Speeding advice - police response 'questionable'
Discussion
The other day my girlfriend receives a NIP in the post - our friendly scamera partnership have evidence of her car going 70+ in a 60.
There are 3 people on the car insurance, all fully comp and regular users. The 'incident' took place in the evening in our home town - ie not on anyone's way to work etc. So realistically we can't say 100% who was driving.
A telephone call to the police was made, and we were told we should be able to see the evidence, and they may be able to send it to us. A later call, from the Sergeant in charge, informs us that we will have to visit the police station to view the evidence (30 mins away), and that it is on a videotape lasting 2 hours! Obviously it isn't our car for 2 hours, but they weren't being very forthcoming. Is this reasonable? Should we have to take a morning off work to look at this?
Talking to the Sergeant, he said that the film was of the rear of the car and you can't see who was driving (MGTF with the roof up and a smokey plastic rear screen). He also said if we did not name a driver we would have to go to court, or name someone and take the £60/3pts.
Basically they wanted us to name someone when we can't be totally sure who was driving. Frankly though, this probably seems like a more preferable option than going to court as we are both stressed enough about other things in life!
Any thoughts? Should we just draw straws and take the rap?
There are 3 people on the car insurance, all fully comp and regular users. The 'incident' took place in the evening in our home town - ie not on anyone's way to work etc. So realistically we can't say 100% who was driving.
A telephone call to the police was made, and we were told we should be able to see the evidence, and they may be able to send it to us. A later call, from the Sergeant in charge, informs us that we will have to visit the police station to view the evidence (30 mins away), and that it is on a videotape lasting 2 hours! Obviously it isn't our car for 2 hours, but they weren't being very forthcoming. Is this reasonable? Should we have to take a morning off work to look at this?
Talking to the Sergeant, he said that the film was of the rear of the car and you can't see who was driving (MGTF with the roof up and a smokey plastic rear screen). He also said if we did not name a driver we would have to go to court, or name someone and take the £60/3pts.
Basically they wanted us to name someone when we can't be totally sure who was driving. Frankly though, this probably seems like a more preferable option than going to court as we are both stressed enough about other things in life!
Any thoughts? Should we just draw straws and take the rap?
Dwight VanDriver said:
Stop nannyfudging.
Step forward the real driver and get them forms sent off.
DVD
Completely not. It could have been either of us - I only use my car at the weekends, and we live together - the road is the main road to get anywhere and it was 7.30pm when we both were around. Being normal human beings I don't have a log book which I fill in to account for every run to the shops/town/parents/pub/cinema/petrol station/etc
Realistically it probably wasn't the 3rd driver.
Thanks for the constuctive comment though
Straws will be drawn as I certainly can't be doing with the stress of going to court - chalk one up for the scameras I guess. >> Edited by Maxf on Friday 18th June 09:33
DWD has just confirmed the Scameras aim - they dont really care who was driving, whether they were insured, the vehicle had an MOT, bald tyres, no lights etc. All they want is £60 and they will go away.
Surely its more important, if as they maintain, speeders are more likely to be law breakers in other areas, to inspect all other aspects of the car & driver.
Mind you, they wouldn't get paid for that....
Surely its more important, if as they maintain, speeders are more likely to be law breakers in other areas, to inspect all other aspects of the car & driver.
Mind you, they wouldn't get paid for that....
MaxF,
Don't know if you have seen the pepipoo forum, but those guys have some great advice over there. Looks like this post could be a big help to you.
www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=841
Don't know if you have seen the pepipoo forum, but those guys have some great advice over there. Looks like this post could be a big help to you.
www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=841
deltaf said:
Erm, just one thing. If youre not sure and cant name the correct person and you name the WRONG person, wont you be guilty of perverting the course of justice?
sort of.. you'd be making a false statement, and they can fine you up to £5000 for that... if you really don't know, write to them and tell them you don't.. then they can either put up (photo's) or shut up (leave you alone).
Cheers
Matt
Maxf said:Er, no. If you view the entire two hours, there is the possibility that you will see a vehicle belonging to someone you know (other than yours of course), as the camera is local to you. It is probable therefore that this would be contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. IMHO, you should only be shown that portion of the video or the photograph that shows your vehicle and only your vehicle.
[ ... ]
A telephone call to the police was made, and we were told we should be able to see the evidence, and they may be able to send it to us. A later call, from the Sergeant in charge, informs us that we will have to visit the police station to view the evidence (30 mins away), and that it is on a videotape lasting 2 hours! Obviously it isn't our car for 2 hours, but they weren't being very forthcoming. Is this reasonable? Should we have to take a morning off work to look at this?
Streaky
IANAL
andygo said:I don't agreee that all they want is £60. they want our licences too. (Zod - been driving 19 years, zero points ever, but worried).
DWD has just confirmed the Scameras aim - they dont really care who was driving, whether they were insured, the vehicle had an MOT, bald tyres, no lights etc. All they want is £60 and they will go away.
Surely its more important, if as they maintain, speeders are more likely to be law breakers in other areas, to inspect all other aspects of the car & driver.
Mind you, they wouldn't get paid for that....
Zod said:
I don't agreee that all they want is £60. they want our licences too. (Zod - been driving 19 years, zero points ever, but worried).
I read three things recently:
1) There's no increase in the number of people being disqualified, with the conclusion that people are slowing down to avoid getting points
2) There's an increase in the number of people with 9 points
3) There's an increase in people naming others as the driver in order to avoid points.
Added together, I think it's more likely that people are sharing their points around than making major changes to driving style. And the time will come when there's nobody else to take the rap, and licences everywhere will fall like flies. Many more on public transport, or driving without a licence?
Peter Ward (been driving 25 years with no points -- but for how much longer when 44 in a 40 is fair game?)
streaky said:
Er, no. If you view the entire two hours, there is the possibility that you will see a vehicle belonging to someone you know (other than yours of course), as the camera is local to you. It is probable therefore that this would be contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. IMHO, you should only be shown that portion of the video or the photograph that shows your vehicle and only your vehicle.
If the video was taken in public is there a privacy or data protection issue?
jeffreyarcher said:
I read three things recently:
1) There's no increase in the number of people being disqualified,
Do you have a link?
The articles that I have read say quite the reverse, unless you mean the number of disqualls for a single offence, as opposed to 'totting'.
I think I saw it in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago. The Times site doesn't allow searching very far back so I can't check, sorry.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff