Caught speeding a hire vehicle with 2 drivers

[funkyrobot]

cmaguire said:

The way most of those on here carry on you'd think they actually want to be punished.
I would make it as difficult as possible for them. Tell them you don't know who was driving as it is the truth (supposedly).
And then wait.
Utterly trivial offence. Let them work for it.

Unfortunately, I don't think the system caters for this sort of thing.

[funkyrobot]

REALIST123 said:

Yes, waste more taxpayers money doing that.

Someone's going to get punished one way or another why drag it out?

I don't believe for a minute that the OP can't work out who was driving, he's just hoping someone will tell him that it'll get dropped if they pretend otherwise.

Indeed.

[cmaguire]

REALIST123 said:

Yes, waste more taxpayers money doing that.

Someone's going to get punished one way or another why drag it out?

I don't believe for a minute that the OP can't work out who was driving, he's just hoping someone will tell him that it'll get dropped if they pretend otherwise.

Guess what, I'll happily waste taxpayer's money obstructing trivial crap like this. The State are continually wasting taxpayer's money on a massive scale.

[funkyrobot]

cmaguire said:

REALIST123 said:

Yes, waste more taxpayers money doing that.

Someone's going to get punished one way or another why drag it out?

I don't believe for a minute that the OP can't work out who was driving, he's just hoping someone will tell him that it'll get dropped if they pretend otherwise.

Guess what, I'll happily waste taxpayer's money obstructing trivial crap like this. The State are continually wasting taxpayer's money on a massive scale.

Well, if it happens to you, enjoy your 6 points and the knock-on effect that has.

Do you genuinely believe the OP can't remember who was driving? It's probably one of the most commonly used excuses to try and wiggle out of punishment. No wonder nobody trusts it.

[Hugo a Gogo]

so if two people did actually both argue it was the other driving, who do you charge? they can't both be guilty

[CasuallyDressed]

I'm not trying to wriggle out of anything. If I can't remember (which I can't. And yes it is an inane detail, and to suggest that "it's no linger inane is it?" is a bit foolish considering hindsight is 20/20) then I don't see how they can move forward.

[Rude-boy]

Op just to try to help you out a little does it say where the offence took place?

Can you remember who drove the first leg of the return journey or who drove the last leg?

Can you remember where you swapped over - when filling up/grabbing a drink/having a smoke at a guess so you might have some hints on you bank statements or receipts one would assume.

Sorry to join those questioning on this but to be honest i have been in cars for over 6,000 in the last 3 months and can tell you who was driving every single time and almost every single section, perhaps needing a map to remind me of the exact place we might have swapped over.

[esxste]

Hugo a Gogo said:

so if two people did actually both argue it was the other driving, who do you charge? they can't both be guilty

I'd imagine it will be the Primary named driver of the hire car would be charged for failing to furnish details.

[JagerT]

Vaud said:

One thought - go back through your phone messages? You might have been the driver and texting at the time? Ditto internet history if you were surfing?

[funkyrobot]

Hugo a Gogo said:

so if two people did actually both argue it was the other driving, who do you charge? they can't both be guilty

I think that will be up to a court to decide.

[Jarcy]

Hugo a Gogo said:

so if two people did actually both argue it was the other driving, who do you charge? they can't both be guilty

A better paradox is to both admit to driving at the time.
Again, can't both be guilty, but avoid the failure to inform of driver MS90 charge.

"I'm Spartacus"

[speedking31]

Would it really be such a massive deal if one person "got away with it"? Especially at this level of offence. Plenty more fish in the sea.

[funkyrobot]

Jarcy said:

A better paradox is to both admit to driving at the time.
Again, can't both be guilty, but avoid the failure to inform of driver MS90 charge.

"I'm Spartacus"

I wonder if that has been done before?

[cmaguire]

speedking31 said:

Would it really be such a massive deal if one person "got away with it"? Especially at this level of offence. Plenty more fish in the sea.

Yes, apparently.
Next time it might be 74mph. This needs nipping in the bud right now.

[Helical]

Ask your mate if he remembers who was driving. It would be really weird for you both to have no recollection of the journey.

I would've thought who was driving is no more or less inane than the fact it took 4 hours...

[p1stonhead]

cmaguire said:

speedking31 said:

Would it really be such a massive deal if one person "got away with it"? Especially at this level of offence. Plenty more fish in the sea.

Yes, apparently.
Next time it might be 74mph. This needs nipping in the bud right now.

13mph is a fair way over the speed limit isnt it?

Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 27th April 13:44

[catso]

cmaguire said:

Guess what, I'll happily waste taxpayer's money obstructing trivial crap like this. The State are continually wasting taxpayer's money on a massive scale.

Indeed, one could argue that the entire automated speed compliance enforcement is a waste of tax payers money except that, on the whole it must be profitable and therefore not a waste but this is a poor way of measuring it's success.

Proof of guilt should be required, asking people to confess or face more dire consequences is downright immoral. In fact when similar tactics are employed by others it is considered a crime.

[cmaguire]

p1stonhead said:

13mph is a fair way over the speed limit isnt it?

Edited by p1stonhead on Thursday 27th April 13:44

In a 30 zone perhaps

[Jarcy]

catso said:

Proof of guilt should be required, asking people to confess or face more dire consequences is downright immoral. In fact when similar tactics are employed by others it is considered a crime.

Pop the Op on a dunking chair. If he drowns, he was innocent.
But if he survives, slap him with an SP30 and £100 fine. - Or send him on a course.

[Hammy98]

To avoid hassle, why doesnt the person who currently has the least points say they were driving. The person who wasn't driving pays the fine, hopefully this would negate the increase in insurance and saves any further hassle should the courts decide to pursue it or you both start pointing fingers at eachother.