Failure to disclose driver vs very excessive speeding NIP?

[pork911]

If I was the owner and genuinely didn't know, then at the very least none of them would be driving it anymore! I'd tell the police who all the possible drivers are and invite them to come and question you all. How many drivers are there, company or personal, is it REALLY that difficult to know?

[RWD cossie wil]

pork911 said:

If I was the owner and genuinely didn't know, then at the very least none of them would be driving it anymore! I'd tell the police who all the possible drivers are and invite them to come and question you all. How many drivers are there, company or personal, is it REALLY that difficult to know?

As I said, I'm not involved at all, so no dog in the race for me!

Toomany2CVs, see my post a few pages ago, was 50 limit on motorway, you can do the maths from the first post but nowhere near 150mph..

[pork911]

58 or 108?

Is your question what are the consequences of not knowing who was driving or what are the risks in pretending not to know?

[RWD cossie wil]

pork911 said:

58 or 108?

Is your question what are the consequences of not knowing who was driving or what are the risks in pretending not to know?

Basically, with the recorded speed I would hazard a guess whoever cops the blame should they be named will get a huge fine & probably a fairly substantial ban?

Would it be worth just refusing to name the driver (not falsely declaring) & the registered keeper copping the failure to identify fine/points?

58mph it is not

[Gavia]

RWD cossie wil said:

Basically, with the recorded speed I would hazard a guess whoever cops the blame should they be named will get a huge fine & probably a fairly substantial ban?

Would it be worth just refusing to name the driver (not falsely declaring) & the registered keeper copping the failure to identify fine/points?

58mph it is not

The seventh answer to your question seems pretty clear, but it might not be what you want to hear, so best to ignore it and keep asking

agtlaw said:

The premise of the question may be flawed. The penalty for failing to identify the driver is a fine of up to £1000 and a ban of any length, or 6 penalty points. The penalty for speeding on a motorway (SP50) is a fine of up to £2500 and a ban of any length, or 3-6 penalty points. They are not alternative offences. In some circumstances it may be possible for the prosecutor to prove both offences.

[tapereel]

RWD cossie wil said:

As title, not me, but someone I know has received a NIP alleging 116% excess speed captured by a fixed camera, motorway offence....

Question is, is it possible to just fail to disclose & take the points/fine for that offence, or will the excess speed still be followed up as well? 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 bullst please, we all know it's not big & clever & the offender deserves all they get etc etc, yada yada.....

Edited by RWD cossie wil on Wednesday 16th November 01:59

If the keeper fails to disclose the driver inside 29 days then that keeper is guilty of the offence of failing to disclose the name of the driver. I said guilty not charged with because if the keeper doesn't comply it is for that keeper to prove why the keeper isn't guilty, the burden of proof has moved from the crown to the guilty person.

A charge of excess speed may also be charged and the crown will suggest to the court that in the absence of a named derived who is other than the keeper that keeper was the driver at the time of the offence. The court is likely to make the reasonable assumption that the keeper was the driver and that keeper will, with proper evidence of the speed be found guilty of that offence too. 6 points for failing to name the driver coupled with a conviction for a high speed may tot the driver to 12 points in one joint hearing.

Good luck.

[s p a c e m a n]

Many years ago it took me a couple of months to update all of my details after moving house in a bit of a rush, somewhere in that time I was caught by a camera doing 56 in a 40. The first that I knew of it was a few years later when the bailiffs started chasing up the fine that I hadn't paid for the ms90 that I now had on my license. Self inflicted I know this thread just reminded me of how fked off I was, I'm still annoyed by it.

[TooMany2cvs]

RWD cossie wil said:

Toomany2CVs, see my post a few pages ago, was 50 limit on motorway

Ah, sorry. Missed that.

RWD cossie wil said:

you can do the maths from the first post but nowhere near 150mph.

So 108 in a 50.

[The Mad Monk]

RWD cossie wil said:

As title, not me, but someone I know has received a NIP alleging 116% excess speed captured by a fixed camera, motorway offence....

Question is, is it possible to just fail to disclose & take the points/fine for that offence, or will the excess speed still be followed up as well? 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 bullst please, we all know it's not big & clever & the offender deserves all they get etc etc, yada yada.....

Edited by RWD cossie wil on Wednesday 16th November 01:59

Shrug your shoulders, suck your teeth and say:- "Oh, dunno mate, no idea, I'm afraid".

Think to yourself - it's nothing to do with me, why should I get involved, for an acquaintance?

[techguyone]

Surely the obvious thing to do is to, disclose all parties who may have been possibles and let the police sort it out, if I was the regd keeper and someone made it so I got the blame I'd be really pissed, there's a fair chance if it can't be determined who was driving nothing more will happen anyway, better that than let an innocent party take the rap. It would be interesting to see the regd keepers views on it.

[pork911]

Let's not be coy, given the way the OP has worded it all it was either the owner or he knows exactly which of the possible drivers it was.

[JNW1]

pork911 said:

Let's not be coy, given the way the OP has worded it all it was either the owner or he knows exactly which of the possible drivers it was.

I get that impression as well and if that's the case I would have thought the owner either needs to admit to the offence if they were driving or name the person who was behind the wheel if they weren't. Failure to disclose the driver if they know perfectly well who it was is surely a recipe for making a bad situation even worse?

[LocoCoco]

pork911 said:

Let's not be coy, given the way the OP has worded it all it was either the owner or he knows exactly which of the possible drivers it was.

I've been found guilty of something I didn't do before. I learned that what actually happened doesn't matter, all that matters is what can be proven in court.

It's irrelevant whether OP knows who was driving IMO. I understand that you and most will disagree though and think that being honest is the correct thing to do.

I wonder if you'd still have that opinion if being honest had lead you to be convicted of something that you hadn't done when telling a few lies or just claiming ignorance would have resulted in the correct verdict.

[The Surveyor]

LocoCoco said:

pork911 said:

Let's not be coy, given the way the OP has worded it all it was either the owner or he knows exactly which of the possible drivers it was.

I've been found guilty of something I didn't do before. I learned that what actually happened doesn't matter, all that matters is what can be proven in court.

It's irrelevant whether OP knows who was driving IMO. I understand that you and most will disagree though and think that being honest is the correct thing to do.

I wonder if you'd still have that opinion if being honest had lead you to be convicted of something that you hadn't done when telling a few lies or just claiming ignorance would have resulted in the correct verdict.

It's not quite the same though, all that is being asked is for the driver to be named, not for the offence to be admitted. If it was my car and I knew that I wasn't driving, but knew who was then I certainly wouldn't take the risk of anything coming my way by not disclosing who was driving, even if that was potentially a lessor fine or a shorter ban. Likewise if it was me driving I wouldn't be such a turd as to try and get off by suggesting it 'could' be somebody else. For such a serious offence (in speeding terms) they are unlikely to just shrug and cancel the charge because somebody is trying to be clever.

[pork911]

LocoCoco said:

pork911 said:

Let's not be coy, given the way the OP has worded it all it was either the owner or he knows exactly which of the possible drivers it was.

I've been found guilty of something I didn't do before. I learned that what actually happened doesn't matter, all that matters is what can be proven in court.

It's irrelevant whether OP knows who was driving IMO. I understand that you and most will disagree though and think that being honest is the correct thing to do.

I wonder if you'd still have that opinion if being honest had lead you to be convicted of something that you hadn't done when telling a few lies or just claiming ignorance would have resulted in the correct verdict.

'Correct verdict' for who???

The owner is being asked who was driving. If the owner knows then how is answering honestly going to result in someone being punished wrongly?

[JNW1]

LocoCoco said:

I've been found guilty of something I didn't do before. I learned that what actually happened doesn't matter, all that matters is what can be proven in court.

It's irrelevant whether OP knows who was driving IMO. I understand that you and most will disagree though and think that being honest is the correct thing to do.

I wonder if you'd still have that opinion if being honest had lead you to be convicted of something that you hadn't done when telling a few lies or just claiming ignorance would have resulted in the correct verdict.

I agree it doesn't really matter whether or not the OP knows who was driving but the issue here is more whether the owner of the vehicle knew who was driving. I get the impression they do and they're just trying to work out whether it might be better to claim they don't rather than give the name of the driver....

[LocoCoco]

pork911 said:

LocoCoco said:

pork911 said:

Let's not be coy, given the way the OP has worded it all it was either the owner or he knows exactly which of the possible drivers it was.

I've been found guilty of something I didn't do before. I learned that what actually happened doesn't matter, all that matters is what can be proven in court.

It's irrelevant whether OP knows who was driving IMO. I understand that you and most will disagree though and think that being honest is the correct thing to do.

I wonder if you'd still have that opinion if being honest had lead you to be convicted of something that you hadn't done when telling a few lies or just claiming ignorance would have resulted in the correct verdict.

'Correct verdict' for who???

The owner is being asked who was driving. If the owner knows then how is answering honestly going to result in someone being punished wrongly?

Correct verdict for everybody. ie the person that did the crime gets convicted of said crime.

On your second point, I could honestly nominate another driver but not be able to prove that they were driving, they deny all responsibility and I end up getting done for the original offence. I could even answer honestly but make a mistake, nominating somebody who I believed was driving at the time but actually wasn't.

The truth isn't the most important thing in stuff like this. What can be proven in court is the only thing that will make a difference now.

[TooMany2cvs]

LocoCoco said:

On your second point, I could honestly nominate another driver but not be able to prove that they were driving, they deny all responsibility and I end up getting done for the original offence.

You gave the keys to somebody. They get named.

If they gave the keys to somebody else, then they can bloody well name them.

[LocoCoco]

JNW1 said:

I agree it doesn't really matter whether or not the OP knows who was driving but the issue here is more whether the owner of the vehicle knew who was driving. I get the impression they do and they're just trying to work out whether it might be better to claim they don't rather than give the name of the driver....

I get that impression too tbh but I'm not 100% sure, not sure beyond reasonable doubt. I'd like to see some actual proof before I'd punish somebody for something they might not have done.

[LocoCoco]

TooMany2cvs said:

LocoCoco said:

On your second point, I could honestly nominate another driver but not be able to prove that they were driving, they deny all responsibility and I end up getting done for the original offence.

You gave the keys to somebody. They get named.

If they gave the keys to somebody else, then they can bloody well name them.

They didn't give the keys to anybody else, they were driving at the time and are now lying and putting the blame back on me. They bloody well named me!