Someone got caught speeding, might have been me.

[Steve H]

fair point there.

What I meant was that if this evidence does in fact exist the OP will be shown it at some point and probably sooner rather than later which takes me back to the idiot or bullst comment about the manager.

[NickM450]

To answer a concern from the previous page, my tacho was ejected at 12:30-ish and a manual entry was made for the remaining part of the day. Putting driving time in a manual entry isn't possible and the vans do not have a tacho head, digital or otherwise.

[Chester draws]

NickM450 said:

......

......... Another one of the reasons that I was fingered is that I had, at some point, visited a delivery point that lies in that direction......

......

The prosecution rests m'lud. Send him down!

[vonhosen]

NickM450 said:

To answer a concern from the previous page, my tacho was ejected at 12:30-ish and a manual entry was made for the remaining part of the day. Putting driving time in a manual entry isn't possible and the vans do not have a tacho head, digital or otherwise.

Yes should be a manual 'other work' entry on the tacho card, but you did say originally there were 'no other records' entered after 1230.
As I said as well, prudent also where you are driving a not 'in scope' vehicle as part of your day to separately record the vehicle details that formed part of that 'other work'.

[xjay1337]

Let's stop with the bhyness.

Maybe skip forward a few days/weeks until we have an actual outcome :-)

[NickM450]

vonhosen said:

Yes should be a manual 'other work' entry on the tacho card, but you did say originally there were 'no other records' entered after 1230.
As I said as well, prudent also where you are driving a not 'in scope' vehicle as part of your day to separately record the vehicle details that formed part of that 'other work'.

You are correct, there isn't really an excuse for me not to have done it.

[johnoz]

a.lex said:

I'm gonna have to go with a "no" on that...

I have been following the thread from the start, not sure if its been said, but could it not be mistaken identity with the Fiesta speeding down the what looks like a slip road? just a thought.

[Gavia]

johnoz said:

a.lex said:

I'm gonna have to go with a "no" on that...

I have been following the thread from the start, not sure if its been said, but could it not be mistaken identity with the Fiesta speeding down the what looks like a slip road? just a thought.

I don’t think that’s the OP, it’s just a generic google photo to show how you can’t identify the driver from the speeding photo.

Side issue but how do you know the Fiesta is speeding? It’s a still photo.

[NickM450]

That is my photo.

[ging84]

NickM450 said:

That is my photo.

Then you can't have been in the van

[a.lex]

ging84 said:

NickM450 said:

That is my photo.

Then you can't have been in the van

I'm not sure if you're being facetious, or just exhibiting the usual failure to read the earlier posts in the thread?

[TooMany2cvs]

a.lex said:

I'm not sure if you're being facetious, or just exhibiting the usual failure to read the earlier posts in the thread?

Or perhaps that whoosh wasn't a Sprinter tonking down the m'way?

[NickM450]

ging84 said:

NickM450 said:

That is my photo.

Then you can't have been in the van

I'll tell the office tomorrow

[agtlaw]

OP, I’m predicting that you’ll be prosecuted for speeding and failing to identify the driver.

[johnoz]

Gavia said:

johnoz said:

a.lex said:

I'm gonna have to go with a "no" on that...

I have been following the thread from the start, not sure if its been said, but could it not be mistaken identity with the Fiesta speeding down the what looks like a slip road? just a thought.

I don’t think that’s the OP, it’s just a generic google photo to show how you can’t identify the driver from the speeding photo.

Side issue but how do you know the Fiesta is speeding? It’s a still photo.

I don't know the fiesta is speeding!, looking at the picture there are 2 vehicles in the picture in the same place so who knows who triggered the camera? without the second picture is difficult to know.

[mcg_]

agtlaw said:

OP, I’m predicting that you’ll be prosecuted for speeding and failing to identify the driver.

why would he be prosecuted for failing to identify the driver?

I think you'll be prosecuted for failing to read the thread.

[mcg_]

johnoz said:

Gavia said:

johnoz said:

a.lex said:

I'm gonna have to go with a "no" on that...

I have been following the thread from the start, not sure if its been said, but could it not be mistaken identity with the Fiesta speeding down the what looks like a slip road? just a thought.

I don’t think that’s the OP, it’s just a generic google photo to show how you can’t identify the driver from the speeding photo.

Side issue but how do you know the Fiesta is speeding? It’s a still photo.

I don't know the fiesta is speeding!, looking at the picture there are 2 vehicles in the picture in the same place so who knows who triggered the camera? without the second picture is difficult to know.

Jesus Christ do you really think the technology is so basic is doesn't know which vehicle in which lane is speeding?

Making next time they'll just have someone standing at the side of the road with a Polaroid guess peoples speed.

[Byker28i]

sanguinary said:

I cannot understand why the employer isn't demonstrating the evidence to the OP.

I'm guessing the evidence is verbal testimony from someone else in the company and he doesn't want to cause any issues for that person?

[Alfa numeric]

agtlaw said:

OP, I’m predicting that you’ll be prosecuted for speeding and failing to identify the driver.

I'm willing to bow to your greater knowledge in this area, but if he really doesn't think it's him and the record keeping is as bad as he says it is, what makes you think that?

[havoc]

Alfa numeric said:

agtlaw said:

OP, I’m predicting that you’ll be prosecuted for speeding and failing to identify the driver.

I'm willing to bow to your greater knowledge in this area, but if he really doesn't think it's him and the record keeping is as bad as he says it is, what makes you think that?

He doesn't own the van, he was only the (employed) driver, so surely it's not his responsibility to ID the driver, it's the owner/RK's (probably the company in both instances).