Failure to disclose driver vs very excessive speeding NIP?
Discussion
As title, not me, but someone I know has received a NIP alleging 116% excess speed captured by a fixed camera, motorway offence....
Question is, is it possible to just fail to disclose & take the points/fine for that offence, or will the excess speed still be followed up as well? There are a number of drivers who could have had access to the vehicle at the time if the offence. The thinking is that the fine/points will be less of an impact than the speeding fine/ban.
No sanctimonious bullst please, we all know it's not big & clever & the offender deserves all they get etc etc, yada yada.....
Question is, is it possible to just fail to disclose & take the points/fine for that offence, or will the excess speed still be followed up as well? There are a number of drivers who could have had access to the vehicle at the time if the offence. The thinking is that the fine/points will be less of an impact than the speeding fine/ban.
No sanctimonious bullst please, we all know it's not big & clever & the offender deserves all they get etc etc, yada yada.....
Edited by RWD cossie wil on Wednesday 16th November 01:59
Generally the registered keeper of the vehicle will end up with 6 points and a hefty fine for failing to nominate the driver.
This will result in significant extra insurance for a few years.
At really high speeds the police may investigate further if a driver isn't nominated.
I suspect a very lengthy ban and big fines at the very least if the driver is discovered.
This will result in significant extra insurance for a few years.
At really high speeds the police may investigate further if a driver isn't nominated.
I suspect a very lengthy ban and big fines at the very least if the driver is discovered.
No personal experience thankfully but..
It's possible that the area Police take a keen interest in it, may visit friend's house to attempt to take a statement, etc. That could happen several times.
Or he could just ended up getting 6 points + fine for Failure to Furnish. Underwriters take a very dim view of this code because by implication it could hide (and does in this case) any number of far more serious offences, so expect insurance premiums to be loaded significantly.
It's possible that the area Police take a keen interest in it, may visit friend's house to attempt to take a statement, etc. That could happen several times.
Or he could just ended up getting 6 points + fine for Failure to Furnish. Underwriters take a very dim view of this code because by implication it could hide (and does in this case) any number of far more serious offences, so expect insurance premiums to be loaded significantly.
RWD cossie wil said:
As title, not me, but someone I know has received a NIP alleging 116% excess speed captured by a fixed camera, motorway offence....
Question is, is it possible to just fail to disclose & take the points/fine for that offence, or will the excess speed still be followed up as well? There are a number of drivers who could have had access to the vehicle at the time if the offence. The thinking is that the fine/points will be less of an impact than the speeding fine/ban.
No sanctimonious bullst please, we all know it's not big & clever & the offender deserves all they get etc etc, yada yada.....
The premise of the question may be flawed. The penalty for failing to identify the driver is a fine of up to £1000 and a ban of any length, or 6 penalty points. The penalty for speeding on a motorway (SP50) is a fine of up to £2500 and a ban of any length, or 3-6 penalty points. They are not alternative offences. In some circumstances it may be possible for the prosecutor to prove both offences.Question is, is it possible to just fail to disclose & take the points/fine for that offence, or will the excess speed still be followed up as well? There are a number of drivers who could have had access to the vehicle at the time if the offence. The thinking is that the fine/points will be less of an impact than the speeding fine/ban.
No sanctimonious bullst please, we all know it's not big & clever & the offender deserves all they get etc etc, yada yada.....
Edited by RWD cossie wil on Wednesday 16th November 01:59
TooMany2cvs said:
RWD cossie wil said:
As title, not me, but someone I know has received a NIP alleging 116% excess speed captured by a fixed camera, motorway offence...
70mph m'way? So just over 150? I'd expect they'll follow that one up...shep1001 said:
You are obviously better placed to comment on this than me but why is it nonsense if you deliberately fail to identify a driver?
It's a lie of omission for a start. You can't be prosecuted for PTCOJ if you fail to give any information, only - and then only potentially - if you willfully give false information (see Hamiltons).
IANAL but I presume it's a fairly high bar to pass with S172 requests because the CPS would have to prove that you intentionally gave false details vs simply giving details you believed to be correct (but was proven to be wrong).
I used to work with a guy who twice claimed he didn't know who was driving his car at the time of a speeding offence, there was a long exchange of mails before it was dropped both times.
On one occasion he was overseas and his girlfriend and sister both had access to the car and he claimed he couldn't know who was driving and neither admitted to it.
On one occasion he was overseas and his girlfriend and sister both had access to the car and he claimed he couldn't know who was driving and neither admitted to it.
kiethton said:
TooMany2cvs said:
RWD cossie wil said:
As title, not me, but someone I know has received a NIP alleging 116% excess speed captured by a fixed camera, motorway offence...
70mph m'way? So just over 150? I'd expect they'll follow that one up...If I ever got caught for such an excess speed, I'd be going down the failure to disclose driver route, provided I'd been caught by a rear facing camera. If there is any chance that they may have photos of sufficient quality to identify the driver however, best to admit to the speeding.
Be aware that they are highly likely to try to follow this up, which could mean 6 months of not answering the door to the police. He'd have to read up on his rights, and know exactly what to say / what not to say if he was to be pulled over. Not an easy option, but probably better than the punishment for admitting to the speeding.
Be aware that they are highly likely to try to follow this up, which could mean 6 months of not answering the door to the police. He'd have to read up on his rights, and know exactly what to say / what not to say if he was to be pulled over. Not an easy option, but probably better than the punishment for admitting to the speeding.
KevinCamaroSS said:
No requirement for an individual to keep reasonable records of a driver, a company is required to.
Not strictly true.'Reasonable diligence' (s.172 (4)) provides a statutory defence to a failure to furnish allegation for both individual and company. However, a company could not rely on this defence if it did not keep a driving / drivers log unless it could demonstrate that it was reasonable not to keep such records.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
Similar speed - it says...
[i]Mr Ray was summonsed to court for failing to identify himself as the driver of the vehicle, and appeared before magistrates in Sevenoaks, Kent on March 10.
He was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay a £600 fine, £85 costs and a £65 victim surcharge [/i]
Which kind of suggest he fessed up eventually?
Then in the next paragraph...
Another reading of 146mph, the second fastest recorded during the period, was captured at the same location but police were unable to confirm the identity of the driver.
So I wonder if that was a failure to read the number plate, or the driver not saying who the driver was?
Similar speed - it says...
[i]Mr Ray was summonsed to court for failing to identify himself as the driver of the vehicle, and appeared before magistrates in Sevenoaks, Kent on March 10.
He was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay a £600 fine, £85 costs and a £65 victim surcharge [/i]
Which kind of suggest he fessed up eventually?
Then in the next paragraph...
Another reading of 146mph, the second fastest recorded during the period, was captured at the same location but police were unable to confirm the identity of the driver.
So I wonder if that was a failure to read the number plate, or the driver not saying who the driver was?
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
Similar speed - it says...
[i]Mr Ray was summonsed to court for failing to identify himself as the driver of the vehicle, and appeared before magistrates in Sevenoaks, Kent on March 10.
He was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay a £600 fine, £85 costs and a £65 victim surcharge [/i]
Which kind of suggest he fessed up eventually?
No it doesn't. It suggests 6 points and a totting ban.Similar speed - it says...
[i]Mr Ray was summonsed to court for failing to identify himself as the driver of the vehicle, and appeared before magistrates in Sevenoaks, Kent on March 10.
He was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay a £600 fine, £85 costs and a £65 victim surcharge [/i]
Which kind of suggest he fessed up eventually?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff