O.A.P speeding again...

[jem72]

My 70 year old father just got a letter in the post from Wiltshire police saying that they have a photo of his car doing 80mph in a 70mph zone. He has looked at the photo online and cannot make out if he is driving or my mother. Its apparently taken by a mobile camera at 148ft as he changes lane. The questions are can he question the cameras accuracy and what should he say about the driver?

[supermono]

jem72 said:

My 70 year old father just got a letter in the post from Wiltshire police saying that they have a photo of his car doing 80mph in a 70mph zone. He has looked at the photo online and cannot make out if he is driving or my mother. Its apparently taken by a mobile camera at 148ft as he changes lane. The questions are can he question the cameras accuracy and what should he say about the driver?

Can't answer the question but (providing he's safe), big thumbs up to the septegenerian for keeping it on

SM

[justinp1]

jem72 said:

My 70 year old father just got a letter in the post from Wiltshire police saying that they have a photo of his car doing 80mph in a 70mph zone. He has looked at the photo online and cannot make out if he is driving or my mother. Its apparently taken by a mobile camera at 148ft as he changes lane. The questions are can he question the cameras accuracy and what should he say about the driver?

He can question the cameras accuracy and also request that he can see a video to try to make out who was driving.

However, questioning the accuracy will most likely involve solicitors, court and/or at very least your father spending many hours writing back and forth to the CPS. For reference, I would look at a recent thread, 'LTI2020 Strikes Again.... At me!'

The photo then he may have been sent was probably intended only to name the driver.

However... a little ditty of infomation is that the minimum operating distance of the devices *on bridges* is ten times the height of the bridge. Funnily enough only a minority of the operators know this.

Was the photo take from a bridge?

[jem72]

The police have looked at the video and cannot make out who was driving. The photo looks like it was taken from some elevation as though from a bank (you can see a bit of the roof). Should we ask where the photo was taken from?

[Dwight VanDriver]

Is the car insured for BOTH Mr and Mrs OAP? Tis general that the one Insured is the driver.........

Defence to a charge of failing to name the driver is that the Reg keeper did not and could not with due diligence ascertain who was driver. If the photo doesn't help you are over halfway there and memory of Senior Citzs does deteriorate but it is for the Mags to decide.

dvd

[apache]

Doesn't www.pepipoo.com/ have all the latest tips?

[M5Dave]

If your father and mother both regularly drive the car, both are insured to drive it, and your father genuinly can't remember who was driving, then that is what to tell them.

They can't prosecute for speeding if the driver can't be identified, and I don't think they will be able to prosecute for a S172 offence, because your father is not refusing to say who was driving, he simply can't remember.

[Dwight VanDriver]

I think you will find Dave that if he (Reg Keeper) does not name a driver then will summons for 172 offence and it will be up to him to convince the Mags he did not know.

I have heard that they may well throw in the speeding summons as well in case evidence comes out that he was the driver.

dvd

[jem72]

My Father is the owner and policy holder, mum is insured. They were driving from Cornwall to London (280 miles) a trip they do regularly and switch between the drivers often so that they can take turns to rest. Looks like he is best stating this and let the police make a choice.

[Richard C]

DvD said:

Is the car insured for BOTH Mr and Mrs OAP? Tis general that the one Insured is the driver.........

In practice or in law DvD? It would invidious for that assumption to be used as evidenmce leading to a conviction.

I would go down the route of naming BOTH Mr and Mrs OAP as drivers ( qualifying it that clearly BOTH were not driving at the point at which speed in excess of the limit was detected and that there is some uncertainty as to who is driving and challenge the police/scameraship to come up with the necessary evidence. The statement by the RK also needs to point out that in making the statement the RK has discharged all his obligations under S172 iv)

I should also point out that some time seems to have elapsed since the offence - was the NIP posted within 13 days of the offence ? If not then out of time.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Practice, Richard, Practice.

But putting both names forward does not strictly comply with 172 unless one was steering and the other operating the controls. SCP may accept but most usually the 'don't know 'defence has to be decided at Court.

dvd