Speeding: 42 in a 30 on a test drive
Discussion
Stevoox said:
Despite there being the edit and delete options...
Risk and reward. Its a car forum... the person you were dealing with works in a car dealership. Perhaps he's seen this thread already.On one hand you've got 3 points for a minor traffic offence; on the other you've got a prison sentence for lying about what happened.
Is it worth the risk?
KFC said:
Risk and reward. Its a car forum... the person you were dealing with works in a car dealership. Perhaps he's seen this thread already.
On one hand you've got 3 points for a minor traffic offence; on the other you've got a prison sentence for lying about what happened.
Is it worth the risk?
But I haven't lied about what happened? I state it is unlikely it was me and likely for it to have been him because A) I took it easy due to not knowing the car and B) I knew the van was there, he did not.On one hand you've got 3 points for a minor traffic offence; on the other you've got a prison sentence for lying about what happened.
Is it worth the risk?
There is a chance it was me because at some point yes I drove the car. Again, I stated my test drive was up the A23 and M23 (offence caught on Gatwick road).
KFC said:
Stevoox said:
yes..but I'm not going to email the link am i.... Even if i did, they would see that there is clearly no proof as to who was driving. My argument being it was likely to be him as i already knew the camera van was there...
People have been done for perverting the course of justice before from stuff they've posted online. You've already said what car you were driving, when you were driving it... your name is even in your profile
You've also said you've no idea if you were driving or not - do you not see how this potentially ends badly for you if you change your mind and say you know the salesman was driving?The person who could likely face a PCJ charge would be the salesman. He has named the OP as the RK and he didn't even buy the car! He clearly did it to get himself off the hook. The OP has a first class defence in the respect that this was a road test of a vehicle he showed an interest in. BOTH himself and the salesman were driving. That means it is up to the SCP to prove who was driving.
Both drivers in a situation like this can hold their hands up and say they don't know who was driving; this is completely reasonable and is not a cop out. If the photo or video doesn't show the driver they will have a hard job proving who it was.
Send the NIP back OP and make it crystal clear you are NOT the RK.
J
Surely the direction of travel will prove which one it was? That's all the photo needs to show, however unless it shows a face it's still not exact.
Assuming you came back to the dealership, you could use their CCTV to prove the time you left and arrived, and work it out from that too.
Assuming you came back to the dealership, you could use their CCTV to prove the time you left and arrived, and work it out from that too.
jith said:
Dear god, what is wrong with you people? Can't you read!
The person who could likely face a PCJ charge would be the salesman. He has named the OP as the RK and he didn't even buy the car! He clearly did it to get himself off the hook. The OP has a first class defence in the respect that this was a road test of a vehicle he showed an interest in. BOTH himself and the salesman were driving. That means it is up to the SCP to prove who was driving.
Both drivers in a situation like this can hold their hands up and say they don't know who was driving; this is completely reasonable and is not a cop out. If the photo or video doesn't show the driver they will have a hard job proving who it was.
Send the NIP back OP and make it crystal clear you are NOT the RK.
J
Thank you for a clear, helpful answer!The person who could likely face a PCJ charge would be the salesman. He has named the OP as the RK and he didn't even buy the car! He clearly did it to get himself off the hook. The OP has a first class defence in the respect that this was a road test of a vehicle he showed an interest in. BOTH himself and the salesman were driving. That means it is up to the SCP to prove who was driving.
Both drivers in a situation like this can hold their hands up and say they don't know who was driving; this is completely reasonable and is not a cop out. If the photo or video doesn't show the driver they will have a hard job proving who it was.
Send the NIP back OP and make it crystal clear you are NOT the RK.
J
Digitalize said:
Surely the direction of travel will prove which one it was? That's all the photo needs to show, however unless it shows a face it's still not exact.
Assuming you came back to the dealership, you could use their CCTV to prove the time you left and arrived, and work it out from that too.
If it cannot be proven by photo evidence and continued rather than dropped then CCTV would be an option yeah. Just depends what it captures as we switched outside of the dealer, just away from itAssuming you came back to the dealership, you could use their CCTV to prove the time you left and arrived, and work it out from that too.
Stevoox said:
If it cannot be proven by photo evidence and continued rather than dropped then CCTV would be an option yeah. Just depends what it captures as we switched outside of the dealer, just away from it
At the very least it should show what time you arrived back? But then that's rubbish as unless the CCTV can show the salesman getting in, and you getting out, and there's no reasonable doubt that you switch before/after the camera, it would still be your word against his on who was driving.jith said:
Both drivers in a situation like this can hold their hands up and say they don't know who was driving; this is completely reasonable and is not a cop out. If the photo or video doesn't show the driver they will have a hard job proving who it was.
Thats fine if its you and your brother, or you and your wife?Would you be willing to trust someone you don't know to both stick to "we don't know"? I wouldn't trust a 2nd hand car salesman as far as I could throw him. I certainly wouldn't trust him not to drive and dump the points and fine on me.
jith said:
Dear god, what is wrong with you people? Can't you read!
The person who could likely face a PCJ charge would be the salesman. He has named the OP as the RK and he didn't even buy the car! He clearly did it to get himself off the hook. The OP has a first class defence in the respect that this was a road test of a vehicle he showed an interest in. BOTH himself and the salesman were driving. That means it is up to the SCP to prove who was driving.
Both drivers in a situation like this can hold their hands up and say they don't know who was driving; this is completely reasonable and is not a cop out. If the photo or video doesn't show the driver they will have a hard job proving who it was.
Send the NIP back OP and make it crystal clear you are NOT the RK.
J
The question on the s.172 notice is not who the registered keeper is (in a speeding offence it matters not) but who the driver is, so if the salesman believes or knows the OP was driving at the time of the alleged offence he has done correctly by putting him down as the driver, regardless of whether he bought the car or not. The person who could likely face a PCJ charge would be the salesman. He has named the OP as the RK and he didn't even buy the car! He clearly did it to get himself off the hook. The OP has a first class defence in the respect that this was a road test of a vehicle he showed an interest in. BOTH himself and the salesman were driving. That means it is up to the SCP to prove who was driving.
Both drivers in a situation like this can hold their hands up and say they don't know who was driving; this is completely reasonable and is not a cop out. If the photo or video doesn't show the driver they will have a hard job proving who it was.
Send the NIP back OP and make it crystal clear you are NOT the RK.
J
Digitalize said:
At the very least it should show what time you arrived back? But then that's rubbish as unless the CCTV can show the salesman getting in, and you getting out, and there's no reasonable doubt that you switch before/after the camera, it would still be your word against his on who was driving.
Just checked my phone as i recall sending a text just after driving it. Text was sent at 14:15 to say "Just test drove the A45 AMG". The NIP advises the camera caught the car at 12:58. I Think i was only in the car 15/20minsStevoox said:
jith said:
Dear god, what is wrong with you people? Can't you read!
The person who could likely face a PCJ charge would be the salesman. He has named the OP as the RK and he didn't even buy the car! He clearly did it to get himself off the hook. The OP has a first class defence in the respect that this was a road test of a vehicle he showed an interest in. BOTH himself and the salesman were driving. That means it is up to the SCP to prove who was driving.
Both drivers in a situation like this can hold their hands up and say they don't know who was driving; this is completely reasonable and is not a cop out. If the photo or video doesn't show the driver they will have a hard job proving who it was.
Send the NIP back OP and make it crystal clear you are NOT the RK.
J
Thank you for a clear, helpful answer!The person who could likely face a PCJ charge would be the salesman. He has named the OP as the RK and he didn't even buy the car! He clearly did it to get himself off the hook. The OP has a first class defence in the respect that this was a road test of a vehicle he showed an interest in. BOTH himself and the salesman were driving. That means it is up to the SCP to prove who was driving.
Both drivers in a situation like this can hold their hands up and say they don't know who was driving; this is completely reasonable and is not a cop out. If the photo or video doesn't show the driver they will have a hard job proving who it was.
Send the NIP back OP and make it crystal clear you are NOT the RK.
J
They will have sent the NIP to the dealer who is deemed to be the person 'keeping' the vehicle at the time of the offence, as such his responsibility to name the correct driver at the time is far greater than yours, in this instance you will be classed as any other person and your responsibility ends with supplying any information you may have that that may help identify the driver, be that you or someone else. If, as mentioned earlier, you can ascertain it was not you driving by checking the direction of travel etc then write back explain the situation that you were on a test drive but you were not driving at the time of the offence and refer them back to the dealer who by the very nature of his business in the eyes of the law is expected to keep records about who is driving what at any given time, so they will probably fall at the first hurdle.
Also consider that the speed is just inside the guidelines for SAC if the driver is eligible.
Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 11th March 00:29
Edited by martinbiz on Wednesday 11th March 00:32
Stevoox said:
Digitalize said:
At the very least it should show what time you arrived back? But then that's rubbish as unless the CCTV can show the salesman getting in, and you getting out, and there's no reasonable doubt that you switch before/after the camera, it would still be your word against his on who was driving.
Just checked my phone as i recall sending a text just after driving it. Text was sent at 14:15 to say "Just test drove the A45 AMG". The NIP advises the camera caught the car at 12:58. I Think i was only in the car 15/20mins
I hadn't realized a mobile camera van could 'do' cars going away from them.
Spangles said:
But I would have been in the car either way as I was A passenger with the sales guy driving. I'll have a nose at the link anyway though V8LM said:
Or be done for using a phone whilst driving too
I hadn't realized a mobile camera van could 'do' cars going away from them.
Did you miss the part where I said "after driving"?I hadn't realized a mobile camera van could 'do' cars going away from them.
Ofcourse I wasn't texting while driving...
I've checked and got a text to the GF at 13:35 just as I was walking back through the dealer. Camera caught the car at 12:58, I certainly wasn't driving the car for 35mins
Spangles said:
You can do the same on an iPhone if you have some Google apps installedYou mentioned cctv, go back to the dealer, see a manager and ask to see the footage showing when you actually took control of the vehicle. I'm sure the manger will be none too happy if you have been named as the driver but it was the salesman driving.
They may only keep the cctv for a short period so this may prove fruitless.
They may only keep the cctv for a short period so this may prove fruitless.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff