Genuinely don't know who was driving

[hertsbiker]

Hypothetical question but;-

..say you'd met up with some riding buddies, and you do your usual bike swap (to compare notes etc), and your bike gets a NIP.

Now suppose you never actually knew where all your mates lived - and this is quite feasible that you meet somewhere, what on earth do you put on your reply for identification?

This is a serious, but currently hypothetical question. Would it go to court? what chance do you have of getting off?

rgds, C

[outlaw]

Hypothetical question but;-

..say you'd met up with some riding buddies, and you do your usual bike swap (to compare notes etc), and your bike gets a NIP.

Now suppose you never actually knew where all your mates lived - and this is quite feasible that you meet somewhere, what on earth do you put on your reply for identification?

This is a serious, but currently hypothetical question. Would it go to court? what chance do you have of getting off?

rgds, C

yea it would go to court m8

Genuinely don't know who was driving is a legal defence from what i can see.

Duty to give information as to identity of driver, etc., in certain cases.

172.— This section applies—
(a) to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—
(i) an offence under Part V, or
(ii) an offence under section 13, 16, 51 , 61 , 67 , 68 , 96 or 117,
and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,
(b) to any offence under sections 25, 26, 27 and 45 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, and
(c) to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads.
Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.
In this subsection references to the driver of a vehicle include references to the person riding a cycle.

A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was.

A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (b) above is guilty of an offence.






>> Edited by outlaw on Monday 14th April 10:58

[hertsbiker]

Seems to me that if I asked one of my mates if I could put them on the ID slip, that they'd be a bit stubborn! - it's been something that has troubled me for some time, us bikers often try out eachothers bikes as it lets you diagnose handling/engine faults. Nearly every bike insurance policy is worded so as to permit "riding of bikes not owned/rented by policy holder", so it's not as if you could be done for no insurance..!

Imagine then, "name: Fred Blogg, address: Somewhere in Essex". Yeah. Can see that being a bit tricky to defend, but if it's the truth, then I don't see why I should get done for it, but I'm not going to risk following someone home and risking a fight about it.

Still, hope it doesn't come to that... 2 weeks, and counting. Ooops, that's me hypothetical cover blown then!

C

[outlaw]

Imagine then, "name: Fred Blogg, address: Somewhere in Essex".

---

coulde be fun trying lol


could posibly get togeather with a few m8`s if they all got balls and savy.

and if one of you gets a nip say it was your m8 driving then he says he was driving but not when the pic was taken driving i must have been you as you were swaping backward and forwards during the ride/drive.

but you both stick to the same storie there have a hell of a time try too do anyone for anything as long as there aint a pic of the rider /driver



>> Edited by outlaw on Monday 14th April 11:58

>> Edited by outlaw on Monday 14th April 11:59