Prosecuting Owner/passenger for Insurance and Lic
Discussion
Had an unusual one yesterday, the passenger (registered keeper) of a vehicle was prosecuted for allowing the vehicle to be driven without insurance and for allowingthe vehicle to be driven not in accordance with licence? the offences carried 6 points and a fine and an endorsement/fine respectively.
As this is the first time I have seen this and given that the actual driver was convicted of the offences also, can I ask the BiB if this is normal? Seems a little harsh getting two sets of convictions for the offence!
Agnostic
As this is the first time I have seen this and given that the actual driver was convicted of the offences also, can I ask the BiB if this is normal? Seems a little harsh getting two sets of convictions for the offence!
Agnostic
Its aiding, abeting, causing or permitting a person to drive a vehicle with no insurance or license.
Carry pretty much the same penalties.
To be reported for it the passenger must have some sort of control over the vehicle and person driving it such as the owner of the vehicle allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person they know not to have ins or lic. Or a fleet manager or a boss saying you must drive this vehicle even though they knew no insurance was in force.
Its common in the sense that it puts responsibility on people to ensure the driver of a vehicle is legal. And prevents people being put under pressure to drive illegally from boss's or other persons with an interest or control over a vehicle.
Its a bit more complicated that that but its a summary. If you want more info then i can fish it out.
Gareth
Carry pretty much the same penalties.
To be reported for it the passenger must have some sort of control over the vehicle and person driving it such as the owner of the vehicle allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person they know not to have ins or lic. Or a fleet manager or a boss saying you must drive this vehicle even though they knew no insurance was in force.
Its common in the sense that it puts responsibility on people to ensure the driver of a vehicle is legal. And prevents people being put under pressure to drive illegally from boss's or other persons with an interest or control over a vehicle.
Its a bit more complicated that that but its a summary. If you want more info then i can fish it out.
Gareth
^Slider^ said:
Its aiding, abeting, causing or permitting a person to drive a vehicle with no insurance or license.
Carry pretty much the same penalties.
To be reported for it the passenger must have some sort of control over the vehicle and person driving it such as the owner of the vehicle allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person they know not to have ins or lic. Or a fleet manager or a boss saying you must drive this vehicle even though they knew no insurance was in force.
Its common in the sense that it puts responsibility on people to ensure the driver of a vehicle is legal. And prevents people being put under pressure to drive illegally from boss's or other persons with an interest or control over a vehicle.
Its a bit more complicated that that but its a summary. If you want more info then i can fish it out.
Gareth
Slider,
At the risk of commenting on a matter I know little about I believe the criteria for this to be a bit less stringent.
Several years ago, my sister's then boyfriend borrowed her car to pop to the shops while his was in the garage. He wasnt insured.
She was not present at the time.
To cut a long story short, she was given the choice of either reporting him for taking without consent, or facing a charge of aiding and abetting.
She wouldnt make the charge against him, as a result was convicted of the charge outlined above.
TheLemming said:
Its aiding, abeting, causing or permitting a person to drive a vehicle with no insurance or license.
Carry pretty much the same penalties.
To be reported for it the passenger must have some sort of control over the vehicle and person driving it such as the owner of the vehicle allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person they know not to have ins or lic. Or a fleet manager or a boss saying you must drive this vehicle even though they knew no insurance was in force.
Its common in the sense that it puts responsibility on people to ensure the driver of a vehicle is legal. And prevents people being put under pressure to drive illegally from boss's or other persons with an interest or control over a vehicle.
Its a bit more complicated that that but its a summary. If you want more info then i can fish it out.
Gareth
Slider,
At the risk of commenting on a matter I know little about I believe the criteria for this to be a bit less stringent.
Several years ago, my sister's then boyfriend borrowed her car to pop to the shops while his was in the garage. He wasnt insured.
She was not present at the time.
To cut a long story short, she was given the choice of either reporting him for taking without consent, or facing a charge of aiding and abetting.
She wouldnt make the charge against him, as a result was convicted of the charge outlined above.
Same applies. It was her duty to ensure she had taken reasonable steps to ensure he was insured. She didnt and the same still applied with Aide Abet cause and permit.
absolutely normal....
6 points for driver; using a vehicle uninsured
6 points for owner; could also be using, or permitting or causing a vehicle to be on a road where the driver is uninsured....
Uninsured drivers are a nightmare....and any legislation that hammers them and those that allow them to be on the road has got to be a good thing...
Bet they wont do that again in a hurry..
6 points for driver; using a vehicle uninsured
6 points for owner; could also be using, or permitting or causing a vehicle to be on a road where the driver is uninsured....
Uninsured drivers are a nightmare....and any legislation that hammers them and those that allow them to be on the road has got to be a good thing...
Bet they wont do that again in a hurry..
And yet this crazy speed-camera obsession will cause more and more very safe and experienced drivers, many with max. no-claims bonuses, to get 6-month bans and quite a few of these will then drive unlicenced and thus uninsured in order to preserve their career, mortgage repayments, kids clothes, stability of their marriage, etc.
Castigate those who do this as much as you wish, but the risks of being caught doing this in such a situation can be far less than the consequences of losing your job or business.
So, before you all go on (again) about the cardinal sin of driving whilst uninsured, ask yourselves whether you might be more than just tempted if a ban meant that you would lose all your future career prospects or your business with its overdraft guaranteed by the value of your house, and try to be honest about the answer.
The current camera-obsession has a lot to answer for.
Castigate those who do this as much as you wish, but the risks of being caught doing this in such a situation can be far less than the consequences of losing your job or business.
So, before you all go on (again) about the cardinal sin of driving whilst uninsured, ask yourselves whether you might be more than just tempted if a ban meant that you would lose all your future career prospects or your business with its overdraft guaranteed by the value of your house, and try to be honest about the answer.
The current camera-obsession has a lot to answer for.
^Slider^ said:
If you want to run the risk of driving uninsured then you run the risk of getting caught.
As far as im concerned there is no excuse for driving uninsured, with no license or disqualified.
I think you rather miss my point.
There may well be no excuse for DWD, but there may be a reason.
Before I continue let me make it clear. I have never, in 45 years driving, knowingly driven whilst uninsured.
But suppose, just suppose, I accumulated 12 camera points over a 3 year period. I run my own small business plus do consultancy work for two other companies. I am 64 and my income/pension will depend on my continued mobility. Thus a ban would cause my business to close (I now live 38 miles cross country from my office). This would seriously impact on my pension and my future.
Would I be tempted to drive? Of course I would. Would I drive? I don't honestly know - probably not. However, I can see why a husband and father with a senior position and a large mortgage might do so, especially if his ban was not due to dangerous driving or drink-driving, but due to the spiteful, nasty and ineffective cash-cameras. With less manned police patrols the possibility of being caught is vastly reduced. It's a risk analysis situation where the consequences of not driving may be seen to outway the risk of doing so.
It's happening already, chaps, as a direct result of the cash-cameras. However much you and I may regret it and criticise it it will increase as camera-induced bans increase. If you are done for DD, you probably accept it as a just punishment, for camera caused bans most are really angry with the system, not with themselves.
I'm not condoning it in the slightest, but I do understand it and sympathese with those who feel it necessary to risk DWD under these circumstances.
I do / did get the point you were making.
My point is if you are disqual then you are uninsured. There is no excuse for it as far as i can see. people may want to run the risks but if they do and get caught then its their problem in court not mine. If someone who was uninsured / disqual banged your motor in a car park then you would be fuming that they were uninsured / disqual and id hazzard a guess that you wouldent care how they were disqual.
My point is if you are disqual then you are uninsured. There is no excuse for it as far as i can see. people may want to run the risks but if they do and get caught then its their problem in court not mine. If someone who was uninsured / disqual banged your motor in a car park then you would be fuming that they were uninsured / disqual and id hazzard a guess that you wouldent care how they were disqual.
But can't you see that this is EXACTLY what the nasty spiteful cash-collection cameras are increasingly causing.
It won't be a problem as I am approaching retirement and I can get myself another licence from any one of several different countries and I'm unlikely to get points on my currntly points-free licence prior to retirement.
However, the truth is that disquals are at their highest ever due to the silly cameras.Thus the number of DWD is the highest ever.The number of manned trafpols to cach them is reducing and a camera can't catch a DWD.
Thus there are an increasing number of DWD's on the road.
Like it or not, that's the truth. Any why, because this gov't, and the one before, thought they could get increased road safety on the cheap.
It won't be a problem as I am approaching retirement and I can get myself another licence from any one of several different countries and I'm unlikely to get points on my currntly points-free licence prior to retirement.
However, the truth is that disquals are at their highest ever due to the silly cameras.Thus the number of DWD is the highest ever.The number of manned trafpols to cach them is reducing and a camera can't catch a DWD.
Thus there are an increasing number of DWD's on the road.
Like it or not, that's the truth. Any why, because this gov't, and the one before, thought they could get increased road safety on the cheap.
GreenV8S said:
Roughly a quarter of a million people were banned from driving last year. What proportion of those would you expec to actually stop driving as a result? How about next year when it's half a million or a million?
It's simple really. No matter what anyone says, banned drivers who feel that the only reason for their ban is cash-collection will feel, rightly, aggrieved. Unlike DD's, who, in the main, accept that they deserve their punishment, those banned as a result of the camera obsession don't. Some, in fact many, will probably continue to drive as a risk analysis tells them that if they just do certain things they are very unlikely to be caught.
I am not condoning this, as some seem to think, I am trying to put it into perspective, that's all. With some SCP's, like our friends the Cumbria Scumeraship, talking about putting double cameras in one location to ensure you get £120 fine and 6 points for doing 47 mph for a couple of hundred yards on a relatively safe road the numbers banned will increase dramatically.
It's this current obsession with speeding which ius causing this effect, and please don't come back with the old nonsense about speed kills, especially when the scameras are in the safest bits of road where the revenue pickings will be high.
The system is sowing the wind and will reap the whirlwind. In time so many drivers will be banned that DWD will be as common as smoking canabis. Already driving without insurance is not so harshly punished as when I started driving 45 years ago - then it was an automatic ban for up tp 1 year for the first offence.
Condemn it if you will, but do try to understand it a little.
For goodness sake Cooperman stop this silly argument of the honest working man screwed over by the camera people! 
FACT; EVERY uninsured driver i have EVER dealt with has been a lying jobless thieving shitbag. I have NEVER dealt with the poor honest man you've made up.
I'm not defending camera's or low limits, that's not what i'm saying. I just think that if someone somehow manages to have such poor forward vision as to get 9 points, they need to just stick to the limit for a while. They may not agree with it, but it's hardly some sort of impossible thing to do...
FACT; EVERY uninsured driver i have EVER dealt with has been a lying jobless thieving shitbag. I have NEVER dealt with the poor honest man you've made up.
I'm not defending camera's or low limits, that's not what i'm saying. I just think that if someone somehow manages to have such poor forward vision as to get 9 points, they need to just stick to the limit for a while. They may not agree with it, but it's hardly some sort of impossible thing to do...
I have to agree totally with Cooperman.
I know people who are exactly the kind of people he mentions who have been banned, one for only 2 offences, both in total safety on a deserted safmotorway on at 96 and another at 101. When ones job depends on occasional mobility DWD is the only option.
These scumera parasiteships have a lot to answer for.
I know people who are exactly the kind of people he mentions who have been banned, one for only 2 offences, both in total safety on a deserted safmotorway on at 96 and another at 101. When ones job depends on occasional mobility DWD is the only option.
These scumera parasiteships have a lot to answer for.
Amazing how many of you are missing Cooperman's point. Of course DWD is wrong but it's bloody obvious that a system that is capable of disqualifying drivers for a few technical infringements will, at some time, produce DWD drivers.
The additional risk is that once a normally law abiding person has been pushed outside the law, he may stay outside.
The additional risk is that once a normally law abiding person has been pushed outside the law, he may stay outside.
Hollywood Wheels said:
FACT; EVERY uninsured driver i have EVER dealt with has been a lying jobless thieving shitbag. I have NEVER dealt with the poor honest man you've made up.
Don't beat around the bush, Wheels, mate. Say what you really think!
More seriously. If one had accumulated, say, six to nine points on one's licence through totting up and one's livelihood was dependent on one's licence. Surely one would consider:
a) the full complement of electronic countermeasures
b) some Advanced Driver training
c) a modification of one's driving style to avoid situations in which one might incur further points
Unless, of course, one was a stupid lying jobless thieving shitbag ? No? Perchance?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff