Failure to ID driver. Q for Plod.

[toad_oftoadhall]

Currently carries 3 points and 1000 pounds MAXIMUM!

So if I get scamera'd at 110mph and am up for a ban I just refuse to ID the driver and take three points?

Is it really that simple?

[plotloss]

The lads got a point!

Man Utd pool car set the precedent here didnt it?

[tonyrec]

possibly!

[hertsbiker]

tonyrec said:

possibly!

So if you were up for, say 170 on the M11, you'd definately be advised to not confess !! still takes the pee, that you get done for 3pts even if you don't know who was driving. Better than not picking up the soap for 6 months though.

[plotloss]

hertsbiker said:

tonyrec said: possibly! So if you were up for, say 170 on the M11, you'd definately be advised to not confess !! still takes the pee, that you get done for 3pts even if you don't know who was driving. Better than not picking up the soap for 6 months though.

This is indeed the crux of the matter.

Many PH'ers have vehicles that are quite capable of transporting them into chokey territory so this does on the face of it look like a get out of jail free card...

[jeffreyarcher]

hertsbiker said:

So if you were up for, say 170 on the M11, you'd definately be advised to not confess !! still takes the pee, that you get done for 3pts even if you don't know who was driving.

Well, at that speed, jail is almost a certainty. Even if not, highly likely. Therefore no need to fill in an NIP at all. Stott -v- Brown (Privy Council) Dec. 2002.
Where self-incrimination is required, penalties should be 'modest' and no jail.

[tonyrec]

Itys not as simple as is being made out.

If you get stopped for doing 170mph.....i dont think that failing to sign the NIP will assist you one little bit!

[plotloss]

What about going through a camera at 170mph?

[jeffreyarcher]

plotloss said:

What about going through a camera at 170mph?

Precisely. Being stopped was not the subject of the OP's post.

[toad_oftoadhall]

tonyrec said:

Itys not as simple as is being made out. If you get stopped for doing 170mph.....i dont think that failing to sign the NIP will assist you one little bit!

True!

So what you do is say you nicked it. Then you get a caution!

[tonyrec]

Stopped/ reported/gatso'd........still dont think that you will get away with it....sadly, lifes not that easy, if it was then everyone would be doing it and there would be no point in Gatsos.. !!

[plotloss]

Cant really see how they possibly could though.

All it is is a picture of the back of your car, in a TVR you probably wouldnt even be able to see the back of the persons head the roof is so low.

That is not beyond reasonable doubt...

[tonyrec]

I see what youre saying........pleased thats its not me.

[tonyrec]

tonyrec said:

I see what youre saying........pleased thats its not me.

Gatsos..........nearly a complete waste of time.

[marvelharvey]

Anyway, it wasn't me your honour, it was a cloned car.

[tonyrec]

marvelharvey said:

Anyway, it wasn't me your honour, it was a cloned car.

More of this and there will be more Trafpol on the road me thinks....

[marvelharvey]

tonyrec said:

marvelharvey said: Anyway, it wasn't me your honour, it was a cloned car. More of this and there will be more Trafpol on the road me thinks....

I wish!

It may go against every fibre in my being, but I think that there should be more Trafpols on the road by at least 4 times of what I see nowadays. (Although to return the favour, the police should remove all those cameras on their first day back on TrafPol duty!

[plotloss]

Would the investigation process (as 170mph is a gross crime) be that you as the registered keeper would be required to provide details of all the drivers that it could have been?

[jeffreyarcher]

plotloss said:

Would the investigation process (as 170mph is a gross crime) be that you as the registered keeper would be required to provide details of all the drivers that it could have been?

As I said, Stott -v- Brown (if it was you).
S172 is S172, full stop, irrespective of the severity, if it wasn't.
Whether your suggested course of action would satisfy them depends, in general, on the force. However in the severe example cited, I doubt if it would satisfy any.

>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 2nd September 11:48

[plotloss]

jeffreyarcher said:

plotloss said: Would the investigation process (as 170mph is a gross crime) be that you as the registered keeper would be required to provide details of all the drivers that it could have been? S172 is S172, full stop.

You'll have to explain, I'm a bit thick see...