Blind man with no licence gets a NIP

[Raify]

This story made me laugh in the 10 items of fewer queue this afternoon:

Story from local rag

Story highlights said:

A Blind man with no licence (although the registered keeper of the family car) got a NIP from Hull Scamera Pratnership for 36 in a 30. He was 224 miles away at the time of the offence.

It's almost as if they send them out "willy-nilly" All it would need is a quick check with the DVLA (they're not shy about giving out data after all)

Registered blind? - check
No licence? - check
Car description not matching V5? - check

Right, send out the NIP.

[james_j]

Desperation for easy revenue, like clampers clamping a hearse or a disabled driver's vehicle (as has happened).

[Raify]

They're not really doing themselves any favours are they? A quick check with the DVLA could save having the p155 taken out of them by a local rag with no real news!

Still, I hope they carry on shooting themselves in the foot, until all the scamera pratnerships are abolished.

[tigger1]

Forgive my trolling, but why is this funny? The chap could be the registered keeper, he's listed as such - so why shouldn't he receive the NIP? Being blind and having no license doesn't prevent one from owning a car that is used by others, and certainly shouldn't render the driver immune from prosecution.

How he'll fill in the S172 I'm not sure, would be interesting if he doesn't name the driver when this goes to court.."blind man claims not to be 100% sure who was driving" - since he only has other peoples word for who had the car.

[Raify]

You're right tigger, the only thing that makes him immune from prosecution is the fact that he and his car was 224 miles away from Hull at the time of the offence. The rest (blind, no licence) just makes it funnier.

[tigger1]

Raify said:

You're right tigger, the only thing that makes him immune from prosecution is the fact that he and his car was 224 miles away from Hull at the time of the offence. The rest (blind, no licence) just makes it funnier.

Aah, yes - in that case he'll have to look at the photo then to confirm it definitely isn't his car in the pic. Maybe the car on his driveway is only a cardboard one and it's all a cunning fraud on the part of the relly's?

My car is often 150+ miles from where I live...does that mean the pratnerships shouldn'#t NIP me if I'm caught exceeding the limit that far from home?

[rewc]

I will give £60 to the charity of Ted's choice if the evidence from the camera partnership shows a Renault Scenic. I suspect this talk of cloning is a complete red herring and a mistake in reading the number plate has been made.
Don't expect the Police or Partnership to show any of Sherlock's skills. If the check from the DVLA shows it to be a Scenic but the speeding car is anything but then the NIP will still be sent out.

[Raify]

tigger1 said:

Raify said:

You're right tigger, the only thing that makes him immune from prosecution is the fact that he and his car was 224 miles away from Hull at the time of the offence. The rest (blind, no licence) just makes it funnier.

Aah, yes - in that case he'll have to look at the photo then to confirm it definitely isn't his car in the pic. Maybe the car on his driveway is only a cardboard one and it's all a cunning fraud on the part of the relly's?

My car is often 150+ miles from where I live...does that mean the pratnerships shouldn'#t NIP me if I'm caught exceeding the limit that far from home?

If your car is 150 miles from the place of the offence, at the time of the offence, yes.

[Raify]

rewc said:

Don't expect the Police or Partnership to show any of Sherlock's skills. If the check from the DVLA shows it to be a Scenic but the speeding car is anything but then the NIP will still be sent out.

Like the Pher with a Boxster that received a NIP with a picture of a scooter?

[jasandjules]

tigger1 said:

Aah, yes - in that case he'll have to look at the photo then to confirm it definitely isn't his car in the pic.

I'm just wondering how a blind man can look at a photo to ID the driver.............

[rewc]

This item was on the local TV news. The family are taking this very hard. The husband is blind and deaf and his wife who is the driver is also deaf. They have a teenage son also deaf. They communicate with each other via a touch sign language.
Time to count my blessings I think.

[chrispy porker]

seems a simple question, but how would DVLA know that he was blind or deaf?
I can't recall that question being asked when I registered a car.

[rewc]

chrispy porker said:

seems a simple question, but how would DVLA know that he was blind or deaf?
I can't recall that question being asked when I registered a car.

DVLA do not know of course and just gave the registered keeper an offer of the FPN just like any driver. It came to the attention of the local TV company who tried to get to the bottom of how the car was reported for speeding in Hull when it was in Southampton at the time.
The registered keeper, and the sole driver, are not as wordly wise as most people and became exceedingly worried about the consequences of being found guilty of the offence. The TV company acted on the families behalf to sort the obvious mistake out.
Unless you accept that the issuing of FPN's to innocent parties is acceptable, for whatever reason, I don't see the problem in them doing so. The Police and camera partnerships have all the resources available so I am sure the situation will be sorted out quickly - a sight faster with the TV company involved I am sure.

[streaky]

jasandjules said:

tigger1 said:

Aah, yes - in that case he'll have to look at the photo then to confirm it definitely isn't his car in the pic.

I'm just wondering how a blind man can look at a photo to ID the driver.............

Irony is lost on some people . Now, where's the 'hand waving horizontally a few inches [unreconstructed "old money man"] above the head' emoticon? - Streaky

[tigger1]

streaky said:

jasandjules said:

tigger1 said:

Aah, yes - in that case he'll have to look at the photo then to confirm it definitely isn't his car in the pic.

I'm just wondering how a blind man can look at a photo to ID the driver.............

Irony is lost on some people . Now, where's the 'hand waving horizontally a few inches [unreconstructed "old money man"] above the head' emoticon? - Streaky

Thank God I didn't have to point it out!

I did start with "forgive the trolling"...which I thought was a pretty big red hand there! </sillysodmode>

[jasandjules]

streaky said:

Irony is lost on some people . Now, where's the 'hand waving horizontally a few inches [unreconstructed "old money man"] above the head' emoticon? - Streaky

Sorry, I was bored. And I thought that .......... meant I was being Ironic/sarcastic too.

[WildCat]

Raify said:

You're right tigger, the only thing that makes him immune from prosecution is the fact that he and his car was 224 miles away from Hull at the time of the offence. The rest (blind, no licence) just makes it funnier.

There was a case of a person who hit head und sadly became prone to epileptic fits thereafter - a latent epileptic some years ago - about 2002 -ish.

Anyway - he lost his driving licence as a result.. but retained his car und hired people to chauffeur him around und use the car for works business whilst he stay in his office. One of these people received LanCASH£££re NIP for silliest blip .. .. He could not be sure who was driving ... und I think he managed to persuade court on this occasion that it was one of two persons .. but neither would own up.. ..und I think they decided he had made all necessary investigations.. ... er .. he did have Mr Freeman in charge of defences at the time..

But it show why this system of automation simply cannot work und serve any justice.. nor safety