Speeding: 42 in a 30 on a test drive

[FurtiveFreddy]

Sheepshanks said:

Hmmm...you're skipping a lot of details there. And you can't remember if you were summonsed or not - really?

It's also a bit different to the case in this thread as there isn't a usual driver of the car (unless it happened to be that salesman).

I haven't kept the papers and it happened a few years ago, so I don't remember the exact wording of the summons, no. In the same way as I couldn't remember if I was driving at the time of the alleged offence.

But the point I was originally making was that the company who owned the car and would be the RK in this case and my case didn't get involved after the original NIP was issued.

True that many people could have driven that Merc but if the dealership is keeping its records correctly, the salesman would have been easily identified as being responsible at that particular time and so it's back to being a dispute between two possible drivers with the dealership not needing to be involved.

[Sheepshanks]

FurtiveFreddy said:

But the point I was originally making was that the company who owned the car and would be the RK in this case and my case didn't get involved after the original NIP was issued.

I'm surprised by that. When it happened where I worked and our MD was threatened with prosecution he pretty soon got the perp to own up.

FurtiveFreddy said:

True that many people could have driven that Merc but if the dealership is keeping its records correctly, the salesman would have been easily identified as being responsible at that particular time and so it's back to being a dispute between two possible drivers with the dealership not needing to be involved.

I guess the salesman could be held responsible as he was in charge of the car at the time, but if he named the OP he's complied with the S.172. In a dispute, I'd have expected enquiries to revert to the RK. I suppose if the authorities get the bit between their teeth then they'll pursue everyone, and hope someone coughs.

[FurtiveFreddy]

Sheepshanks said:

I guess the salesman could be held responsible as he was in charge of the car at the time, but if he named the OP he's complied with the S.172. In a dispute, I'd have expected enquiries to revert to the RK. I suppose if the authorities get the bit between their teeth then they'll pursue everyone, and hope someone coughs.

Yes, I have to admit I overlooked the point that the salesman had already replied to the NIP naming the OP as the driver. That is the one big difference between this case and mine.

I still think it will be down to how the facts are presented at Court, if it gets that far. Maybe the photo will be conclusive...

[btcc123]

Stevoox said:

I've not spoken with Mercedes at all, not a word. So far I just thought it was best to keep quiet, save all the extra hassle and now leave the Police to send the NIP back to the named salesman.

I would not speak to the dealer at this stage and guess when they received the NIP they asked the salesman and he just said it was you without any investigation.Keep them in the dark about your investigations into the incident so they will forget most of what happened and be less prepared than you.

You seam quite clued up with you times,text on your phone,where the camera van was etc.

Either the police send you the photo and if its you hold your hands up.If its the salesman

If its not you and difficult to see who is driving then the case may be dropped but if you have to go to court who will the magistrates believe you with all your evidence or the salesman just saying you book a test drive between X and Y.

Good luck if you have been truthful on this thread I am sure you will be ok.Good luck.

[Stevoox]

btcc123 said:

I would not speak to the dealer at this stage and guess when they received the NIP they asked the salesman and he just said it was you without any investigation.Keep them in the dark about your investigations into the incident so they will forget most of what happened and be less prepared than you.

You seam quite clued up with you times,text on your phone,where the camera van was etc.

Either the police send you the photo and if its you hold your hands up.If its the salesman

If its not you and difficult to see who is driving then the case may be dropped but if you have to go to court who will the magistrates believe you with all your evidence or the salesman just saying you book a test drive between X and Y.

Good luck if you have been truthful on this thread I am sure you will be ok.Good luck.

That's a very good point you make...I'll avoid them

If....IF after some investigation it turns out to be me I would straight away hold my hands up, apologise and take the consequence. But because of the facts I have etc I'm wanting to defend and not take someone else's punishment. All I've said in the thread so far is truthful and is exactly what would be said if anyone else was to ask.

I guess now I just have to wait...see what happens. If the next step is they charge the salesman or drop it all (so avoiding court etc etc) I wonder if they will notify me just so I am aware it has all been settled

[hornetrider]

Hang on a tick op. You said in your opening post that the dealer was first in the car then you drove it back.

Steveoox said:

The sales man drove the car to start with, spanked it from the get go around the area until I got in the car. I started of with ease while getting used to a car I'm not familiar with so unlikely it was me speeding when leaving the dealer, then the route was A23, M23 and back.

There is a chance it could have been me when returning to the dealer but I'm thinking again unlikely as it's just off a round about and the camera was down the other end of the road (and i was aware it was there anyway).

But now you've figured out the locations of the van etc you say the salesman was driving as you returned to the dealership...

Stevoox said:

I wasn't going to bother to call them, however I'm thinking it might be worth it and just explain I've looked into it and the camera appears to have caught the salesman upon returning to the dealer

[Stevoox]

hornetrider said:

Hang on a tick op. You said in your opening post that the dealer was first in the car then you drove it back.

Steveoox said:

The sales man drove the car to start with, spanked it from the get go around the area until I got in the car. I started of with ease while getting used to a car I'm not familiar with so unlikely it was me speeding when leaving the dealer, then the route was A23, M23 and back.

There is a chance it could have been me when returning to the dealer but I'm thinking again unlikely as it's just off a round about and the camera was down the other end of the road (and i was aware it was there anyway).

But now you've figured out the locations of the van etc you say the salesman was driving as you returned to the dealership...

Stevoox said:

I wasn't going to bother to call them, however I'm thinking it might be worth it and just explain I've looked into it and the camera appears to have caught the salesman upon returning to the dealer

Yes the dealer went in the car first, took it all around the area and then returned up the slip road the camera van was facing. Then 3 minutes later i took the car out, up the M23 and returned up the same slip road. Difference being, A) I didn't come around and exit the round about with tyres screeching... B) the time I return is 17 minutes after the camera caught the car

He returned up the slip road after exiting the roundabout at speed, at 12:58

I returned up the slip road at 13:15.

The camera caught the car at 12:58 - that is three minutes before I was even in the drivers seat.

I can see the routes and times on google location

Edited by Stevoox on Thursday 12th March 19:32

Edited by Stevoox on Thursday 12th March 19:32

[Macadoodle]

Stevoox - you obviously know this area well. Are there any other CCTV cameras in the area (particularly council owned ones)? Under data protection laws you are entitled to view footage from any camera you have been captured on. If there are other cameras in this area, they may be able to prove your innocence. It can be a bit of a faff to get the footage, but it might be your saviour of the image from the speed camera is inconclusive.

I was involved in an accident and used footage from a council owned camera to try and put my case across to the insurance company. In my case it made no difference to the outcome, but I was able to get the footage I needed.

[Sheepshanks]

FurtiveFreddy said:

Maybe the photo will be conclusive...

That would rather spoil the game...

[Stevoox]

Macadoodle said:

Stevoox - you obviously know this area well. Are there any other CCTV cameras in the area (particularly council owned ones)? Under data protection laws you are entitled to view footage from any camera you have been captured on. If there are other cameras in this area, they may be able to prove your innocence. It can be a bit of a faff to get the footage, but it might be your saviour of the image from the speed camera is inconclusive.

I was involved in an accident and used footage from a council owned camera to try and put my case across to the insurance company. In my case it made no difference to the outcome, but I was able to get the footage I needed.

To be honest I don't actually know the area well, I just know the main road from the motorway to the dealership and back but it's a good point you make.

I'll have to see what happens, if it goes down to the camera van photo then we will see. If that doesn't help, then the dealer would surely have CCTV which would identify who gets it the car and at what time. Which according to my google location is the salesman driving at the exact time and in the exact area where the camera man would have clocked the car.

I drive the car from 13:01 to 13:15 which is shown by the route on timestamps.

[Macadoodle]

To be frank, I wouldn't trust the dealership. One of their employees has already fingered you for an offence you reasonably believe you didn't commit (without doing the courteous thing and letting you know). I wouldn't put it past them to 'lose' any CCTV footage if it incriminated their salesman.

Sooner rather than later I'd write or email the local council and ask if they have any cameras in the places you know you were. Be truthful with them. Say you are trying to prove your innocence in a case where you believe you have been falsely accused of speeding by someone else.
Give them all the details they will need - places, date, relevant times and registration of the car. Once you get to the right department you may find they can help. Just had a quick look and Crawley council work with Sussex police to operate the cameras, so you may have to go through them...
http://www.crawley.gov.uk/pw/Community_and_Neighbo...

Also, have a look at other businesses in the area to see if they have cameras which may prove your case. They also have to abide by data protection laws and must allow you to see footage that you are in, although I suspect getting this footage will be more difficult.

[jith]

So anyway Steve, did you buy the Merc?

J

[speedking31]

I don't see how your own phone tracker is of much use as it doesn't prove who was driving

[Stevoox]

speedking31 said:

I don't see how your own phone tracker is of much use as it doesn't prove who was driving

He did a route around the area, i did one down the M23.

The times show where the car was being driven. It therefore appears he was caught upon returning to the dealer.

But in a sense, you a right because there isn't a picture or who was driving. Its more proof for me / peace of mind I know I wasn't driving i guess.

But still...I've presented all of the to the police which is more than Mercedes will be able to do.

Edited by Stevoox on Friday 13th March 00:18

Edited by Stevoox on Friday 13th March 00:19

[Stevoox]

jith said:

So anyway Steve, did you buy the Merc?

J

No James - He text me yesterday asking for an update but I've not replied. decided not to anyway. Alot more money (42K) on a car with similar performance to my current one...but it also just didn't feel as special to drive

Edited by Stevoox on Friday 13th March 00:38

[BertBert]

jith said:

In cases like this where there is more than one driver, and there are tens of thousands of these each year, the nightmare begins. In this particular case the OPs defence is prejudiced right at the start due to the dealer naming him as the driver without even consulting him. The fact that he can do so demonstrates what an appalling piece of legislation it is.

You can't say this for certain. You don't know what the RK said. They may have said "it was a test drive, a and b drove on the test drive, and it cannot be ascertained who was driving at the time". Then both a and b will get a NIP/S172 request.
Bert

[wilwak]

If your Google Location Tracker proves to you that you weren't the driver then relax.

You're innocent until proven guilty and they have to prove you were driving if you say you weren't and you can name the actual driver.

Yes, you may end up having to endure a visit to court but there's no way they can find you guilty if youre not.

Tell the truth and you'll be ok.

[rewc]

wilwak said:

Yes, you may end up having to endure a visit to court but there's no way they can find you guilty if youre not.

Tell the truth and you'll be ok.

Doing that did not save Timothy Evans from the hangman.

[Mr10secs]

If its any help I had the same thing a few years back on a motorway when a friend and I shared the driving we both wrote back saying we could not say who was definitely driving the car at the time and we were both insured and legal to drive, CPS didnt proceed

[BertBert]

Mr10secs said:

If its any help I had the same thing a few years back on a motorway when a friend and I shared the driving we both wrote back saying we could not say who was definitely driving the car at the time and we were both insured and legal to drive, CPS didnt proceed

Sadly things have changed and it is no longer safe to play the don't remember game.
I think the OP is home and dry. He has told what he knows and it seems he knows quite a lot. He has complied with his obligations and it would be up to the CPS to prove he was driving. If the OP is incorrect then there may be compelling evidence - the photo, the testimony from the sales guy, but that all seems a relatively low probability.

Let us know what happens OP!

Bert