Worth paying the extra insurance....

[InitialDave]

We're talking here about someone's dashcam video, aren't we, not an "official" camera of some kind?

Do the rules for forced identification of the driver by the registered keeper cover this? I've only ever seen it mentioned in reference to speed cameras, but the impression I'm getting now is that it's not actually limited to that.

Is this basically a case that the police can choose to apply them in such cases, but they aren't going to in this one, because they think it's a waste of their time?

[LoonR1]

InitialDave said:

We're talking here about someone's dashcam video, aren't we, not an "official" camera of some kind?

Do the rules for forced identification of the driver by the registered keeper cover this? I've only ever seen it mentioned in reference to speed cameras, but the impression I'm getting now is that it's not actually limited to that.

Is this basically a case that the police can choose to apply them in such cases, but they aren't going to in this one, because they think it's a waste of their time?

I've seen the clip, see my earlier posts and any police action would be excessive IMO for what is a very minor infraction.

[InitialDave]

LoonR1 said:

I've seen the clip, see my earlier posts and any police action would be excessive IMO for what is a very minor infraction.

Yep, I understand that's your opinion (and from what you put, it seems a reasonable one).

I guess my question is, do you believe that the police chose not to proceed because they share your opinion, rather than because of the failure to identify the driver the OP claims they stated? And is it correct that the requirement to identify a driver applies to dashcam or CCTV footage, not just speed cameras?

[LoonR1]

InitialDave said:

Yep, I understand that's your opinion (and from what you put, it seems a reasonable one).

I guess my question is, do you believe that the police chose not to proceed because they share your opinion, rather than because of the failure to identify the driver the OP claims they stated? And is it correct that the requirement to identify a driver applies to dashcam or CCTV footage, not just speed cameras?

No idea, it would mostly be comjecture too, although I'm sure that can compel an owner to identify a driver for any alleged offence, not just a speeding one.

[TVR1]

LoonR1 said:

TVR1 said:

LoonR1 said:

Upatdawn said:

Police had my video of a clear motoring offence so the driver gets a visit..


Cops - "who was the driver on the date and time of the offence"?

Mr X - "not sure, I have any driver insurance"

Mr X - "have you a photo of the driver?"

Cops - "no"

Mr X - "shut the door on your way out officer"

And you don't think the police are able to check whether he has this "any driver insurance"? Hint - they can and will check it. Tell me when you find a policy like this, it'll be very, very rare and unbelievably expensive.

My wife has one them and its about £700 a year.

Is £700 expensive? We'd need more info to gauge it.

Is it any driver without restriction?

£700 to me is dirt cheap. But not others. I tried to edit my post last night but quoted it instead, so you may have missed that her policy also includes allowing 16 year olds to drive her car (in accordance with their licence)

16 year olds need her present as do others but she does have a blanket 'any driver with her permission' policy.

You can probably guess what she does for a living and also I'm being slightly disengenous but you didn't qualify your statement and I didn't qualify my reply.

[TVR1]

LoonR1 said:

TVR1 said:

LoonR1 said:

Upatdawn said:

Police had my video of a clear motoring offence so the driver gets a visit..


Cops - "who was the driver on the date and time of the offence"?

Mr X - "not sure, I have any driver insurance"

Mr X - "have you a photo of the driver?"

Cops - "no"

Mr X - "shut the door on your way out officer"

And you don't think the police are able to check whether he has this "any driver insurance"? Hint - they can and will check it. Tell me when you find a policy like this, it'll be very, very rare and unbelievably expensive.

My wife has one them and its about £700 a year.

Is £700 expensive? We'd need more info to gauge it.

Is it any driver without restriction?

£700 to me is dirt cheap. But not others. I tried to edit my post last night but quoted it instead, so you may have missed that her policy also includes allowing 16 year olds to drive her car (in accordance with their licence)

16 year olds need her present as do others but she does have a blanket 'any driver with her permission' policy.

You can probably guess what she does for a living and also I'm being slightly disengenous but you didn't qualify your statement and I didn't qualify my reply.

[LoonR1]

TVR1 said:

£700 to me is dirt cheap. But not others. I tried to edit my post last night but quoted it instead, so you may have missed that her policy also includes allowing 16 year olds to drive her car (in accordance with their licence)

16 year olds need her present as do others but she does have a blanket 'any driver with her permission' policy.

You can probably guess what she does for a living and also I'm being slightly disengenous but you didn't qualify your statement and I didn't qualify my reply.

It'd take pages to cover off every "what if" scenario, hence why I talk about situations that by far the majority will have rather than a specialist policy for a driving instructor.

To quantify cheap it'd be good to see what she'd pay on her car if it was a normal commuter vehicle for her to cover FC without anything else needed. Even if it's "only" double then that adds a fair chunk towards the definition of expensive.

Edited by LoonR1 on Saturday 12th September 19:40