence and the time and place where it is alleged to have been committed was served within 14 days on him or the person, if any, registered as the keeper of the vehicle at the time of the commission of the offence. (In the case of dangerous or careless cycling the notice must be served on the rider.)

The requirements of section 1 are deemed to have been complied with unless and until the contrary is proved.
The following offences require notice of intended prosecution in one of these forms:

Road Traffic Act 1988
Section 2: Dangerous Driving
Section 3: Careless, and inconsiderate driving
Section 22: Leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position
Section 28: Dangerous cycling
Section 29: Careless, and incosiderate cycling
Section 35: Failing to conform with the indication given by a constable engaged in the regulation of traffic
Section 36: Failing to comply with the indication given by a traffic sign

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
Section 16: Exceeding temporary speed restrictions imposed under section 14
Section 17(4): Exceeding speed restrictions on special road
Section 88(7): Exceeding temporary speed limit imposed by order
Section 89(1): Speeding offences generally

Aiding and abetting any of the above offences

However, such notice need not be given in relation to an offence in respect of which a full or provisional fixed penalty notice has been given or fixed under the provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.




Service of summons or notice of intended prosecution
In circumstances in which an oral notice is not given at the time, then either a summons or a written notice of intended prosecution must be served within 14 days. In reckoning a period of 14 days, the day on which the offence was committed is ignored. A notice sent by post must be despatched so that in the normal time of postal delivery it will arrive within 14 days. If it is so posted but is held up in the post and is delivered outside the 14 day period, it will be deemed to have been served in the 14 day period; consequently the driver can still be convicted.


Circumstances where non-compliance is no bar to conviction
The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, section 2(3) states that a failure to comply with the above requirements is no bar to conviction if the court is satisfied that the name and address of the accused or of the vehicle's registered keeper could not with reasonable diligence have been ascertained in time for service of a summons or notice, or that the accused by his own conduct contributed to the failure.
This last section should be of particular interest. It means that if the police spent a month just trying to find a record of the car's owner, that month doesn't count as part of the 14 days. Similarly, if your dog tore up your mail with the NIP in it, that too is no cause to bar the conviction.
Butterworth's Police Law goes on intricate detail to explain how 'at the time of the offence' means any reasonable time during or after the offence - eg. if the police had to chase you for three hours to serve notice, it's still considered to be 'at the time of the offence'.
It's also a bit of a grey area when it comes to issuing an NIP after a fixed penalty notice has been given. Technically, the police should still do it. So for example, if you've been caught speeding and been served with a fixed penalty notice there and then, it tends to nullify the requirement for an NIP within 14 days. This is based on the simple fact that the police warned you there and then, and that you already have proof that you're going to get fined.

Incidentally, you should also be aware of the 'Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty Notice' which gets round the earlier requirement that a fixed penalty notice could only be issued at the time of the incident. The legislation for this is Section 75 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. This natty piece of legislation allows the police to send out fixed penalty notices for camera-detected offences (ie. GATSOs and the like).

 

[BarryD]

MD's bit o' stuff (also known as HR manager) in my last company refused to answer the summons as to who was driving the co. car. Frim ended up with a £2K penalty as the HR dept. had no idea who had the comany car. Still at least her licence was clean....

Barry D.

 

[lanason]

This may sound stupid. But what are you lot on about - I have a had fully clean licence for 22 years of driving.
You just gotta have my sort of luck not to get caught.

Ha Ha Ha.