Speeding: 42 in a 30 on a test drive
Discussion
BertBert said:
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
btcc123 said:
So what would happen in this case if A and B both wrote back to say they are not sure but think they were the driver.Would they both get a £100 fine and 3 points for the one offence.
I don't know because the case I was involved in (as B) was dropped. I imagine that it is impossible for both to be done for the same offence.Bert
btcc123 said:
So what would happen in this case if A and B both wrote back to say they are not sure but think they were the driver. Would they both get a £100 fine and 3 points for the one offence.
No.A declaration that it 'might have been me' will not satisfy the requirements of s.172 RTA 1988. If anything was going to be proceeded under such circumstances, it would likely be for failing to provide driver details.
£££This is getting to be a classic example of the Prisoner's Dilemma - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Thought I would quickly update everyone...
Last week I phoned the police just to get an update on where things were at and it appeared they had not yet done anything. I asked about photo evidence to which she advised it was useless as it only shows the number plate, nothing else.
They have since sent the NIP to mercedes who have again returned it nominating me as the driver and attached the test drive form that I signed. They also state that the letter I sent them does not prove I was not driving the car at the exact time of the camera catching us...
but neither does a test drive form....
Anyway - the time on the test drive form is 12:30, not exactly accurate when we continued talking after signing it, then he had a nose at my car, then we went out in my car briefly before driving the merc.
So we are still at square 1 where the driver cannot be proved 100%.
I'll have to call Sussex police (again) tomorrow.
Last week I phoned the police just to get an update on where things were at and it appeared they had not yet done anything. I asked about photo evidence to which she advised it was useless as it only shows the number plate, nothing else.
They have since sent the NIP to mercedes who have again returned it nominating me as the driver and attached the test drive form that I signed. They also state that the letter I sent them does not prove I was not driving the car at the exact time of the camera catching us...
but neither does a test drive form....
Anyway - the time on the test drive form is 12:30, not exactly accurate when we continued talking after signing it, then he had a nose at my car, then we went out in my car briefly before driving the merc.
So we are still at square 1 where the driver cannot be proved 100%.
I'll have to call Sussex police (again) tomorrow.
Macadoodle said:
Did you try getting CCTV footage either from the dealer or from other cameras in the area? This may be the only thing that could irrefutably prove you were not driving at the time of the offence.
Err... - last time I checked it was for the Police to collect evidence and for the CPS to present it to a court to determine guilt or innocence. Speeding is a bit different, as we are legally have to self incriminate ourselves. However if the Police want to work out who was driving they should do the leg work. If someone were accused of murder - you wouldn't expect them to go around collecting evidence of their guilt or innocence. It's the Polices job. If they don't have the time or resources to do, they should not be charging people.
Stevoox said:
Thought I would quickly update everyone...
Last week I phoned the police just to get an update on where things were at and it appeared they had not yet done anything. I asked about photo evidence to which she advised it was useless as it only shows the number plate, nothing else.
They have since sent the NIP to mercedes who have again returned it nominating me as the driver and attached the test drive form that I signed. They also state that the letter I sent them does not prove I was not driving the car at the exact time of the camera catching us...
but neither does a test drive form....
Anyway - the time on the test drive form is 12:30, not exactly accurate when we continued talking after signing it, then he had a nose at my car, then we went out in my car briefly before driving the merc.
So we are still at square 1 where the driver cannot be proved 100%.
I'll have to call Sussex police (again) tomorrow.
I reckon this will be all too much trouble for the police and they will drop it. Please keep us posted tho.Last week I phoned the police just to get an update on where things were at and it appeared they had not yet done anything. I asked about photo evidence to which she advised it was useless as it only shows the number plate, nothing else.
They have since sent the NIP to mercedes who have again returned it nominating me as the driver and attached the test drive form that I signed. They also state that the letter I sent them does not prove I was not driving the car at the exact time of the camera catching us...
but neither does a test drive form....
Anyway - the time on the test drive form is 12:30, not exactly accurate when we continued talking after signing it, then he had a nose at my car, then we went out in my car briefly before driving the merc.
So we are still at square 1 where the driver cannot be proved 100%.
I'll have to call Sussex police (again) tomorrow.
SS2. said:
btcc123 said:
So what would happen in this case if A and B both wrote back to say they are not sure but think they were the driver. Would they both get a £100 fine and 3 points for the one offence.
No.A declaration that it 'might have been me' will not satisfy the requirements of s.172 RTA 1988. If anything was going to be proceeded under such circumstances, it would likely be for failing to provide driver details.
In most cases the S.172 threat will unmask the true offender but the extant case is a perfect example of where a real difficulty arises. Given that taking points which rightfully belong to someone else is an even graver offence (as both Huhne and Price discovered), I certainly wouldn't do so if I was absolutely sure I wasn't the driver at the time and had at least something tangible with which to support my argument.
I can see this ending in one of two ways. A decision maker will file it in the 'too difficult' bin/let it time out or they will want a victim to purse and it will fall to the bench to decide.
If a S.172 charge were to be brought, who would be in the firing line: the salesman, the OP, or both?
The 172 asks you to name the driver. If you name the driver, you have complied with the request. If you can't name the driver but have taken all reasonable steps to find out who it was, you have complied.
Then it falls on the Police to decide who to prosecute for the speeding offence. Sometimes it will be impossible to tell who it was and this is fatal for them.
As long as both point the finger at one another it's difficult for the police to anything against either (assuming they comply with the 172 or take all reasonable steps to ascertain who the driver was).
Then it falls on the Police to decide who to prosecute for the speeding offence. Sometimes it will be impossible to tell who it was and this is fatal for them.
As long as both point the finger at one another it's difficult for the police to anything against either (assuming they comply with the 172 or take all reasonable steps to ascertain who the driver was).
Stevoox said:
Thought I would quickly update everyone...
Last week I phoned the police just to get an update on where things were at and it appeared they had not yet done anything. I asked about photo evidence to which she advised it was useless as it only shows the number plate, nothing else.
They have since sent the NIP to mercedes who have again returned it nominating me as the driver and attached the test drive form that I signed. They also state that the letter I sent them does not prove I was not driving the car at the exact time of the camera catching us...
but neither does a test drive form....
Anyway - the time on the test drive form is 12:30, not exactly accurate when we continued talking after signing it, then he had a nose at my car, then we went out in my car briefly before driving the merc.
So we are still at square 1 where the driver cannot be proved 100%.
I'll have to call Sussex police (again) tomorrow.
It is for you to nominate and them to prove otherwise.Last week I phoned the police just to get an update on where things were at and it appeared they had not yet done anything. I asked about photo evidence to which she advised it was useless as it only shows the number plate, nothing else.
They have since sent the NIP to mercedes who have again returned it nominating me as the driver and attached the test drive form that I signed. They also state that the letter I sent them does not prove I was not driving the car at the exact time of the camera catching us...
but neither does a test drive form....
Anyway - the time on the test drive form is 12:30, not exactly accurate when we continued talking after signing it, then he had a nose at my car, then we went out in my car briefly before driving the merc.
So we are still at square 1 where the driver cannot be proved 100%.
I'll have to call Sussex police (again) tomorrow.
photosnob said:
Err... - last time I checked it was for the Police to collect evidence and for the CPS to present it to a court to determine guilt or innocence. Speeding is a bit different, as we are legally have to self incriminate ourselves. However if the Police want to work out who was driving they should do the leg work.
If someone were accused of murder - you wouldn't expect them to go around collecting evidence of their guilt or innocence. It's the Polices job. If they don't have the time or resources to do, they should not be charging people.
Let me assure you that if I were accused of a murder I had not committed I would certainly be very active in collecting evidence of my innocence!If someone were accused of murder - you wouldn't expect them to go around collecting evidence of their guilt or innocence. It's the Polices job. If they don't have the time or resources to do, they should not be charging people.
Stevoox said:
Thought I would quickly update everyone...
Last week I phoned the police just to get an update on where things were at and it appeared they had not yet done anything. I asked about photo evidence to which she advised it was useless as it only shows the number plate, nothing else.
They have since sent the NIP to mercedes who have again returned it nominating me as the driver and attached the test drive form that I signed. They also state that the letter I sent them does not prove I was not driving the car at the exact time of the camera catching us...
but neither does a test drive form....
Anyway - the time on the test drive form is 12:30, not exactly accurate when we continued talking after signing it, then he had a nose at my car, then we went out in my car briefly before driving the merc.
So we are still at square 1 where the driver cannot be proved 100%.
I'll have to call Sussex police (again) tomorrow.
You are not the keeper - therefore not required to exercise due diligence. Last week I phoned the police just to get an update on where things were at and it appeared they had not yet done anything. I asked about photo evidence to which she advised it was useless as it only shows the number plate, nothing else.
They have since sent the NIP to mercedes who have again returned it nominating me as the driver and attached the test drive form that I signed. They also state that the letter I sent them does not prove I was not driving the car at the exact time of the camera catching us...
but neither does a test drive form....
Anyway - the time on the test drive form is 12:30, not exactly accurate when we continued talking after signing it, then he had a nose at my car, then we went out in my car briefly before driving the merc.
So we are still at square 1 where the driver cannot be proved 100%.
I'll have to call Sussex police (again) tomorrow.
You are "any other person". You're required to "give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." If you've done that then your obligation is fulfilled.
If I've understood correctly then three s. 172 requests were sent;
1. To the dealership (RK). You are nominated.
2. To you. You nominated the salesman.
3. To the salesman. He nominates you.
Put everythhing in writing / email. A phone call should be immediately followed up with an email setting out a summary of the discussion.
If you're prosecuted for speeding then the prosecution is required to prove that you were the driver. It's not for you to prove your innocence.
If you're prosecuted for failing to identify the driver then the prosecution must prove failure to comply with the s. 172 requirement (see above).
Personally, I can't see this case getting off the ground.
agtlaw said:
You are not the keeper - therefore not required to exercise due diligence.
You are "any other person". You're required to "give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." If you've done that then your obligation is fulfilled.
If I've understood correctly then three s. 172 requests were sent;
1. To the dealership (RK). You are nominated.
2. To you. You nominated the salesman.
3. To the salesman. He nominates you.
Put everythhing in writing / email. A phone call should be immediately followed up with an email setting out a summary of the discussion.
If you're prosecuted for speeding then the prosecution is required to prove that you were the driver. It's not for you to prove your innocence.
If you're prosecuted for failing to identify the driver then the prosecution must prove failure to comply with the s. 172 requirement (see above).
Personally, I can't see this case getting off the ground.
Yes, you are correct.You are "any other person". You're required to "give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." If you've done that then your obligation is fulfilled.
If I've understood correctly then three s. 172 requests were sent;
1. To the dealership (RK). You are nominated.
2. To you. You nominated the salesman.
3. To the salesman. He nominates you.
Put everythhing in writing / email. A phone call should be immediately followed up with an email setting out a summary of the discussion.
If you're prosecuted for speeding then the prosecution is required to prove that you were the driver. It's not for you to prove your innocence.
If you're prosecuted for failing to identify the driver then the prosecution must prove failure to comply with the s. 172 requirement (see above).
Personally, I can't see this case getting off the ground.
1st NIP was sent to MB who then nominated me
2nd NIP was sent to me and I then nominated the salesman at MB.
3rd NIP was sent to MB who have again nominated me but also provided a copy of the sign test drive form
I have spoken with Sussex police again today to raise my points. I have again taken photo copies of everything, filled out the reverse of the NIP naming the salesman and sent a second letter to say:
"Dear Sussex Safer roads team,
Signing the test drive form does not prove who was driving at the time of the offence, it merely states that at some point the nominated individual drove the car. The vehicle is signed out at 12:30, at which time we continued to speak, the salesman then had a look at my car, we then drove my car briefly before the A45 AMG – so instantly an out time of 12:30 is incorrect.
As per the Google location tracking I can see the route around the area of Gatwick road was taken from 12:41 onwards, at which time the salesman was driving. It is a standard procedure in the motor trade for the dealership to first drive the car, make sure all is in working order, the car has sufficient fuel and talk about the car with the customer.
We then stopped, switched drivers and my route consisted of the M23 (which according to Google location tracking appears to be from 13:01 to 13:15. The 13:15 time also the correlates with the ‘time in’ on the test drive form which is when I had returned to the area/dealership – 17 minutes after the car was caught.
I have therefore once again nominated the salesman (Barry Walker) as the named driver, as he drove the car around the area of the dealership at that time.
Edited by Stevoox on Wednesday 25th March 16:27
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff