Road Traffic Act 1988 - are police obliged to contact you in a certain period?

[adder1969]

Wasn't Mad Max was it? ;-)

[tinnews]

The basis (quite genuine) of the defence was that she and her husband were both insured to drive the car and both drove that route quite regularly. There was no way that they could remember who was driving the car on the specified date several months before the case came to court.

What else could the magistrates have done?

[Andy Hall]

Clearly a joustification.....

[Frank Erskine]

... In his de-fence.

[Andy Hall]

touche....

[Jerry]

magistrates

husband

driving

Well an offence took place, one or other drivers *was* speeding, if the identity of the driver can not be discovered then it fails into the lap of the registered keeper of the vehicle as (s)he is ultimately the person legally responsible for the vehicle (just as they would also be the one to receive the 80GBP fine for a non SORNed vehicle that's VED has expired).

Your Mother-in-Law might well have a genuine reason for not being able to remember but the problem is that people are using the same excuse as a legal loop hole.

[Steve Walker]

That's not a 'legal loophole', it's a basic civil right - "Innocent until proven guilty".

But good luck with your application for the next Home Secretary vacancy.

[Steve Walker]

But only to the registered keeper listed at DVLA - can take months to be forwarded through lease companies etc.

[Tony Bryer]

When it's a Ferrari owned by a famous footballer, I hope that the InsCo takes note of the fact the owner is in the habit of lending it to persons unknown and adjusts the premium accordingly.

The latest cameras take pictures from the front so these unknown driver claims should reduce.

[Eusebius]

But only to the registered keeper listed at DVLA

Well it looks like I can send back the NIP with a note saying it has timed out. Unfortunately, I think there's a Catch 22 here - once they know I am the driver they have 6 months to prosecute me. Is this correct? Looks like they win. If I don't send back the NIP and sign it I've committed an offence, so I have no choice there, so I'm obliged to tell them I'm the driver. Don't you think? Andy

[Jerry]

same

No it is a legal loophole, the legal keeper of the vehicle they are responsible for should know who has driven it, when that person has driven it and possibly where it was driven. Remember that we are really only taking about 14 days here, in the case of 6 months for lease cars etc. any transport manager will (should) have records, are you seriously suggesting that all these people who claim that they can't remember have memory problems?!

[meow2222]

sending evidence back is rarely a good move

NT

[Eusebius]

I've a friend who's a magistrate - he should know the answer! I'll let you guys know over the w/e. Andy

[Jerry]

Why are you so worried, already got 9 points have you?....

[Frank Erskine]

Not necessarily - it's usually the Clerk of the Court that knows all the rules :-)

[Eusebius]

Why are you so worried, already got 9 points have you?.... 9 points have you?....>>

On the contrary I drive pretty slowly and have a clean license. Just wanted to keep it that way. Andy

[OG]

Don't be daft - the law makes no such demand.

Unless they've got a husband and 2 sons and a daughter who treat the house like a bloody hotel and use the car if it's got petrol in.

OK, who was using the car at 1.38pm a week last Tuesday?

[Edward W. Thompson]

To hell with morality, I suppose, what does that say about you? It appears you know you committed an offence so pay up and drive with more care next time.

[legin]

Why don't you go and rob people's houses. Get caught after about 20 and admit to 2 and get cautioned. Then when you get caught for the third time get a short jail term. Then be given =A3100 quid and let out of jail early cos the jails are full. The system sucks. Momentarily go over the spped limit in the wrong place and cos you can afford to drive, wallop =A360 fine and three points. There's morality!

Legin

[The Natural Philosopher]

Dream on.

I actually went to the magistrates court the first time i got a traffic ticket - going through a red light on an unlimited dual carriageway at the bottom of a hill. In a loaded Bedford CA2. The amber period was about 3 seconds - totally insufficient to stop safely in such a vehicle.

The police knew this and used to wait there for the unsuspecting when bored.

I pointed this out to the magistrate.

"Did you slow down and change into third?" "Madam, the Bedford CA2 is only equipped with a three speed gearbox. It has a top speed of 65mph, and I never drive it oer 55mph. My point is the amber period is insufficient to stop a loaded vehicle safely in that location".

"Nonsense: I get hundreds of drivers every month saying the same thing"

the enormity of which seemingly completely supportive assertion being blandly asserted as contradictory, struck me completely dumb, and I realised that nothing I would ever say by way of rational argument would make the blindest bit of difference.