Speeding: 42 in a 30 on a test drive

[Stevoox]

I've constructed a detailed image of the crime scene....just for those who don't know the area.

Red dot is the camera van

Blue area is the Merc dealer

[Sheepshanks]

FurtiveFreddy said:

Having had my day in Court for a similar case, the RK part of this is largely irrelevant. In this case, as well as mine, the two possible drivers have been identified from what I can make out. The fact that a business owned the car one of us was driving didn't figure in the proceedings and I can't see how it would in this case.

Can you expand on your case a little?

FurtiveFreddy said:

... 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.

Surely it would be the RK who would be charged with failing to provide the driver's name - would they really charge people who might have been driving? Or does two people naming each other drop them both in it?

[Andehh]

Good luck OP, please keep us updated!

[speedking31]

As I've said before, it seems a lot of trouble and grief and court time etc. to impose a small fine for not the crime of the century. Do they really have to catch and prosecute every single speeder? If they are a habitual speeder they will get caught again in the future, if they are not then by definition this was a one off and no harm was caused, so let it go.

[1Addicted]

Stevoox said:

I've constructed a detailed image of the crime scene....just for those who don't know the area.

Red dot is the camera van

Blue area is the Merc dealer

Yup, that's the spot.

[FurtiveFreddy]

Sheepshanks said:

FurtiveFreddy said:

Having had my day in Court for a similar case, the RK part of this is largely irrelevant. In this case, as well as mine, the two possible drivers have been identified from what I can make out. The fact that a business owned the car one of us was driving didn't figure in the proceedings and I can't see how it would in this case.

Can you expand on your case a little?

Same as OP really. Company owned car, either one of us could have been driving. NIP is returned stating we cannot ID driver so please provide any information to assist. Photo comes back and driver cannot be established. We carry out reasonable diligence to try and establish driver but can't so have our day in Court. Magistrate agrees with us and case dismissed.

Sheepshanks said:

FurtiveFreddy said:

... 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.

Surely it would be the RK who would be charged with failing to provide the driver's name - would they really charge people who might have been driving? Or does two people naming each other drop them both in it?

Nobody is refusing to provide anything. In this case, as mine, both names are provided as possible drivers. That's different to refusing to name a driver or refusing to respond to the NIP.

[jith]

rewc said:

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?

Dear me, we are all getting our knickers in a twist over this.

I'm not a solicitor, but I have assisted with speeding cases as a technical witness or advisor for almost 40 years. I have been involved in dozens of cases like this. The worst and most abused aspects of the law that is used to convict motorists of speeding emanates from speed cameras. It is beyond all doubt the worst invention on the planet because it removes live, human witnesses and replaces them with an image.

Even mobile cameras that are manned utilise the same principle, i.e. it is not the operator that is used as a witness to convict, it is the evidence of an image on the video. This raises enormous problems with enforcement compared to being stopped by 1 or 2 police officers. The obvious is the fact that on many occasions you are unaware that you have been detected; this is particularly true of concealed mobile cameras; and yes, they do conceal themselves.

Up to 2 weeks after the event you receive a NIP and at that point you are aware of a possible or alleged incident and, as the RK you are obliged by law to name the driver. Understand, the law does nothing here to obtain evidence, statements or indeed anything that would help to either convict or clear you. It is left entirely up to you to provide this information or face the consequences.

In cases like this where there is more than one driver, and there are tens of thousands of these each year, the nightmare begins. In this particular case the OPs defence is prejudiced right at the start due to the dealer naming him as the driver without even consulting him. The fact that he can do so demonstrates what an appalling piece of legislation it is.

If a dispute develops as to who was actually driving and this is a classic case of how this can genuinely happen, the only evidence that can be relied on to ascertain the driver is that from the camera. If this does not conclusively show the driver then the only discourse is to go to trial if the SCP is determined enough. I am not sure how the actual procedure works in England, but in Scotland it would be up to the Fiscal whether or not the case was dropped or continued to court.

At that point both parties can explain their version of events on the day and it would be up to the court to decide who was the driver and hence guilty of the offence. It always amuses me that the reality of this kind of case is that the trial is more about who was actually driving the car rather than the actual offence!

If you think it would be reasonable for any court to convict the OP in this case under S172 then I can only totally and utterly disagree; and if they did I am certain it would win on appeal.

The OP does not own or have any access to the vehicle other than for the road test with a view to purchase. He did not have custody or loan of the vehicle at any time. The road test is 100% the reponsibility of the dealer. Every Motor Trade policy I have had stipulates this very clearly. He is not related in any way to the dealer and therefore could never be accused of colluding in any way to take points.

All of this turmoil that some of us are subjected to comes from the speed camera enforcement system and S172. It is dreadful, biased and ludicrously complex to understand and enforce. Many of the Clerks I have dealt with in the courts don't understand it, particularly the fine points, but we are stuck with it as long as we have remote, automated enforcement.

J

[Sheepshanks]

FurtiveFreddy said:

Same as OP really. Company owned car, either one of us could have been driving. NIP is returned stating we cannot ID driver so please provide any information to assist. Photo comes back and driver cannot be established. We carry out reasonable diligence to try and establish driver but can't so have our day in Court. Magistrate agrees with us and case dismissed.

Thanks - so who was the charge laid against?

[Stevoox]

Just sat wondering....

Will the dealership even bother to look into it at all or simply name me once again because I'm logged down as a test drive during that time.

I wasn't going to bother to call them, however I'm thinking it might be worth it and just explain I've looked into it and the camera appears to have caught the salesman upon returning to the dealer

They might then actually pay more attention to it and see what happened. Avoids playing ping pong with the NIP then (not sure how many times it goes back and forth?)

[herewego]

Stevoox said:

Just sat wondering....

Will the dealership even bother to look into it at all or simply name me once again because I'm logged down as a test drive during that time.

I wasn't going to bother to call them, however I'm thinking it might be worth it and just explain I've looked into it and the camera appears to have caught the salesman upon returning to the dealer

They might then actually pay more attention to it and see what happened. Avoids playing ping pong with the NIP then (not sure how many times it goes back and forth?)

Did you ask them to save the CCTV recording?

[SS2.]

Stevoox said:

Avoids playing ping pong with the NIP then (not sure how many times it goes back and forth?)

Appropriately named - another PHer played that very game back in 2004.

[1Addicted]

Stevoox said:

Just sat wondering....

Will the dealership even bother to look into it at all or simply name me once again because I'm logged down as a test drive during that time.

I wasn't going to bother to call them, however I'm thinking it might be worth it and just explain I've looked into it and the camera appears to have caught the salesman upon returning to the dealer

They might then actually pay more attention to it and see what happened. Avoids playing ping pong with the NIP then (not sure how many times it goes back and forth?)

For what it's worth, I've always found this dealer to be quite amicable when it comes to their f-ups. Sure, the salesman is never going to willingly hold his hands up and take the points, fine and a potential telling off from his boss given the choice and, it would appear that to some degree his employer is backing him but, you have some evidence to the contrary. To save face at least and to protect their reputation, they may just accept your retaliation but it would always go down best if you could amicably explain your stand point to the DP before hand, therefore you have nothing to lose by calling.

The entrance to the dealer is on a separate slip road, starting at the roundabout and divided from joining the main portion of the slip road joining Gatwick Road by railings. The slip road travels up hill to join Gatwick Road and therefore the camera must have been pointing at this waiting for cars to rise into view. As the car was clocked at 12:58pm, the same time that the salesman pulled up, then the camera must have been pointing through the railings to catch you in the first place, which I wasn't aware that it could accurately do.

This is the view that the speed camera has. Just under the arrow under "slip road" is where the cars rise up the ramp into view. Just to the right of this, behind an HGV that you can see pulling out, is the slip road that accesses the dealership which is slightly obscured by the railings, although perhaps not as much as I had thought hence the ticket.

Edited by 1Addicted on Thursday 12th March 14:39

[agtlaw]

agtlaw said:

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.

Edit. Defences, not offences.

[Stevoox]

1Addicted said:

For what it's worth, I've always found this dealer to be quite amicable when it comes to their f-ups. Sure, the salesman is never going to willingly hold his hands up and take the points, fine and a potential telling off from his boss given the choice and, it would appear that to some degree his employer is backing him but, you have some evidence to the contrary. To save face at least and to protect their reputation, they may just accept your retaliation but it would always go down best if you could amicably explain your stand point to the DP before hand, therefore you have nothing to lose by calling.

The entrance to the dealer is on a separate slip road, starting at the roundabout and divided from joining the main portion of the slip road joining Gatwick Road by railings. The slip road travels up hill to join Gatwick Road and therefore the camera must have been pointing at this waiting for cars to rise into view. As the car was clocked at 12:58pm, the same time that the salesman pulled up, then the camera must have been pointing through the railings to catch you in the first place, which I wasn't aware that it could accurately do.

From what I recall it was parked up on this section. Whether it can just about see the top of the car or all of it I don't know, but with the railings in the way and at such a distance I can't imagine any front on pictures will be clear.

I've not called them so far as I've done my part so thought it was best to leave to the Police and see where it goes next. However I'd imagine the dealer will just name me again and so back to square one...

[Stevoox]

herewego said:

Did you ask them to save the CCTV recording?

I've not spoken with Mercedes at all, not a word. So far I just thought it was best to keep quiet, save all the extra hassle and now leave the Police to send the NIP back to the named salesman.

[Stevoox]

Have done a view from the roundabout which was exited. Might be a tight shot but as there was no other car near us, the camera could have had a clear path near enough to the round about?

Now he was going fast enough to get the tyres squeeling, which lets be honest, isn't going to happen at 30 or under miles per hour....


Rear view of the car position. Wide round about, decent amount of 'run up' before getting to the slip road to build up speed.


Front view from car position. With very few other cars about (there weren't any in front of us) then the camera looks to have a clear shot of the slip road too?

[1Addicted]

It looks like some superb marksmanship from the camera operator, the Bstard!

[FurtiveFreddy]

Sheepshanks said:

Thanks - so who was the charge laid against?

S172 was sent to the company which owned the car (RK). They forwarded it to the usual driver at the time of the alleged offence, who was also the one summonsed to Court. From memory, I don't know if I was included on the summons or was appearing as a witness or co-defendant.

[Stevoox]

1Addicted said:

It looks like some superb marksmanship from the camera operator, the Bstard!

Yep and also notice in the screen shot where the 30MPH sign is (round about i believe is a 40MPH limit). The car must have just crossed past the sign as the camera beam struck him would certainly be interesting to see a picture!

[Sheepshanks]

FurtiveFreddy said:

Sheepshanks said:

Thanks - so who was the charge laid against?

S172 was sent to the company which owned the car (RK). They forwarded it to the usual driver at the time of the alleged offence, who was also the one summonsed to Court. From memory, I don't know if I was included on the summons or was appearing as a witness or co-defendant.

Hmmm...you're skipping a lot of details there. And you can't remember if you were summonsed or not - really?

It's also a bit different to the case in this thread as there isn't a usual driver of the car (unless it happened to be that salesman).