Failure to disclose driver vs very excessive speeding NIP?
Discussion
I got a NIP through about 7 years ago for speeding and got it dropped due to being as helpful as I could.....................
a) Because 2 of it were on a long journey to collect a car, at the area stated we were unsure who was driving the car.
b) I supplied details of both potential drivers and the rough area (to the best of our knowledge) we changed drivers.
c) requested photos that they have of the driver to help us identify who was driving at the time.
d) When the pictures they supplied were very grainy screen shots, I supplied photos of the 2 potential drivers (who happen to be, genuinely, very similar in build etc) and asked if they could compare them to maybe some higher definition footage they had.
e) Police turned up on the doorstep and informed me that they couldn't figure out from the photos who the driver was and that i should think very hard to see if i could figure out who was driving - but I couldn't in all honesty tell them 100% who it was, it would have just been a guess, and that could have been potentially giving false information.
never heard anymore about it
a) Because 2 of it were on a long journey to collect a car, at the area stated we were unsure who was driving the car.
b) I supplied details of both potential drivers and the rough area (to the best of our knowledge) we changed drivers.
c) requested photos that they have of the driver to help us identify who was driving at the time.
d) When the pictures they supplied were very grainy screen shots, I supplied photos of the 2 potential drivers (who happen to be, genuinely, very similar in build etc) and asked if they could compare them to maybe some higher definition footage they had.
e) Police turned up on the doorstep and informed me that they couldn't figure out from the photos who the driver was and that i should think very hard to see if i could figure out who was driving - but I couldn't in all honesty tell them 100% who it was, it would have just been a guess, and that could have been potentially giving false information.
never heard anymore about it
Edited by hast2 on Wednesday 16th November 15:09
RWD cossie wil said:
There are a number of drivers who could have had access to the vehicle at the time if the offence. The thinking is that the fine/points will be less of an impact than the speeding fine/ban.
No sanctimonious bulls
t please, we all know it's not big & clever & the offender deserves all they get etc etc, yada yada.....
Since the offender deserves all they get which is it, honestly, don't know who was driving or being tNo sanctimonious bulls
t please, we all know it's not big & clever & the offender deserves all they get etc etc, yada yada.....tish?hast2 said:
e) Police turned up on the doorstep and informed me that they could figure out from the photos who the driver was and that i should think very hard to see if i could figure out who was driving - but I couldn't in all honesty tell them 100% who it was, it would have just been a guess, and that could have been potentially giving false information.
i think if they'd done that to me, i would have asked why they had knocked and suggest they have better eyes than me if i couldn't tell them apart.surely they were just trying you to incriminate yourself!
hast2 said:
e) Police turned up on the doorstep and informed me that they could figure out from the photos who the driver was
Why then didn't they prosecute him for the original offence? They had the evidence to present to the Magistrate. If they knew who the driver was would that make the S172 irrelevant as that is the purpose of it?rewc said:
Why then didn't they prosecute him for the original offence? They had the evidence to present to the Magistrate. If they knew who the driver was would that make the S172 irrelevant as that is the purpose of it?
Sorry folks, that was miss leading, it should have read CouldN'T not Could.just over 2 years ago when someone drove through a closed road and deliberately ran into me (pedestrian) before making off, the authorities seemed to consider it adequate to simply do the registered keeper for failing to provide information. No mention of the car being registered at a dodgy address or him obviously not being the driver. Considering the charge could have been attempted murder they weren't particularly tenacious in their enquiries.
s55shh said:
just over 2 years ago when someone drove through a closed road and deliberately ran into me (pedestrian) before making off, the authorities seemed to consider it adequate to simply do the registered keeper for failing to provide information. No mention of the car being registered at a dodgy address or him obviously not being the driver. Considering the charge could have been attempted murder they weren't particularly tenacious in their enquiries.
When my other half was rear ended, it was much the same. Registered keeper said it wasn't him and several people had access to car.And that was that. And still waiting for the MIB to get their act together nearly 2 years later!scorcher said:
When my other half was rear ended, it was much the same. Registered keeper said it wasn't him and several people had access to car.And that was that. And still waiting for the MIB to get their act together nearly 2 years later!
MIB told us they would only help if we could identify the driver. Registered keeper successfully convinced the insurance company that his car had been cloned, so we ended up paying the excess and losing NCB yet again.7795 said:
Have I read this wrong or is 100% of the speed limit in a 70mph-70mph so 116% of the speed limit on a motorway 81.2mph? Be gentle...!
It could be interpreted that way but I think as the OP has stated '116% Excess' I'm reading it as 116% over the original speed. (70mph = 151.2mph)Same as if you were 10% excess, id take that as 77mph.
NWMark said:
7795 said:
Have I read this wrong or is 100% of the speed limit in a 70mph-70mph so 116% of the speed limit on a motorway 81.2mph? Be gentle...!
It could be interpreted that way but I think as the OP has stated '116% Excess' I'm reading it as 116% over the original speed. (70mph = 151.2mph)Same as if you were 10% excess, id take that as 77mph.
I don't think that OP is talking about 11mph (assuming 70 limit) over.
pork911 said:
How many of the potential drivers recall maybe 'creeping over' 
the limit on that road at that date and time????
Haha as you can imagine there is a bun fight over who was driving. The question asked was one of are you better off jumping before you are pushed? I.e. If no one fesses up, the owner cops the failure to disclose penalty & fine, but failing to identify is not PCOJ as no false admission has been made, surely the burden of proof is on the authorities to prove beyond reasonable doubt who was driving at the time? the limit on that road at that date and time????With no driver identified, how far would the police be likely to chase it up?
RWD cossie wil said:
pork911 said:
How many of the potential drivers recall maybe 'creeping over' the limit on that road at that date and time????
Haha as you can imagine there is a bun fight over who was driving. The question asked was one of are you better off jumping before you are pushed? I.e. If no one fesses up, the owner cops the failure to disclose penalty & fine, but failing to identify is not PCOJ as no false admission has been made, surely the burden of proof is on the authorities to prove beyond reasonable doubt who was driving at the time? the limit on that road at that date and time????With no driver identified, how far would the police be likely to chase it up?
I take it the RK is not one of the people who may have been driving?
Seems to me that their best bet would be to simply name the person who the keys (and concomitant responsibility) were handed to, and let them slug it out directly with the other suspects who may have driven it while it was in their care...
I do hope everybody who's potentially on the hook is properly insured.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff