Interesting s.172 High Court case

[pitmansboots]

Pontoneer said:

I would not thank anyone for that .

My partner and I can drive any of each other's six private cars . Moreover I can drive any of my two sisters' vehicles and they in turn can drive any of ours ( using the driving other cars clauses of our insurances , besides being named drivers on some of the policies ) . Then there are various cars in my partner's side of the family which any of us could drive if need be , In as much as there are numerous authorised and legal drivers who have access to upwards of a dozen vehicles throughout the extended family , they are still private cars and no one would wish to be encumbered with logging journeys and drivers as such an idea would require . In fact I often do business mileage without claiming for it because I simply cannot be bothered with all the rigmarole of logging mileages etc .

It is one thing requiring logs to be kept of the use of company cars ; quite another with private vehicles . Actually an occasional £60 fine would be the lesser of the two evils in my view .

So if one of your vehicles was seen running over someone and seriously injuring or killing them you think it would be reasonable to say you don't know which one of you was driving?
It is acknowledged that S172 is used for a range of offences but if a less serious offence such as speeding, in the view of some, establishes case law that effectively protects the driver because the owner/keeper doesn't keep a record of who was driving. that is not reasonable.
You know at this point in time that your particular situation may protect you or any one of the drivers you allow to drive your vehicles from identification and prosecution. IMHO you can never be diligent in making an identification because case law may now allow you to simply shrug your shoulders at the s172 request.
Let us all hope we are never in the situation where such identification needs to be made because we have lost someone to an owner/keeper that sets themselves up like you have.

[Red Devil]

pitmansboots said:

Pontoneer said:

I would not thank anyone for that .

My partner and I can drive any of each other's six private cars . Moreover I can drive any of my two sisters' vehicles and they in turn can drive any of ours ( using the driving other cars clauses of our insurances , besides being named drivers on some of the policies ) . Then there are various cars in my partner's side of the family which any of us could drive if need be , In as much as there are numerous authorised and legal drivers who have access to upwards of a dozen vehicles throughout the extended family , they are still private cars and no one would wish to be encumbered with logging journeys and drivers as such an idea would require . In fact I often do business mileage without claiming for it because I simply cannot be bothered with all the rigmarole of logging mileages etc .

It is one thing requiring logs to be kept of the use of company cars ; quite another with private vehicles . Actually an occasional £60 fine would be the lesser of the two evils in my view .

So if one of your vehicles was seen running over someone and seriously injuring or killing them you think it would be reasonable to say you don't know which one of you was driving?
It is acknowledged that S172 is used for a range of offences but if a less serious offence such as speeding, in the view of some, establishes case law that effectively protects the driver because the owner/keeper doesn't keep a record of who was driving. that is not reasonable.
You know at this point in time that your particular situation may protect you or any one of the drivers you allow to drive your vehicles from identification and prosecution. IMHO you can never be diligent in making an identification because case law may now allow you to simply shrug your shoulders at the s172 request.
Let us all hope we are never in the situation where such identification needs to be made because we have lost someone to an owner/keeper that sets themselves up like you have.

His objection was to a record keeping obligation being placed on private individuals. I would very much doubt, in your scenario, that he would be unable to find out by other means who the driver was. Besides I think it would be difficult for a driver to seriously injure or kill somebody without knowing that contact had been made. Unlesss the driver was blind, drunk, or both. The tone of your post and particular choice of words implies that neither he nor any of his family have a conscience. I find it difficult to tell whether that is being merely provocative or deliberately insulting.

The case stated arose out of the test driving of a motor scooter. I wonder how many people would let a potential buyer test drive their car without sitting alongside them in the passenger seat. Not many, I submit, in which case the 'don't know' defence won't fly. The fundamental issue before the court was the point in time that the obligation commences (which is on receipt of the NoIP) not whether it exists at all.

Compulsory written record keeping for private households is a wholly disproportionate measure. All it will achieve is an increase in social tensions together with resentment of officious governmental control freaks who like nothing better than to find new ways of imposing their particular fetish upon others. If this attitude is allowed to continue taking hold without being challenged then it really won't be very long before we will all be living in the kind of world portrayed in Minority Report.

Always be suspicious when the word 'reasonable' is trotted out in support of an argument. It is also an extremely insidious and specious tactic. If you object to the proposal you are automatically labelled as being 'unreasonable' and therefore your point of view is, at best, suspect or completely worthless.

Ayn Rand said:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

[pitmansboots]

I don't believe he was or is dishonest or that private individuals keep records for their vehicles on all occasions. I do however believe that if a large number of users have use of a number of vehicles and confusion may result from that then it is reasonable to keep some form of note. This is even more reasonable if a test driver borrows it unaccompanied.
Do you think it reasonable in the situation described by Pontoneer above that all potential drivers are sent a s172 with each at risk of a fine and 6 points?

[Red Devil]

pitmansboots said:

I don't believe he was or is dishonest or that private individuals keep records for their vehicles on all occasions. I do however believe that if a large number of users have use of a number of vehicles and confusion may result from that then it is reasonable to keep some form of note. This is even more reasonable if a test driver borrows it unaccompanied.

Fair enough but you're still not getting it. It's making it a legally enforceable requirement on pain of penalty which he, and I, believe is an unncessary and disproportionate response. The issue arose because the offence was committed on a motor scooter by a solo rider. In a car the driver would almost certainly have been accompanied by the RK. One might expect him/her to ensure that the prospective purchaser didn't break the speed limit or if it was then gets the driver's details.

pitmansboots said:

Do you think it reasonable in the situation described by Pontoneer above that all potential drivers are sent a s172 with each at risk of a fine and 6 points?

In that scenario I have already explained why I doubt the need would even arise. The appeal
centrally raises the question of the time at or from which "reasonable diligence" is to be assessed
That was all, so I really don't see this result being such a big deal as some are making it out to be. I'm not convinced it will have that much of an impact on the 'Hamilton defence' either. Any use of S.172(4) is for the accused to make out, not the prosecution to disprove.

I don't have an issue with sending out S.172 requests. What I do think is that the state needs to take on board that there will occasionally be situations where the RK genuinely doesn't know/recall (as in the case which prompted the appeal). Given that taking points when you were not the driver is PCoJ then there needs to be a realisation and acceptance that some cases have to fall by the wayside rather the the zealous pursuit of a conviction and a contribution to central funds no matter what.

I don't think that number will register as other than a tiny blip on the radar. There are far more important things to be concerned about.

[Pontoneer]

pitmansboots said:

I don't believe he was or is dishonest or that private individuals keep records for their vehicles on all occasions. I do however believe that if a large number of users have use of a number of vehicles and confusion may result from that then it is reasonable to keep some form of note. This is even more reasonable if a test driver borrows it unaccompanied.
Do you think it reasonable in the situation described by Pontoneer above that all potential drivers are sent a s172 with each at risk of a fine and 6 points?

While my extended family have access collectively to a dozen or more vehicles , it is rare that any of us will actually drive vehicles outwith our own households . Having said that , my partner and I regularly drive any of my four cars or her two .

In the event of any incident , NIP , or even parking ticket , I think we would have a pretty good idea who was driving and would not seek to avoid responsibility .

At the same time , I know of no private owners who log journeys and I hate with a vengeance having to do this when I drive work vehicles , so I have.no wish yo be compelled to do it with mine .