In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one driving if there is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that Barry was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major grievance against Barry ;-)
I presume a car which is temporarily hired to someone is a special case: the registered keeper will be company which is doing the hiring but the legal responsibility for paying fines and receiving points is contracted to the person who has hired the car.
If the registered keeper (TK) of the vehicle truthfully tells the police who was driving on an occasion when it was observed by a camera that the person driving may have committed an offence, that is all the RK need do in order to comply with the law.
Thereafter, the matter lies between the police and the person said to have been driving.
Of course, the named driver may not have been driving. The RK only really knows who was in charge of the vehicle, unless he (the RK) was also in the vehicle at the time.
My missus went through a spate of attracting speeding tickets in our car (registered to me). I went through a spate of forgetfulness as to who was driving the car at the time and none of them were paid.
Not proud of the fact, just saying....
The owner has a legal responsibility to name the driver. At that point if there is a dispute, case law may suggest a defence.
"There have been a number of cases, and in particular, police officers who have successfully disputed speeding prosecutions because photographs have not been enough to show who the driver was.
One of the most cited cases is that of Regina v Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts, who appealed against a fixed penalty notice. His defence was that he could not remember if he been driving at the time. It was subsequently ruled that the photographic evidence was inconclusive and the ticket was scrapped. It is useful to cite cases such as this when writing to the police."
Which suggests that a registered keeper naming the driver, but the driver disputing it would also need to rely upon photographic evidence for the police to proceed.
It is even possible for the registered keep to simply not know.
When I still lived with my parents. My father may have been at work in his company car, while my mother, sister or myself might have used the car that was registered in his name for a short trip (rather than moving it to get our own cars out).
He would not know that the car had even been used, but we all had blanket permission from each other to use whichever car was most convenient, at any time.
Quite.
I'd be proud of it. I'm surprised they didn't want to fine one of you each time.
This got me thinking, what about motorbikes? Picture through a helmet visor? Not possible.
Viz a certain liberal democrat energy minister....
Ah, so the RK isn't *automatically* assumed to have been driving if the person named by him denies doing so? I hadn't realised that, or that if both the RK and the named driver deny it - or say "I really can't remember" - it is possible for *neither* person to be charged. Hence the need for photographs to back up the fact of the speeding (*) and the identity of the driver.
(*) Two photos taken an exact number of milliseconds apart showing how far the car has moved against white lines on the road.
I've often wondered about this.
Our two family cars are both insured for any of the family of four to drive, we are all 'named drivers' on the insurance. Thus there is no need for the 'registered keeper' to have given permission for someone to drive the car.
As far as I know there's no legal requirement that the registered keeper records who is driving the car when so, how can the registered keeper be required to name the driver? The registered keeper may genuinely not know who was driving, to say that he *does* know would be perjury.
Some years ago, I was driving the Swiss N2 southbound near Lucerne, keeping right and rigidly obeying the 80kph limit in a section running through a gallery.
Two motor-cyclists came up fast in the offside lane and triggered a traffic-facing Truvelo camera, which went off with a distinctly dark red flash (presumably for glare- and dazzle-reduction).
The riders won't have been identifiable and the bikes had no number plates on the front, no doubt leading to the cavalier disregard for the
80kph limit.
As I've commented elsewhere why *should* the RK know who was driving? Our two family cars each have four named drivers, why should anyone know who is driving the car at any particular time?
E.g. RK is on holiday in France (pre Covid!), someone else in the family uses the car to go shopping, how is RK to know who?
All the RK can do is tell the truth.
I presume is still obliged to name the possible drivers (plural) who could have been driving - "it may have been one of my children X, Y or Z who were at home, but it definitely wasn't me, my wife or my youngest child W who was with us in France". Or is "I don't know" with no further elaboration of the "likely suspects" considered enough?
There is also the thorny issue of the identity of the driver when a car is stolen. My middle nephew had someone reverse into him late at night at a road junction, and then drive off. The RK of that car reported the car stolen shortly afterwards and the wife of the RK gave him an alibi. It is
*plausible* that the RK did not notice immediately that his car had been stolen, and by the time he did, the thief had already committed the offence. Or it could be a hastily-contrived cover-up. The police had their suspicions, but not enough proof... My nephew either managed to claim off the RK's insurance on the basis that it covered liability if the car was stolen, or else claimed off an uninsured driver's fund. It was partly that incident which made my nephew decide to join the police...
IIRC, motor bikes in Switzerland are not obliged to have number plates at the front.
I have an idea that this is also the case here, nowadays.
Nor here in the UK, it's fairly general I think, the reason being that the classic vertical plate on the front mudguard did nasty injuries to any pedestrian hit by a 'bike.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.