did i miss a change in the law
Discussion
looking at the notts safety cams site i spotted this in the FAQ
notts scams said:
Q.What if I don't know who was driving?
A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
did I miss a change in law to say I should keep records or are they misleading the public with BS in an attempt to extort a 'result'A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
timf said:
looking at the notts safety cams site i spotted this in the FAQ
b) they are misleading the public with BS in an attempt to extort a 'result' - but you would need to show reasonable diligence (or some such) in trying to identify the driver if they send you a s172 notice.notts scams said:
Q.What if I don't know who was driving?
A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
did I miss a change in law to say I should keep records or are they misleading the public with BS in an attempt to extort a 'result'A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
timf said:
looking at the notts safety cams site i spotted this in the FAQ
That's always been the law - don't see it as bullying myself, but then I'm not really a sensitive soul...notts scams said:
Q.What if I don't know who was driving?
A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
did I miss a change in law to say I should keep records or are they misleading the public with BS in an attempt to extort a 'result'A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
Bing o said:
timf said:
looking at the notts safety cams site i spotted this in the FAQ
That's always been the law - don't see it as bullying myself, but then I'm not really a sensitive soul...notts scams said:
Q.What if I don't know who was driving?
A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
did I miss a change in law to say I should keep records or are they misleading the public with BS in an attempt to extort a 'result'A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
esselte said:
Bing o said:
timf said:
looking at the notts safety cams site i spotted this in the FAQ
That's always been the law - don't see it as bullying myself, but then I'm not really a sensitive soul...notts scams said:
Q.What if I don't know who was driving?
A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
did I miss a change in law to say I should keep records or are they misleading the public with BS in an attempt to extort a 'result'A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
Bing o said:
notts scams said:
You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times.
Section 172, C IIRC. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't quote you chapter and verse Section 172 said:
172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver, etc., in certain cases
(1) 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(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 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.
(2) 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.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(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.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.
At no point does it say you need to know at all times who is driving your car. I don't know if my wife is driving the car at the moment.(1) 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(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 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.
(2) 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.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(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.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.
Timsta said:
Bing o said:
notts scams said:
You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times.
Section 172, C IIRC. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't quote you chapter and verse Section 172 said:
172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver, etc., in certain cases
(1) 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(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 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.
(2) 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.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(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.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.
At no point does it say you need to know at all times who is driving your car. I don't know if my wife is driving the car at the moment.(1) 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(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 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.
(2) 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.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(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.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.
In a recent topic dvd helped with this.
Case some 18 months or so ago at Teesside Crown Court on a 172 appeal and the Judge stated that where multiple drivers are concerned records should be kept.
Not sure how many drivers you would class as multiple (2 or 3) or (10+).However it did show that the judge said it was the keepers responsibility to keep track of who was driving.At least thats what i made of it.
Case some 18 months or so ago at Teesside Crown Court on a 172 appeal and the Judge stated that where multiple drivers are concerned records should be kept.
Not sure how many drivers you would class as multiple (2 or 3) or (10+).However it did show that the judge said it was the keepers responsibility to keep track of who was driving.At least thats what i made of it.
TPS said:
In a recent topic dvd helped with this.
Case some 18 months or so ago at Teesside Crown Court on a 172 appeal and the Judge stated that where multiple drivers are concerned records should be kept.
Not sure how many drivers you would class as multiple (2 or 3) or (10+).However it did show that the judge said it was the keepers responsibility to keep track of who was driving.At least thats what i made of it.
That applies to corporate entities only. ie if you have a pool van that is used by delivery drivers throughout the day, then there should be a written record of who was driving when.Case some 18 months or so ago at Teesside Crown Court on a 172 appeal and the Judge stated that where multiple drivers are concerned records should be kept.
Not sure how many drivers you would class as multiple (2 or 3) or (10+).However it did show that the judge said it was the keepers responsibility to keep track of who was driving.At least thats what i made of it.
Private individuals, whilst expected to know who is driving, do not currently have to maintain a written log IIRC.
(but on the second pint, don't be surprised if that changes...)
Bing o said:
TPS said:
In a recent topic dvd helped with this.
Case some 18 months or so ago at Teesside Crown Court on a 172 appeal and the Judge stated that where multiple drivers are concerned records should be kept.
Not sure how many drivers you would class as multiple (2 or 3) or (10+).However it did show that the judge said it was the keepers responsibility to keep track of who was driving.At least thats what i made of it.
That applies to corporate entities only. ie if you have a pool van that is used by delivery drivers throughout the day, then there should be a written record of who was driving when.Case some 18 months or so ago at Teesside Crown Court on a 172 appeal and the Judge stated that where multiple drivers are concerned records should be kept.
Not sure how many drivers you would class as multiple (2 or 3) or (10+).However it did show that the judge said it was the keepers responsibility to keep track of who was driving.At least thats what i made of it.
Private individuals, whilst expected to know who is driving, do not currently have to maintain a written log IIRC.
(but on the second pint, don't be surprised if that changes...)
Richard C said:
Bing o said:
TPS said:
In a recent topic dvd helped with this.
Case some 18 months or so ago at Teesside Crown Court on a 172 appeal and the Judge stated that where multiple drivers are concerned records should be kept.
Not sure how many drivers you would class as multiple (2 or 3) or (10+).However it did show that the judge said it was the keepers responsibility to keep track of who was driving.At least thats what i made of it.
That applies to corporate entities only. ie if you have a pool van that is used by delivery drivers throughout the day, then there should be a written record of who was driving when.Case some 18 months or so ago at Teesside Crown Court on a 172 appeal and the Judge stated that where multiple drivers are concerned records should be kept.
Not sure how many drivers you would class as multiple (2 or 3) or (10+).However it did show that the judge said it was the keepers responsibility to keep track of who was driving.At least thats what i made of it.
Private individuals, whilst expected to know who is driving, do not currently have to maintain a written log IIRC.
(but on the second pint, don't be surprised if that changes...)
I'm waiting for the DNA Starting car that logs your DNA when you get in, with full black box recorder. Expect this to be announced just after the next election. (And it doesn't matter which party you vote for)
Bing o said:
Timsta said:
Bing o said:
notts scams said:
You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times.
Section 172, C IIRC. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't quote you chapter and verse Section 172 said:
172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver, etc., in certain cases
(1) 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(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 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.
(2) 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.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(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.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.
At no point does it say you need to know at all times who is driving your car. I don't know if my wife is driving the car at the moment.(1) 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(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 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.
(2) 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.
(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(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.
(4) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(b) above is guilty of an offence.
- StreakyBing o said:
Private individuals, whilst expected to know who is driving, do not currently have to maintain a written log IIRC.
(but on the second pint, don't be surprised if that changes...)
So there's the rub. As there is a statutory defence for (private individuals) NOT knowing (and not being able to find out for the RK), you do not have to know. If the law-makers had expected you to know, they would not have put the stat-def in.(but on the second pint, don't be surprised if that changes...)
Bert
You don't have to look far on any police camera website to see their FAQs littered with lies. Whether they are intentional or not is beside the point: they ought to know the facts and have them checked up.
I have personally written to various camera partnerships pointing out inconsistencies with the information, and quoting sources for the correct information. Only once (Essex) was a website amended as a result of my letters.
The conclusion that can be drawn without much fear of contradiction is that the police camera partnerships are not averse to a bit of good old fashioned bullying to co-erce people to 'fess-up, whether they are innocent or not.
Such is the way of conveyor belt justice and mass prosecutions. The beast that is the camera partnership is self funding and all consuming. It needs money levied from fines to survive. That being so, it wants to extract maximum cash from the punters, come-what-may.
I have personally written to various camera partnerships pointing out inconsistencies with the information, and quoting sources for the correct information. Only once (Essex) was a website amended as a result of my letters.
The conclusion that can be drawn without much fear of contradiction is that the police camera partnerships are not averse to a bit of good old fashioned bullying to co-erce people to 'fess-up, whether they are innocent or not.
Such is the way of conveyor belt justice and mass prosecutions. The beast that is the camera partnership is self funding and all consuming. It needs money levied from fines to survive. That being so, it wants to extract maximum cash from the punters, come-what-may.
DeMolay said:
...that is the camera partnership is self funding and all consuming It needs money levied from fines to survive. That being so, it wants to extract maximum cash from the punters, come-what-may.
As you have said "know the facts" and the above is wrong you will find they are grant maintained so as you can see its all to easy to spin un trues from both sides of the debate. timf said:
looking at the notts safety cams site i spotted this in the FAQ
It looks like they've used some 'soundbites' from the O'Halloran and Francis ECHR casenotts scams said:
Q.What if I don't know who was driving?
A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
did I miss a change in law to say I should keep records or are they misleading the public with BS in an attempt to extort a 'result'A.It is the duty of the keeper of the vehicle to identify the driver. Owning a vehicle carries with it a number of responsibilities. You should not only know who can drive it, for insurance purposes, but who is driving it at all times. Unacceptable responses may result in prosecution.
ECHR Fudgement said:
Those who choose to keep and drive motor cars can be taken to have accepted certain responsibilities and obligations as part of the regulatory regime relating to motor vehicles, and in the legal framework of the United Kingdom, these responsibilities include the obligation, in the event of suspected commission of road traffic offences, to inform the authorities of the identity of the driver on that occasion.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff