Speeding: 42 in a 30 on a test drive
Discussion
jith said:
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.
J
Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer in my post, it is this part of your post that is totally incorrect.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.
J
As I said the scp or police do not have to prove anything, the burden rests with the keeper to tell them or risk prosecution for a more serious offence, whether or not you agree with the way S172 is applied and I for one do not, but that unfortunately is the way the law works at the moment.
martinbiz said:
jith said:
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.
J
Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer in my post, it is this part of your post that is totally incorrect.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.
J
As I said the scp or police do not have to prove anything, the burden rests with the keeper to tell them or risk prosecution for a more serious offence, whether or not you agree with the way S172 is applied and I for one do not, but that unfortunately is the way the law works at the moment.
There is nothing in law that absolutely requires either driver to PROVE who was driving; the requirement is simply one of cooperation. You will not be fined if you are shown to have demonstrated willingness to cooperate within the terms of S172. In this particular case the OP's postition has clearly been compromised by the dealer, in his attempt to blame the OP with no proof.
J
You will have to show a magistrate that two grown men are unable to discuss and decide who it was driving at a particular time in the not too distant past.
Convince that magistrate and all will be well - he cannot give points/fine to both of you as one person would be punished for doing nothing.
However, as the first sentance - you have to show that two grown men cannot work this out - good luck with that one, the magistrates have heard it all before.
Convince that magistrate and all will be well - he cannot give points/fine to both of you as one person would be punished for doing nothing.
However, as the first sentance - you have to show that two grown men cannot work this out - good luck with that one, the magistrates have heard it all before.
Stoofa said:
You will have to show a magistrate that two grown men are unable to discuss and decide who it was driving at a particular time in the not too distant past.
Convince that magistrate and all will be well - he cannot give points/fine to both of you as one person would be punished for doing nothing.
However, as the first sentance - you have to show that two grown men cannot work this out - good luck with that one, the magistrates have heard it all before.
That's not how it works. It is not a symmetrical relationship. The RK has a duty to tell what he/she knows and also to find out using an appropriate amount of diligence. Any other driver that gets served only has a duty to say what they know. The RK might need to ask the other drivers, but as the OP is not the RK, he does not have to do so.Convince that magistrate and all will be well - he cannot give points/fine to both of you as one person would be punished for doing nothing.
However, as the first sentance - you have to show that two grown men cannot work this out - good luck with that one, the magistrates have heard it all before.
If the RK is a company (which is most likely the case here) then they have additional obligations in record keeping.
Bert
jith said:
Sorry, you are completely wrong. In a situation such as this where there are 2 drivers sharing one journey, the onus is on them to provide as much detail as possible to name the driver in order to satisfy the requirements of S172 legislation. If both drivers are unable to do so, and this case is a perfect example of this, it is then up to the court to decide who was driving. But this is only possible with sufficient evidence to do so.
There is nothing in law that absolutely requires either driver to PROVE who was driving; the requirement is simply one of cooperation. You will not be fined if you are shown to have demonstrated willingness to cooperate within the terms of S172. In this particular case the OP's postition has clearly been compromised by the dealer, in his attempt to blame the OP with no proof.
I don’t think it works like that at all – once there’s dispute about who was driving it goes back to the RK. They would be charged with failing to provide the drivers details and will be convicted unless they have good grounds for not knowing.There is nothing in law that absolutely requires either driver to PROVE who was driving; the requirement is simply one of cooperation. You will not be fined if you are shown to have demonstrated willingness to cooperate within the terms of S172. In this particular case the OP's postition has clearly been compromised by the dealer, in his attempt to blame the OP with no proof.
In the case of a company, this is a bit different from, say, a husband and wife disputing who was driving the family car. A company is supposed to have a robust system of recording who was driving and I would guess that a court would take dim view of a company whose business was cars not having such a system.
Maybe, in view of the type of the business, there is recognised solution, but one issue I’ve seen in other companies is it’s not obvious who the legally responsible person is. It’s easy in small owner managed business, but for a car dealer that is probably part of a regional group which is then part of a UK wide organisation, where does the buck stop?
The dealer has such a system, when you test drive they record when they book the car out and back problem is this doesn't record who was driving only who it was booked to.
Dealership have provided the information based on the car being booked out to OP but failed to check who was actually driving or were falsely told it was OP by the salesperson.
Dealership have provided the information based on the car being booked out to OP but failed to check who was actually driving or were falsely told it was OP by the salesperson.
jith said:
If both drivers are unable to do so, and this case is a perfect example of this, it is then up to the court to decide who was driving.
No - the speeding allegation would likely be replaced by one of failing to provide driver details. Edited by SS2. on Thursday 12th March 10:12
I know this location well and to be honest, the salesman really should have had a clue that the van was there as, if I suspect correctly, the van would have near enough been right out front not too far from the flyover, ready to catch people out coming over the brow of the flyover, where they have no hope of seeing the van until it's too late.
This van is here a lot and pretty much just sits there, pointing the laser at the top of the flyover in wait of a car to bounce back the signal as soon as it appears.
This van is here a lot and pretty much just sits there, pointing the laser at the top of the flyover in wait of a car to bounce back the signal as soon as it appears.
1Addicted said:
..if I suspect correctly, the van would have near enough been right out front not too far from the flyover, ready to catch people out coming over the brow of the flyover, where they have no hope of seeing the van until it's too late.
If that's the case, and if the OP's claims were met with denial by the salesman, then perhaps the [front facing] video recorded by the speedmeter would be of sufficient quality to confirm one way or the other.SS2. said:
No - the speeding allegation would likely be replaced by one of failing to provide driver details.
To whom? The dealer or the OP? It can't be both of them as one of them must be correct. There is a statuatory defence: "A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was." It is up to the Magistrate to rule on whether reasonable diligence has been used in this particular case. Edited by SS2. on Thursday 12th March 10:12
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...
Sheepshanks said:
In the case of a company, this is a bit different from, say, a husband and wife disputing who was driving the family car. A company is supposed to have a robust system of recording who was driving and I would guess that a court would take dim view of a company whose business was cars not having such a system.
As in the case of Hampshire Police for example? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1395691/Police-fin...
SS2. said:
If that's the case, and if the OP's claims were met with denial by the salesman, then perhaps the [front facing] video recorded by the speedmeter would be of sufficient quality to confirm one way or the other.
Hopefully so. I imagine that they do record rear video too however, the van is so obvious from the other direction that you'd have to be stupid speed past it.I could be wrong about the location mind but, I've never seen it anywhere else (parked up on the central reservation).
Sheepshanks said:
jith said:
Sorry, you are completely wrong. In a situation such as this where there are 2 drivers sharing one journey, the onus is on them to provide as much detail as possible to name the driver in order to satisfy the requirements of S172 legislation. If both drivers are unable to do so, and this case is a perfect example of this, it is then up to the court to decide who was driving. But this is only possible with sufficient evidence to do so.
There is nothing in law that absolutely requires either driver to PROVE who was driving; the requirement is simply one of cooperation. You will not be fined if you are shown to have demonstrated willingness to cooperate within the terms of S172. In this particular case the OP's postition has clearly been compromised by the dealer, in his attempt to blame the OP with no proof.
I don’t think it works like that at all – once there’s dispute about who was driving it goes back to the RK. They would be charged with failing to provide the drivers details and will be convicted unless they have good grounds for not knowing.There is nothing in law that absolutely requires either driver to PROVE who was driving; the requirement is simply one of cooperation. You will not be fined if you are shown to have demonstrated willingness to cooperate within the terms of S172. In this particular case the OP's postition has clearly been compromised by the dealer, in his attempt to blame the OP with no proof.
In the case of a company, this is a bit different from, say, a husband and wife disputing who was driving the family car. A company is supposed to have a robust system of recording who was driving and I would guess that a court would take dim view of a company whose business was cars not having such a system.
Maybe, in view of the type of the business, there is recognised solution, but one issue I’ve seen in other companies is it’s not obvious who the legally responsible person is. It’s easy in small owner managed business, but for a car dealer that is probably part of a regional group which is then part of a UK wide organisation, where does the buck stop?
It's going to be a simple matter of obtaining the photograph(s) taken at the time of the alleged offence and seeing if that helps ID the driver.
If it doesn't, it will be up to both drivers to do all the research and fact-finding they can to establish who it was that was in the driver's seat at the time. If that is still inconclusive then they can both go to Court and present their findings to the Magistrate who will make a decision. The decision could go either way.
rewc said:
To whom? The dealer or the OP? It can't be both of them as one of them must be correct. There is a statutory defence: "A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was." It is up to the Magistrate to rule on whether reasonable diligence has been used in this particular case.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...
That defence applies to the "person keeping the vehicle" rather than "any other person"; see R v Grant [2001] EWHC 1114. OP is "any other person" - he would have to rely on one of the other section 172 defences.http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...
Edited by agtlaw on Thursday 12th March 15:39
agtlaw said:
That defence applies to the "person keeping the vehicle" rather than "any other person"; see R v Grant [2001] EWHC 1114. OP is "any other person" - he would have to rely on one of the other section 172 offences.
Many thanks.I read this on the web which could apply to the OP.
"The law is different if you are not the registered keeper/keeper of the vehicle.
If you have been accused of this offence simply because you have a connection to the vehicle in question or somebody else has suggested that you may have been the driver, then the burden upon you is to simply provide information ‘that is within your power to give’.
If your response is that you do not have the information as to who was driving, then the Prosecution would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you did not provide the information that was in your power to give in order for you to be convicted."
So my question is; If the OP gives all the information that is within his power to give will that satisfy the S172 requirements?
rewc said:
Many thanks.
I read this on the web ...
So my question is; If the OP gives all the information that is within his power to give will that satisfy the S172 requirements?
Also found on the web:I read this on the web ...
So my question is; If the OP gives all the information that is within his power to give will that satisfy the S172 requirements?
"If the defendant wishes to contend that the information required was not in his power to give then he should raise that issue by asserting that he was not the keeper. Alternatively, that the vehicle was elsewhere at the relevant time. If the defendant is not the keeper and does not reply at all then he is guilty; see Grant [2001] EWHC 1114. If he does reply then the prosecution would have to disprove that he was not the keeper, or prove the location of the vehicle if that is an issue in dispute. The prosecution would also have to prove that the information was in his power to give; Mohindra v DPP [2004] EWHC 490."
http://www.counsel.direct/news/2015/2/6/section-17...
Simply write back asking for a photo as you do not think it was you that was exceeding the speed limit.
When they supply the photo, even if from behind, you'll know exactly where the incident took place and whether you were likely to be the driver at the time.
That's a fair enough request.
I have only ever had one ticket about 10 years ago and it was on a road that both myself and my wife drive reguarly. I asked for a photo. They provided it and it clearly showed it was me.
That's your next step for sure.
When they supply the photo, even if from behind, you'll know exactly where the incident took place and whether you were likely to be the driver at the time.
That's a fair enough request.
I have only ever had one ticket about 10 years ago and it was on a road that both myself and my wife drive reguarly. I asked for a photo. They provided it and it clearly showed it was me.
That's your next step for sure.
(for those who know the area)
The van was parked on the central reservation up nearer to the round about to Manor Royal (opposite end to the fly over roundabout). It was not there when I first turned up in my car to the dealership, but was there when we first went out with the salesman driving (I noticed it).
When the salesman returned to the dealership from him driving (at 12:58) he went fast enough around the roundabout at the flyover to get the tyres screeching.**IT WAS AT 12:58 THE CAMERA CAUGHT US**
At 13:01 i took the car out, down the M23 and back. I knew the van was there and am almost certain I was not speeding when leaving or returning from the dealership.
I have completed the reverse of the NIP, provided the salesman details, attached a copy of his business card, printed a copy of Google location to show the route I went and at what time and wrote a letter to explain my case. I have taken a photocopy of all documents.
If it comes to it, all merc will have to do is view the CCTV from outside of their dealership, it will show the salesman pulling up at 12:58 (again...the time the camera caught us) and me then driving at 13:01
Not sure there is much more I can do...
The van was parked on the central reservation up nearer to the round about to Manor Royal (opposite end to the fly over roundabout). It was not there when I first turned up in my car to the dealership, but was there when we first went out with the salesman driving (I noticed it).
When the salesman returned to the dealership from him driving (at 12:58) he went fast enough around the roundabout at the flyover to get the tyres screeching.**IT WAS AT 12:58 THE CAMERA CAUGHT US**
At 13:01 i took the car out, down the M23 and back. I knew the van was there and am almost certain I was not speeding when leaving or returning from the dealership.
I have completed the reverse of the NIP, provided the salesman details, attached a copy of his business card, printed a copy of Google location to show the route I went and at what time and wrote a letter to explain my case. I have taken a photocopy of all documents.
If it comes to it, all merc will have to do is view the CCTV from outside of their dealership, it will show the salesman pulling up at 12:58 (again...the time the camera caught us) and me then driving at 13:01
Not sure there is much more I can do...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff