Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] NIP who was driving?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Beaugeste
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - May 2021
Date of the NIP: - 2 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 4 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A21, North of Church Lane, Salehurst, UNITED KINGDOM
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - First
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons - Travelling downhill from a national limit road (60mph) onto a section of 40mph road signed on both sides of the road, the right hand side sign was partially obscured by overhanging trees but the left hand side sign was visible. We were recorded travelling at 47mph.
Both myself and my wife normally have access to a small van that we use for private use as we’re both retired. We have been ferrying my daughters things to her house after her returning home after forming a bubble during lockdown. So at the time of the offence we’re not certain who was driving. We’ve checked our diaries but there are no entries for that day. Indeed we may well have both been in the van. How can I say 100% who was driving?


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Unsure
Do you know who was driving? - Unsure who was driving

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 21:36:50 +0000
The Rookie
Well two choices
1/ you don’t need to know 100% , you name the most likely driver
2/ you provide details of both possible drivers and state you don’t know who was actually driving, you’ll then be charged with the offence of failing to furnish drivers details and have to prove that you could not, despite exercising reasonable diligence identify the driver. Just looking in diaries is unlikely to cut it and the is obviously lots more you can check.
TryOut
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 22:36) *
... [b]Travelling downhill from a national limit road (60mph) onto a section of 40mph road signed on both sides of the road, the right hand side sign was partially obscured by overhanging trees but the left hand side sign was visible.

If you can say this then how can you not recall the driver?
TMC Towcester
To be blunt, you have a remarkable detailed recollection of the road, lay-out, signage etc which is a big hint?
Beaugeste
QUOTE (TryOut @ Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 23:23) *
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 22:36) *
... [b]Travelling downhill from a national limit road (60mph) onto a section of 40mph road signed on both sides of the road, the right hand side sign was partially obscured by overhanging trees but the left hand side sign was visible.

If you can say this then how can you not recall the driver?

Because it’s about 2 mile from where I live and we drive it every day. I’ve even checked it since. I’m not disputing the speeding I just don’t know who was driving.

QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 07:35) *
To be blunt, you have a remarkable detailed recollection of the road, lay-out, signage etc which is a big hint?

It’s not really a recollection. I went back to check yesterday, it’s about 2 mile from where I live and we drive it every day. I’m not disputing the speeding I just don’t know who was driving.
Beaugeste
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 3 Jun 2021 - 23:05) *
Well two choices
1/ you don’t need to know 100% , you name the most likely driver
2/ you provide details of both possible drivers and state you don’t know who was actually driving, you’ll then be charged with the offence of failing to furnish drivers details and have to prove that you could not, despite exercising reasonable diligence identify the driver. Just looking in diaries is unlikely to cut it and the is obviously lots more you can check.

Thanks. I really don’t know who was driving. We made several trips on the same day using the same road in two separate cars ferrying people and belongings backwards and forwards with different drivers.
So I suppose I just take the points and the fine even though we’re not sure it was me.
The van doesn’t have back windows and the photographic evidence just shows the back of the van so that’s no help either.
NewJudge
Either that or you chance your arm with the "Hamilton Defence":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...d-speeding.html
Beaugeste
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 10:34) *
Either that or you chance your arm with the "Hamilton Defence":

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20...d-speeding.html

Thanks. That’s interesting.
cp8759
Many people have location tracking enabled on their phones, other devices like smart watches, fitness trackers and similar do the same. That's the first place I'd look as it might confirm that you were definitely there, or definately somewhere else.
Jlc
That excess would be offered a course - so no points involved as long as you can work out the driver.
cp8759
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 10:08) *
Thanks. I really don’t know who was driving. We made several trips on the same day using the same road in two separate cars ferrying people and belongings backwards and forwards with different drivers.

If you were driving separate cars, surely you know who was driving based on which car got caught?
Beaugeste
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 11:05) *
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 10:08) *
Thanks. I really don’t know who was driving. We made several trips on the same day using the same road in two separate cars ferrying people and belongings backwards and forwards with different drivers.

If you were driving separate cars, surely you know who was driving based on which car got caught?

You’d think so, but unfortunately we were both at various times using both the car and the van all day at different times and on that same piece of road. It doesn’t help that the location is so close to where we live so it’s a stretch of road we both use all the time and there’s nothing remarkable that would help us remember that particular drive.
We’re both retired, the fine would come from our joint account, neither of us have any points on our licence, so there’s no real consequence as to who gets the points, it just doesn’t seem right if I take responsibility if it was my wife driving and vice versa.
TMC Towcester
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 13:02) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 11:05) *
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 10:08) *
Thanks. I really don’t know who was driving. We made several trips on the same day using the same road in two separate cars ferrying people and belongings backwards and forwards with different drivers.

If you were driving separate cars, surely you know who was driving based on which car got caught?

You’d think so, but unfortunately we were both at various times using both the car and the van all day at different times and on that same piece of road. It doesn’t help that the location is so close to where we live so it’s a stretch of road we both use all the time and there’s nothing remarkable that would help us remember that particular drive.
We’re both retired, the fine would come from our joint account, neither of us have any points on our licence, so there’s no real consequence as to who gets the points, it just doesn’t seem right if I take responsibility if it was my wife driving and vice versa.


The reasons you describe actually make it more right - no effect on either of you!
TryOut
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 13:02) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 11:05) *
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 10:08) *
Thanks. I really don’t know who was driving. We made several trips on the same day using the same road in two separate cars ferrying people and belongings backwards and forwards with different drivers.

If you were driving separate cars, surely you know who was driving based on which car got caught?

You’d think so, but unfortunately we were both at various times using both the car and the van all day at different times and on that same piece of road. It doesn’t help that the location is so close to where we live so it’s a stretch of road we both use all the time and there’s nothing remarkable that would help us remember that particular drive.
We’re both retired, the fine would come from our joint account, neither of us have any points on our licence, so there’s no real consequence as to who gets the points, it just doesn’t seem right if I take responsibility if it was my wife driving and vice versa.

Well one of you needs to take responsibility. Which one of you was driving fast on all or any of those journeys?

Your dilemma is not for anyone but you to resolve.

Your choice ranges from a speed awareness course, FPN 3 points + £100, FPN 6 points + £200, a court trial or even a stay at her majesty's pleasure if you take things too far. One thing is for sure, it is rare for the police to abandon a case because the keeper and his wife can't resolve the driver.

If you attempt to get the police to give up because "...it just doesn’t seem right if I take responsibility if it was my wife driving and vice versa..." you will rapidly run out of time to take the softer options.
Jlc
Of course there's always the statutory defence that Rookie mentioned... Very similar to Michael Howard - here - who won on appeal.

That is you do not know who was driving and after using reasonable diligence cannot identify them. The multiple journey's and swapping of drivers causing the issue. It's not easy but is possible.

However, the Police will almost certainly prosecute for Failing to Furnish. Failing to convince the bench is expensive and carries 6 points.
Beaugeste
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 14:02) *
Of course there's always the statutory defence that Rookie mentioned... Very similar to Michael Howard - here - who won on appeal.

That is you do not know who was driving and after using reasonable diligence cannot identify them. The multiple journey's and swapping of drivers causing the issue. It's not easy but is possible.

However, the Police will almost certainly prosecute for Failing to Furnish. Failing to convince the bench is expensive and carries 6 points.

Ok thanks. I think that’s made my mind up. I may as well just pay the fine and choose one or other of us, maybe toss a coin! Because in my mind, that’s what the law is happy with so long as someone is convicted.
BertB
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 15:05) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 14:02) *
Of course there's always the statutory defence that Rookie mentioned... Very similar to Michael Howard - here - who won on appeal.

That is you do not know who was driving and after using reasonable diligence cannot identify them. The multiple journey's and swapping of drivers causing the issue. It's not easy but is possible.

However, the Police will almost certainly prosecute for Failing to Furnish. Failing to convince the bench is expensive and carries 6 points.

Ok thanks. I think that’s made my mind up. I may as well just pay the fine and choose one or other of us, maybe toss a coin! Because in my mind, that’s what the law is happy with so long as someone is convicted.


There is a 50% chance the correct driver will be prosecuted.
andy_foster
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 15:05) *
Ok thanks. I think that’s made my mind up. I may as well just pay the fine and choose one or other of us, maybe toss a coin! Because in my mind, that’s what the law is happy with so long as someone is convicted.


IMHO the problem you face is that, particularly with the alleged offence being just a few days before the NIP was served, your account is not dissimilar to any number of 'convenient' sets of circumstances dreamed up in order to avoid naming (or admitting to being) the driver, often based on the flawed legal doctrine of "they can't prove it isn't true". The court will be aware that whilst by the law of averages a few accounts like yours will be honest and true, the vast majority are likely to have been fabricated and would be treated with the appropriate scepticism.

notmeatloaf
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 15:05) *
Ok thanks. I think that’s made my mind up. I may as well just pay the fine and choose one or other of us, maybe toss a coin! Because in my mind, that’s what the law is happy with so long as someone is convicted.

If you think about it, your case if fairly exceptional.

Almost all NIPs are sent to drivers who know who is driving. Or at least can name the most likely driver.

The number of drivers who cannot even reach a 51/49 scenario is very small. Yet if they just cancelled the ticket for everyone who couldn't remember the driver, then of course everyone would do it. Even those accused of doing 80mph in a 40mph.

The S172 system has already gone as far as the European Court of Human Rights. It's not ideal, but the idea it is primarily ensnaring innocent drivers is provably wrong.

Of course, if you CAN reach a 51/49 decision - even based on who is marginally more likely to drive if both of you potentially can, then you have your answer. Naming the most likely driver in good faith is not an offence.
andy_foster
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 5 Jun 2021 - 01:27) *
Naming the most likely driver in good faith is not an offence.


Guessing correctly is not an offence. Naming the wrong driver is. Deliberately naming the wrong driver is a far more serious offence.
MyronAub
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Fri, 4 Jun 2021 - 14:05) *
I may as well just pay the fine and choose one or other of us, maybe toss a coin!

All other things being equal, which of you would be more likely to ignore the big red circled 40 signs by quite some margin on a road you both know well? (If I was in your situation I'd be 99.9% certain it was my girlfriend as I'm a stickler for local speed limits while she's much more cavalier.)

cp8759
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 5 Jun 2021 - 02:08) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 5 Jun 2021 - 01:27) *
Naming the most likely driver in good faith is not an offence.


Guessing correctly is not an offence. Naming the wrong driver is. Deliberately naming the wrong driver is a far more serious offence.

FTFY.
andy_foster
The first "F" in "FTFY" is supposed to stand for "fixed" not f**ked".

Naming the wrong driver in response to an s. 172 requirement is a criminal offence (at least insofar as you have failed to name the driver).
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 5 Jun 2021 - 16:15) *
The first "F" in "FTFY" is supposed to stand for "fixed" not f**ked".

Naming the wrong driver in response to an s. 172 requirement is a criminal offence (at least insofar as you have failed to name the driver).

Depends if you think the S172 requirement to give "information" includes.

OED - information: The imparting of knowledge in general

Obviously naming a driver you know to be incorrect is an offence. But it seems nonsensical that if you exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain the facts and from that give the information that is within your knowledge to give, you would commit an offence because you were not omniscient.

By that logical every lease company would have to track down the driver for every S172 they receive, because by naming a body corporate who cannot be driving they are failing to identify the driver.

The only logical interpretation of S172 (2) is compliance is achieved if existing and reasonably ascertained facts are used.
andy_foster
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 5 Jun 2021 - 22:16) *
Depends if you think the S172 requirement to give "information" includes.


It is customary to finish a sentence before adding the full stop.

QUOTE
But it seems nonsensical that if you exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain the facts and from that give the information that is within your knowledge to give, you would commit an offence because you were not omniscient.


What would be nonsensical would be to include a statutory defence in subsection (4) if the requirement was satisfied by exercising that same reasonable diligence
.
QUOTE
By that logical every lease company would have to track down the driver for every S172 they receive, because by naming a body corporate who cannot be driving they are failing to identify the driver.


It seems that neither logic nor reading are really your forte. A lease company would not usually be the person keeping the vehicle and would therefore have the far less onerous requirement of merely providing information that is in their power to give.
The Rookie
I’m fully with AF on this, if you name the wrong driver by mistake it would be an S172 offence, although in most cases it’s never going to court because if the keeper can’t be ‘100% sure’ who was driving then it’s highly unlikely anyone else can prove to a criminal standard it was someone other than the named person (assuming the keeper looked at the photos).

If the recipient of an S172 has no idea at all who could have been driving that will 99% of the time means they weren’t the person keeping the vehicle, the PKV will almost certainly have the list narrowed down to 3 or 4 possibles or less als to immediantely.
cp8759
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 5 Jun 2021 - 02:08) *
Guessing correctly is not an offence. Naming the wrong driver is. Deliberately naming the wrong driver is a far more serious offence.

I did fix it because the first two assertions cannot both be true. If guessing is not an offence, guessing wrong also isn't an offence. Conversely if naming the wrong driver is an offence, then guessing can in some circumstances be an offence.

Also you mention there are two offences, my understanding is that knowingly naming the wrong driver is the only offence i.e. PCOJ (aside from not naming anyone at all).

So if that is the "more serious" offence, what is the less serious offence that is meant to be covered by "Naming the wrong driver" without it being deliberate wrong nomination?
andy_foster
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for the accuracy and veracity of the information I post, not other people's inability to read and/or understand it, or the spurious reasoning they come up with to try to either rationalise it or bolster their untenable position.

Contrary to what you implied before you edited your post, I never said that guessing was not an offence.

There is no specific offence of guessing, but guessing will either result in the correct or incorrect answer. Providing the incorrect answer is an offence (subject to any applicable defences, which generally won't apply unless you have provided any information that is in your power to give, etc.). I say that providing the correct answer through guesswork is not an offence - as you have provided the information required by the form. Obviously, if you are guessing you will not know whether or not you have complied with the requirement, and will presumably be relying on the pragmatic fact that if you can't be sure who was driving, the prosecution would have extreme difficulty in proving that you were wrong.

Unless you wish to argue that guessing correctly does not satisfy the requirements of s. 172, there is nothing inconsistent with the proposition that a corr4ect guess is lawful and an incorrect guess constitutes an offence. All it does is to highlight the flaw in the stock advice to guess rather than run a reasonable diligence defence. If you do wish to argue that guessing the correct answer constitutes an offence as whilst you have actually provided the required information, you can't be sure that it is correct, that merely highlights the flaw further.

The requirement is to provide the driver's details. The statute is silent as to how you achieve that, beyond the limits that can be implied by the reasonable diligence defence. To take an extreme analogy, it is an offence to exceed the speed limit, but there is no specific offence of driving a red car. It cannot be said that driving a red car is always legal as there is no specific offence of driving a red car. If you are speeding in a red car it is an offence, even though driving a red car within the speed limit is not an offence (all things being equal).

You seem to have trouble comprehending that deliberately naming the wrong driver can constitute at least 3 offences - failing to provide the driver's details, perjury (IIRC s. 5(b) Perjury Act 1911)) and PCOJ. The rule against duplicity prevents being prosecuted for more than 1 of those in respect of any given instance, which is presumably what you were thinking of, but it does not prevent the offences being committed.
NeverMind
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 15:36) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 5 Jun 2021 - 02:08) *
Guessing correctly is not an offence. Naming the wrong driver is. Deliberately naming the wrong driver is a far more serious offence.

I did fix it because the first two assertions cannot both be true. If guessing is not an offence, guessing wrong also isn't an offence. Conversely if naming the wrong driver is an offence, then guessing can in some circumstances be an offence.


Read it again. He didn't say "guessing is not an offence" - he said "guessing correctly is not an offence".
The Rookie
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 15:36) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 5 Jun 2021 - 02:08) *
Guessing correctly is not an offence. Naming the wrong driver is. Deliberately naming the wrong driver is a far more serious offence.

I did fix it because the first two assertions cannot both be true. If guessing is not an offence, guessing wrong also isn't an offence.

That’s great, so in future we just advise everyone to guess because even if they name the wrong driver it’s not an offence!

Presumably you’d be happy to help with the defence?
cp8759
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 16:09) *
There is no specific offence of guessing, but guessing will either result in the correct or incorrect answer. Providing the incorrect answer is an offence (subject to any applicable defences, which generally won't apply unless you have provided any information that is in your power to give, etc.).

Guessing incorrectly, providing it is done in good faith because after exercising reasonable diligence that is the best that the recipient of the s172 notice can do, would lack mens rea, ergo none of the offences mentioned would apply.
southpaw82
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 21:20) *
would lack mens rea

Does the s 172 offence require mens rea?

cp8759
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 21:33) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 21:20) *
would lack mens rea

Does the s 172 offence require mens rea?

If the accused simply states that he has given the information that he was required to give, how would the prosecution even make out a section 172 offence?
southpaw82
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 21:59) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 21:33) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 21:20) *
would lack mens rea

Does the s 172 offence require mens rea?

If the accused simply states that he has given the information that he was required to give, how would the prosecution even make out a section 172 offence?

That’s not the question I asked. However, it depends on whether the accused was the person keeping the vehicle or not.
andy_foster
If the offence required mens rea then the reasonable diligence defence would seem to be a dead letter.

Absent any cogent argument to the contrary, or case law heavily on the side of the motorist, we need to accept that the pragmatic advice given ( to couples) to toss a coin is technically legally flawed. In practical terms, if the accused cannot with reasonable diligence ascertain the driver's identity, then it is vanishingly unlikely that the nomination could be proven wrong as long as the nominated driver does not 'rock the boat'. I doubt that any inchoate offence could be committed by advising someone to guess as the person advising does not know that the nomination would be wrong (or right for that matter), and proving such an offence would be even more unlikely.

However, other than the question of pragmatism versus strict legality, if it were to come to light that the nomination was wrong (e.g. the police would not provide photographs which clearly show that the nomination was incorrect), the defence of reasonable diligence would not apply if the accused had not also provided any information that is in his power to give and that might lead to the identification of the driver - and unequivocally naming the wrong driver is inconsistent with that requirement.

The 'proper' way to deal with genuine uncertainty is to exhaust reasonable diligence, provide what information you can, and then run the reasonable diligence defence in court - which anecdotally is an expensive gamble. Arguing that this is not viable is a pragmatic argument, not a viable legal argument - "well your worships, we simply tossed a coin and guessed because we feel that the law of the land is unfair and that you magistrates are biased against motorists so we would not get a fair trial" would realistically not go down as well as perhaps it ought to.
cp8759
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 22:02) *
"well your worships, we simply tossed a coin and guessed because we feel that the law of the land is unfair and that you magistrates are biased against motorists so we would not get a fair trial" would realistically not go down as well as perhaps it ought to.

Maybe not, but "well your worships, based on the information available to me I believed the person who was driving must have been X, even though I now accept based on the new evidence that has come to light that that belief was incorrect" would likely not lead to a conviction under s172.
andy_foster
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 22:10) *
Maybe not, but "well your worships, based on the information available to me I believed the person who was driving must have been X, even though I now accept based on the new evidence that has come to light that that belief was incorrect" would likely not lead to a conviction under s172.


Presumably based on your unilateral inclusion of a requirement for mens rea in s. 172? N.B. Apart from the wording of the section (particularly the reasonable diligence defence which indicates that the offence is otherwise strict liability, regulatory offences which are not truly criminal (e.g. virtually every motoring offence) are deemed not to require mens rea.

There are conceivable (albeit somewhat contrived) circumstances where a person could have information which leads him to believe that the driver was definitely person A and then subsequent information could be provided which indicated otherwise - e.g. he was deliberately and specifically misled and then the guilty parties had a bout of conscience - and in such circumstances providing the information that he believed that he knew to be correct and which precluded any perceived need to provide an additional list of possible drivers - could amount to a reasonable diligence defence, but that is very different to simply guessing and then finding out that he had guessed wrongly.
NewJudge
I wonder if the OP is following this! rolleyes.gif
The Rookie
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 21:59) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 21:33) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 21:20) *
would lack mens rea

Does the s 172 offence require mens rea?

If the accused simply states that he has given the information that he was required to give, how would the prosecution even make out a section 172 offence?

So because it can’t be proven it didn’t happen?

This must be the only law in existence where that applies! The fact it may not be able to be proven is not the same as not commited.
southpaw82
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 22:44) *
I wonder if the OP is following this! rolleyes.gif

Probably not.
cp8759
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 22:02) *
That’s not the question I asked. However, it depends on whether the accused was the person keeping the vehicle or not.

My assertion was really related to PCOJ / perjury. It hadn't occurred to me that one could need a defence to s172 because the offence could not be made out, so no defence needed, just a submission of no case to answer.
Beaugeste
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 22:44) *
I wonder if the OP is following this! rolleyes.gif


Just catching up, but not really grasping the technical arguments
TMC Towcester
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Mon, 21 Jun 2021 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 22:44) *
I wonder if the OP is following this! rolleyes.gif


Just catching up, but not really grasping the technical arguments


I'd not worry too much, folk on here like to debate the finer points, sometimes confusing the hell out of the OP

Post 20 says all you need to know - the advice here is not (usually) to risk a Hamilton defence when there's a simple (and relatively) cheap SAC or 3 point/£100 on offer - but that's up to you.
The Rookie
QUOTE (Beaugeste @ Mon, 21 Jun 2021 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Sun, 6 Jun 2021 - 22:44) *
I wonder if the OP is following this! rolleyes.gif


Just catching up, but not really grasping the technical arguments

In summary, the debate is whether naming the wrong driver by mistake is an offence, most think it is, some think it isn't. All agree that if the keeper reviews everything available and can't be 100% sure who was driving then it's all but impossible anyone else can, as such the chances of a prosecution in those circumstances are vanishingly unlikely.
Beaugeste
I've taken the view that one of us was speeding. The evidence clearly shows the van travelling at 47 in a 40 limit, there's no doubt of that. However, the photograph only shows the rear of the van and the van doesn't have rear windows. We're not in a strong enough financial position to take it to court so I've sent back the form with me as the driver.
Neither of us have any points, the fine will be paid from a joint account so I can't justify putting up a fight.
I asked the original question because there was doubt about who was driving and I found it strange that they don't know who was driving, we don't know who was driving' but one of us will be prosecuted, as I said before we might as well have tossed a coin.
But thanks for all your input and advise, I just wish I had the finances to continue and a little more bottle.

TMC Towcester
It is an odd position - but lokk at it another way, every rear facing camera might capture a vehicle with more than one person inside so we'd all be running the same don't know' defence................................
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.