Speed Camera Question Again - Sorry! NB

[Deleted User YDKXO]

OK guys, I know this subject has been discussed ad nauseam but I have a genuine question regarding a speed camera prosecution
Recently, I received a notice of prosecution (NIP) from Dumfries & Galloway police alleging that my vehicle was doing 90mph in a 70mph limit on the A74(M). I believe that the car was photographed by a camera hidden on an overbridge but I cant be sure
At the time I had a business associate in the car with me ( I can prove it) and I was sharing the driving with him. I should add that this business associate is an Italian resident. Neither of us was sure who was driving at the time so I sent a letter to D & G police requesting a copy of the photo in order that we could positively identify the driver
The photo arrived today and it is still not clear from the photo who the driver was but the accompanying letter states that, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, I am required to name the driver. What to do?

As I see it I have 3 possible courses of action

1. Write back to D & G police and tell them their photo is not clear enough for me to identify the driver and to stick their NIP where the sun dont shine
2. Take the hit myself which is a bit unfair as I dont know who was actually driving and very annoying as it will cost me another 3 points
3. Name my Italian friend as the driver and hope that the whole thing goes away. However, I then run the risk that D & G blow up the photo and make a positive ID on me and I then get done for something a lot more serious like perjury

Any advice?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tome]

Try posting this on <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.pepipoo.com>Pepipoo forum</A> dedicated to this type of motorists legal advice. Go Home, Fightback forums.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jhr]

I think that if you tell them you can't identify the driver then you, as the registered keeper, will get it in the neck as the default option.

I don't know if the D&G police will have the inclination to spend time and money blowing up the photo to try and identify the driver (and will enlarging it make it any easier to identify who was at the wheel?), but if tcm can pass himself off as a French au pair - allegedly /forums/images/icons/smile.gif - then anything is possible.

<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho

 

[muchy_]

Just be honest and say that you don't know who was driving. It's up to them to gather evidence as to who was driving, surely. If their cameras cant show who it was thats not your fault is it?
By the way, version 3 is a known get out. Apparently it costs to much money to trace the person to another country that it makes their little money making excercise pointless, so they drop it. No experience of this myself though so dont know if it works.

<hr width=100% size=1>Is it the weekend yet?

 

[jfm]

Yuor only obligation is to name the driver. I believe there is an override somewhere that you only have to do what you reasonably can. I think therefore you should just tell them exactly the above, it was you or EyeTie but you dunno who, and leave it at that. The worst they can do is 3points for failing to name driver, and at 90mph you are 3 points anyway

Then I suspect they'll do nothing

If you want to spend 400 for a quick consultation fax Trevor Howarth at Freeman (google, they are Rhodesia House Manchester), best lawyers on this in UK

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Lozzer]

As I understand it British law says you are innocent until proven guilty and it is the job of the police to discover who the guilty party is.

What I would do is write to the police and say that you travelled on that stretch of road a couple of times becasue you were lost. Explain that your ITY mate was navigating to start and that he was no Marco Polo so you had to have a go, therefore confused over who was driving.

To show good will pop a photo of yourself in so they can check to see if it was you, make sure it is an old photo just to add a little confusion...

good luck


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Piere]

A friend had same problem , a balding bloke in his fifties and his wife a 25 year old beauty. Kent police sent him a photo with same result as yourself . couldn't identify driver . result ..... police dropped case.
Might be worth a try ( this did happen about 4 years ago,rules might have changed since then)

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Its_Only_Money]

The Hamiltons got off with that defence, so did a Chief Constable who was unable to confirm a police driver's name.

<hr width=100% size=1>Rgds

Simon
Its Only Money
Fairline Sprint
Solent-based

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I think that principle holds true for every offence except getting caught by a speed camera. Not only are the police not obliged to gather sufficient evidence to convict you but you are obliged to incriminate yourself or be prosecuted for failing to do so. IMHO, this violates 2 basic principles of justice and I'm surprised that it has'nt been shown to contradict the human rights laws
The country's going to the dogs

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

Mike you are totally right. This section 172 is unique not only in the UK but in the civilised world in that it requires you to incriminate yourself on pain of a penalty. It is an abhorrent piece of law and against all principles of fairness. Fortunately it only trealtes to something minor but it is no different in principle from being beaten by an interrogator into confessing, then showing up in court to find that this confession is the only evidence against you.

I am quite sure it will not survive long term and have said so before on this forum. The last legal challenge failed but it never got to an EU court. There are however about 1/2 doz cases that have now won leave to be heard at the EU level, but this wont happen till next year so too late for you.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Speed cameras infest many other countries, jfm. How are prosecutions treated elsewhere because no camera which takes a photo of the rear of a vehicle can positively identify the driver?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

I would name the italian driver, and give his home address slightly incorrectly. The followup may be that they ask for the date on which he left the country, and the flight number. Dunno what they would do with that, but it's checkable. Whereas going abroad by Eurostar isn't, or so I hear.

The whole thing will indeed blow over, or at least, it has blown over the last loads of times that I hear other people have named foreigners driving their cars

I think they will only blow up the photo IF Deleted User is acting in a prime-time TV murder mystery (which might indeed be the case driving round scotland with an italian businesman...)

Sepretly, to the unasked question with this issue - no, i don't think there's any issue with regard to honesty and all that blah. The whole attitude of govt policy towards motorists stinks. Those motorists, see- they're us. All of us. Except the ones with chauffeuurs going at 100mph down the M4 called jack straw, and the ones in the bus lane called prime minister . Oh! - but surely it's ok for the PM to go in the bus lane in a car? Or the foreign sec to do 100mph. Well, if it is ...it shows that the rule is a load of crap. It should work for everyone, or not at all. Like the rules of burglary and so on. Throughout London there's blimmin buslanes even during sundays fer chirssakes while red ken runs up cab fares of £30k a year!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

I dunno, spect they have the same self-incriminate laws?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

Re Jack Straw

Well said

It appears they use the chauffeurs to ferry their shags up to sheffield as well, when they've run out of first class rail vouchers

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[itsonlymoney]

Re: Re Jack Straw

I have heard of this scenario a few times before, only from people who shall we say deliberatly stated they did not know who was driving at the time. The way I understand it is that the onus is on the police to prove without reasonable doubt who was driving. Therefore if they can't provide such evidence ie. clear photograph then they can swivel for it. Apparently this is a well used method and one that I was going to adopt when I recently got zapped by the same scottish constabulary, except nothing came through the post. Easy said when its not your licence but sweat it out for a while and stick to your guns hoping that the paperwork becomes too much for the dibble. Maybe then they will go and catch some real crims like the gits trying to scam targalout.
Ian

<hr width=100% size=1>Play the best game you can with the cards you've been dealt ! ! !

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Plod Cars - its our money

Thanks, tcm. Luckily I've still got his flight details. Talking about them and us, I've become more and more angry at the increasingly flash motors than Plod thinks he needs to be seen in these days. Why is it necessary for motorway plod to have Beemers, Mercs, Volvos and tricked up Scooby Doos and Evos when the average rep is tooling around in Fords and Vauxhalls. But the Plodcar that really makes my blood boil is the Range Rover; you could not think of a less suitable motorway patrol car with it's prodigious thirst, top heavy handling, sluggish acceleration and dodgy reliability. Yet, I'm seeing more and more new model RR's around and these must cost £60k+ in police spec. What does a RR do for motorway Plod that a Mondeo estate can't?
Whatever the truth of the matter, the impression that this gives the average motorist is that the huge revenue that Plod is now collecting under the guise of the ludicrously titled 'Safety Camera Partnership' is being wasted on flash up-market motors. As I say, its our money they're spending

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Re: Plod Cars - its our money

I've got a better idea! Tell PC plod that just after the piccie was taken you slowed down to 50 for a couple of minutes to give back the extra speed you'd used earlier. That should make it OK should'nt it?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

Re: Plod Cars - its our money

Hear hear, Deleted User. By comparison you could be forgiven for thinking briefly that the fleet of MP Rovers, etc is quite good value

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

s172 Road Traffic Act 1988 puts the burden of proof onto the accused to identify the driver, in other words the registered keeper is guilty until he proves his innocence.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[jfm]

Not quite. It simply creates an obligation on the RK to say who was driving. If RK refuses, 3 points. Sec 172 doesn't shift any burden of proof. Burden of proof re the speeding is still with the CPS, and burden of proof re not complying with 172 is also with the CPS. This post is however not in any sense in support of the abhorrent 172 which is more appropriate to 1939 facist Germany than 2004 UK

<hr width=100% size=1>