Speeding Ticket

carmanmemoranda said:
The op could easily say it was him, take the punishment and then have it proved to him that it was his wife and he is therefore guilty of perverting the course if justice.

Just reply with a letter stating it was either him, or his wife but is unable to be certain who it was.

Legal advice (not via this forum) might be sensible. But I wouldn't be stating it was definitely x or y on a legal document unless I was sure
Click to expand...
Except he wouldn't be. No Mens Rea.
and as has been posted, he is not obliged to do anything of the sort
 
motorbiking said:
In this case the RK does not know who was driving, but has nominated the OP.

Lock him up.. such reckless speed. Think of all the children (in bed and asleep) when the OP allegedly exceeded a 20 limit.
Click to expand...
Nominating the OP is not the same as being sure it was him.
 
The wording on an NIP is "You are required to give me the name and address of the user of the vehicle at the time and date above."
What do you think that means?
 
motorbiking said:
The wording on an NIP is "You are required to give me the name and address of the user of the vehicle at the time and date above."
What do you think that means?
Click to expand...
To me it means you tell the truth, not just take a guess.

My answer would be, it's either x or y but I cannot be certain which.
 
denso13 said:
And that's what the RK should have said. They cannot say who was driving.
Click to expand...
The police don't care. They do not need to identify the driver. The photo just identifies the vehicle. The effective registered keeper has the responsibility be it the usual or as identified via a lease or hire. Lending such a car to someone might prove interesting but if done the RK should know who it was. Actually from direct experience the driver is also responsible for the condition of the car. It needn't be the actual owner just the driver when the police notice the problem.

All the police are interested in is applying their selected penalty to the correct driver. On the face of things if 2 and don't know which penalties will be applied to both.
 
motorbiking said:
He is not the registered keeper.

His burden is to "give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver." he is under no obligation to carry out any such diligence.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but it is within his power to ask other family members/mates who had access to the keys whether it was them. The OP may be protecting someone with a lot of points from disqualification or from a more serious driving while uninsured offence or worse.
 
Years ago I got a 400£ fine and 4 points for doing 38 in a 30

Bit OTT imo

As I was in a left hand drive car the pic of the driver they had was obviously not me it was the passenger

It got complicated and the courts adopted the attitude that I was a time waster and although they did not use the exact wording I got the impression they considered me to be a scum bag hence the OTT penalty :(
 
ajohn said:
They do not need to identify the driver
Click to expand...
Of course they do, the driver gets prosecuted, not the car.
ajohn said:
The effective registered keeper has the responsibility be it the usual or as identified via a lease or hire.
Click to expand...
The RK only has to identify a possible driver, they probably have no idea who was actually driving.
ajohn said:
On the face of things if 2 and don't know which penalties will be applied to both.
Click to expand...
That's not correct.
 
transam said:
Years ago I got a 400£ fine and 4 points for doing 38 in a 30

Bit OTT imo

As I was in a left hand drive car the pic of the driver they had was obviously not me it was the passenger

It got complicated and the courts adopted the attitude that I was a time waster and although they did not use the exact wording I got the impression they considered me to be a scum bag hence the OTT penalty :(
Click to expand...
Seems like they clocked you for what you are.
 
transam said:
It got complicated and the courts adopted the attitude that I was a time waster and although they did not use the exact wording I got the impression they considered me to be a scum bag hence the OTT penalty :(
Click to expand...
For some reason this made me lol. Laughter not directed 'at' you in a nasty way, I'm sort of imagining you telling mates this story at the pub and them pausing before laughing on hearing the above, with one of them maybe rubbing your hair in an annoying manner :)
 
transam said:
It got complicated and the courts adopted the attitude that I was a time waster and although they did not use the exact wording I got the impression they considered me to be a scum bag hence the OTT penalty :(
Click to expand...

Guessing it was all the smoke coming off your Goodrichs that confused the issue and made a bad impression with the beak. :cool::cool::cool::cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top