Flashed by variable m42 cameras with no speed limit display
Discussion
I assumed already that a NIP would be winging it's way to my house soon.
The only issue with naming the driver is that they are also from NZ. It may turn out that they are not insured 3rd party through their company to drive my car (tbc tomorrow). Could I be liable, if I declare them as driving, and it turns out they drove my car uninsured? What resources can the Speed Camera Office/ WM Police draw on apart from the speed camera photo to prove he was driving... and subsequently show lack of insurance? Would they even bother?
If I do name them, then how will they sort out a ticket for a foreign driver, with a NZ licence, who in typical Kiwi tradition is travelling the world presently and not due to find a permanent address back in NZ until June?
The only issue with naming the driver is that they are also from NZ. It may turn out that they are not insured 3rd party through their company to drive my car (tbc tomorrow). Could I be liable, if I declare them as driving, and it turns out they drove my car uninsured? What resources can the Speed Camera Office/ WM Police draw on apart from the speed camera photo to prove he was driving... and subsequently show lack of insurance? Would they even bother?
If I do name them, then how will they sort out a ticket for a foreign driver, with a NZ licence, who in typical Kiwi tradition is travelling the world presently and not due to find a permanent address back in NZ until June?
Interesting.
bookmarks thread and hope you let us know if a NoIP turns up as I've been led to believe from reliable official source that one probably won't, but then that was some considerable time ago and before the current funding issues. It was always about the money, locally anyway.
bookmarks thread and hope you let us know if a NoIP turns up as I've been led to believe from reliable official source that one probably won't, but then that was some considerable time ago and before the current funding issues. It was always about the money, locally anyway.
kiwifraser said:
I assumed already that a NIP would be winging it's way to my house soon.
The only issue with naming the driver is that they are also from NZ. It may turn out that they are not insured 3rd party through their company to drive my car (tbc tomorrow). Could I be liable, if I declare them as driving, and it turns out they drove my car uninsured? What resources can the Speed Camera Office/ WM Police draw on apart from the speed camera photo to prove he was driving... and subsequently show lack of insurance? Would they even bother?
If I do name them, then how will they sort out a ticket for a foreign driver, with a NZ licence, who in typical Kiwi tradition is travelling the world presently and not due to find a permanent address back in NZ until June?
If a NOIP arrives and you return the s.172 naming the Kiwi as the driver, you may well be asked to provide:The only issue with naming the driver is that they are also from NZ. It may turn out that they are not insured 3rd party through their company to drive my car (tbc tomorrow). Could I be liable, if I declare them as driving, and it turns out they drove my car uninsured? What resources can the Speed Camera Office/ WM Police draw on apart from the speed camera photo to prove he was driving... and subsequently show lack of insurance? Would they even bother?
If I do name them, then how will they sort out a ticket for a foreign driver, with a NZ licence, who in typical Kiwi tradition is travelling the world presently and not due to find a permanent address back in NZ until June?
1) evidence of their entitlement to drive in the UK; and
2) evidence that they were insured to drive your vehicle - e.g. coverage on your policy or on theirs; and
3) evidence that they were in this country at the time - e.g. airline schedule (ticket stub), visa, entry/exit stamps on passport.
Failure (for whatever reason) to provide whatever is required will likely lead to you being considered (for the purposes of prosecution) to be the driver at the time, and could also lead to consideration of a charge of perverting the course of justice - which upon conviction can attract a prison sentence (and has for 'mis-naming' offences).
On the other hand the scamera pratnership might accept your assertion without question ... but I doubt it.
Streaky
In cases where a person from overseas is nominated as the driver, rather than chase the driver around the globe, it is far more likely that the SCP would require confirmation from the OP that Johnny Foreigner was actually insured to drive said vehicle, and was even in the country at the time.
Failure to confirm that suitable insurance was in place could see the OP facing prosecution for causing or permitting uninsured vehicle use.
More serious charges (including a possible custodial sentence) would lie in wait if it was discovered that the nomination of Johnny F was a fabrication.
The above is all moot of course, unless and until a NIP / s.172 request actually appears.
Failure to confirm that suitable insurance was in place could see the OP facing prosecution for causing or permitting uninsured vehicle use.
More serious charges (including a possible custodial sentence) would lie in wait if it was discovered that the nomination of Johnny F was a fabrication.
The above is all moot of course, unless and until a NIP / s.172 request actually appears.
kiwifraser said:
I assumed already that a NIP would be winging it's way to my house soon.
The only issue with naming the driver is that they are also from NZ. It may turn out that they are not insured 3rd party through their company to drive my car (tbc tomorrow). Could I be liable, if I declare them as driving, and it turns out they drove my car uninsured? What resources can the Speed Camera Office/ WM Police draw on apart from the speed camera photo to prove he was driving... and subsequently show lack of insurance? Would they even bother?
If I do name them, then how will they sort out a ticket for a foreign driver, with a NZ licence, who in typical Kiwi tradition is travelling the world presently and not due to find a permanent address back in NZ until June?
No sign illuminated indicates a 70mph speed limit; 85 is an offence.The only issue with naming the driver is that they are also from NZ. It may turn out that they are not insured 3rd party through their company to drive my car (tbc tomorrow). Could I be liable, if I declare them as driving, and it turns out they drove my car uninsured? What resources can the Speed Camera Office/ WM Police draw on apart from the speed camera photo to prove he was driving... and subsequently show lack of insurance? Would they even bother?
If I do name them, then how will they sort out a ticket for a foreign driver, with a NZ licence, who in typical Kiwi tradition is travelling the world presently and not due to find a permanent address back in NZ until June?
No insurance = permit driving with no insurance.
NZ driver will have to be dealt with at magistrates' court.
Name the driver but as others have said, make sure he exists before you do so or more offences will or may be added to your current situation.
streaky said:
kiwifraser said:
I assumed already that a NIP would be winging it's way to my house soon.
The only issue with naming the driver is that they are also from NZ. It may turn out that they are not insured 3rd party through their company to drive my car (tbc tomorrow). Could I be liable, if I declare them as driving, and it turns out they drove my car uninsured? What resources can the Speed Camera Office/ WM Police draw on apart from the speed camera photo to prove he was driving... and subsequently show lack of insurance? Would they even bother?
If I do name them, then how will they sort out a ticket for a foreign driver, with a NZ licence, who in typical Kiwi tradition is travelling the world presently and not due to find a permanent address back in NZ until June?
If a NOIP arrives and you return the s.172 naming the Kiwi as the driver, you may well be asked to provide:The only issue with naming the driver is that they are also from NZ. It may turn out that they are not insured 3rd party through their company to drive my car (tbc tomorrow). Could I be liable, if I declare them as driving, and it turns out they drove my car uninsured? What resources can the Speed Camera Office/ WM Police draw on apart from the speed camera photo to prove he was driving... and subsequently show lack of insurance? Would they even bother?
If I do name them, then how will they sort out a ticket for a foreign driver, with a NZ licence, who in typical Kiwi tradition is travelling the world presently and not due to find a permanent address back in NZ until June?
1) evidence of their entitlement to drive in the UK; and
2) evidence that they were insured to drive your vehicle - e.g. coverage on your policy or on theirs; and
3) evidence that they were in this country at the time - e.g. airline schedule (ticket stub), visa, entry/exit stamps on passport.
Failure (for whatever reason) to provide whatever is required will likely lead to you being considered (for the purposes of prosecution) to be the driver at the time, and could also lead to consideration of a charge of perverting the course of justice - which upon conviction can attract a prison sentence (and has for 'mis-naming' offences).
On the other hand the scamera pratnership might accept your assertion without question ... but I doubt it.
Streaky
Given the huge penalties pending for me not being able to provide full details, I'm not sure the truth is the right thing to respond with just in case. I'd rather have his 3 points than a prison sentence
kiwifraser said:
I'd rather have his 3 points than a prison sentence
Prison wouldn't be on the menu upon conviction for causing or permitting the uninsured use of a vehicle - that offence carries 6-8 points, a fine of a few hundred quid (plus associated court fees) and the likelihood of increased insurance premiums for the next 5 years.A spell spent showering with other men has, however, been enjoyed by many who have knowingly made false nominations of a 'driver from overseas' and were subsequently found out.
grumpy geezer said:
mike325112 said:
Bookmarked - I was always lead to believe that cameras were off when there was no display.
You were led correctly but that is now not true as the 70mph limit is now able to be enforced with these cameras.Seems as if something has changed, though I never took the risk as it happens.
I was certainly led to believe that the HADECS cameras *can* be used to enforce NSL, so I'm always very careful to watch my speed even when it's quiet along there (well, before the camera gantries at least!). I've certainly seen the cameras flash from time to time along there.
That being said, I'm also led to believe that they actually only have a handful (single figures) of live cameras along there, which they move between the camera housings from time to time, so the chance of being nabbed is actually very low.
That being said, I'm also led to believe that they actually only have a handful (single figures) of live cameras along there, which they move between the camera housings from time to time, so the chance of being nabbed is actually very low.
SS2. said:
kiwifraser said:
I'd rather have his 3 points than a prison sentence
Prison wouldn't be on the menu upon conviction for causing or permitting the uninsured use of a vehicle - that offence carries 6-8 points, a fine of a few hundred quid (plus associated court fees) and the likelihood of increased insurance premiums for the next 5 years.A spell spent showering with other men has, however, been enjoyed by many who have knowingly made false nominations of a 'driver from overseas' and were subsequently found out.
Hmmm... still not exactly a good option either way. Take the hit for 3 points and reasonably small insurance hit, or possibly get 6-8 points with a big fine and big insurance hike. I think it is going to be the former based on that decision.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff