Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Jan 26, 2026 14:18

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » News » Road Safety, Speed Camera and Policy News

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Dixie
PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2007 20:09 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Daily Telegraph

Quote:
Car firms 'protecting speeding drivers'
By Stephen Adams
Last Updated: 1:37am GMT 26/12/2007

Thousands of company car drivers could be avoiding up to six points a time on their licences because of a legal loophole.

Many companies are protecting valued car-dependent employees from getting points on their licences by not telling police who was behind the wheel of a speeding vehicle, say campaigners.

The Magistrates' Association has written to the Home Office about the situation.

Earlier this year, legislation under the Road Safety Act (2006) was brought into force to increase the licence penalty from three to six points for registered vehicle keepers who do not disclose the driver.

It did not increase the maximum fine for the offence, which stayed at £1,000.

But companies are happy to pay the fine rather than name valuable employees whose work relies on driving around the country.

Chief Supt Derek Barnett, the vice-president of the Police Superintendents' Association, said: "This brings the law into disrepute."

Andrew Howard, the head of road safety at the AA, said: "Probably the best course would be a fine big enough to scare these firms."

A Department for Transport spokesman said: "Companies do not have driving licences. There is a fine of up to £1,000 given to those that do not disclose.

"We do need to recognise that in some circumstances companies do not know who was driving a car."


Quote:
Chief Supt Derek Barnett, the vice-president of the Police Superintendents' Association, said: "This brings the law into disrepute."


Hypocrite, Speeding police 'not prosecuted'

I'm sure Paul would have made a good PR out of this one :(

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
malcolmw
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 12:06 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
This is a good example of the Law of Unintended Consequences at work.

To the idiot from the AA:

If you make the fine for companies "big enough to scare these firms" then they will employ the best, most epensive lawyers to argue their side. Not what you wanted was it?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ziltro
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 17:14 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
How has it got to the stage where non-government-funded people say "paying the government is the answer"?

_________________
Andrew.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
mmltonge
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 18:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
Dixie wrote:
I'm sure Paul would have made a good PR out of this one :(


Next time something like this comes up, why don't WE make a good PR out of it, it's surely the only way SS can continue?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ziltro
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 19:01 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
mmltonge wrote:
Dixie wrote:
I'm sure Paul would have made a good PR out of this one :(


Next time something like this comes up, why don't WE make a good PR out of it, it's surely the only way SS can continue?

Mmm, maybe we could use this article as practice for writing a PR?

_________________
Andrew.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dixie
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 19:13 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
"Chief of police admits speeding law is in disrepute"

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
fatboytim
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 19:32 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 00:31
Posts: 393
I have occasionally thought of setting up 5 Ltd companies, with the intention of leasing A car down the chain, so when Ltd Co. number 5 recieves a 172 (after the other 4 Co.s have taken 28 days to respond) the offence would time out and the response to the 172 could be made without fear of prosecution.

At the moment it seems there may be a
finance Co as owner,
Lease/hire Co as supplier,
User Co. (fleet office etc.) and
the actual Driver/ user

one or 2 more links and the chain is legally over 6 months.

fatboytim
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ziltro
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 19:40 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
I believe S172 requires you to give all information that is in your power, so that would only work and be legal if company A only knows about company B and not company C, etc.

Or you could register the vehicle to someone who is below the legal age of prosecution... Use their numerical limits to fight them. ;)

_________________
Andrew.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
mmltonge
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 19:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 14:05
Posts: 498
Police Hypocrisy amid Further Speed Camera Embarassment

Following the news that company car drivers are avoiding prosecution for breaking the speed limit by means of legal loopholes, PSA Vice President Chief Supt Derek Barnett has come out and stated that it ‘brings the law into disrepute’. **** ** of road Safety Campaign group SafeSpeed says, “this strikes of unbelivable hypocrisy. Last month it was revealed XXXX amount of speeding offences involving non-emergency police vehicles went unprosecuted. No fuss was made then by the PSA”.

It is another blow to the speed camera campaign by the government and yet more proof that these harmful devices are simply another tax on the average motorist.

When are the government going to stop wasting money and lives and once and for all ditch this failed policy?

I can’t actually remember what happened with this last month [when it was police avoiding prosecution], so someone please feel free to correct
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dixie
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 20:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
mmltonge wrote:
I can’t actually remember what happened with this last month [when it was police avoiding prosecution], so someone please feel free to correct


Speeding police 'not prosecuted'

They where doing the same thing themselves.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jomukuk
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 20:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Not a problem ?
Make operating any vehicle owned or hired by a company subject to an operators licence.
Make logging users a legal requirement.
Then the company becomes subject to revocation of said licence, no court required.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Dixie
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 20:49 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
jomukuk wrote:
Not a problem ?
Make operating any vehicle owned or hired by a company subject to an operators licence.
Make logging users a legal requirement.
Then the company becomes subject to revocation of said licence, no court required.


Would that go for the Police also?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
MondeoST24
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 22:05 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 17:47
Posts: 61
Has the law recently changed? We had this situation last year where we were genuinly not sure who the driver was (we were moving premises and had 6 drivers moving over 300 cars)

Someone phoned the ticket office to ask what the procedure was and they were told that if we did not nominate a driver the company secretary would recieve the fine and 3 points.

As it turned out one of the drivers agreed to take the rap for a small incentive :shock:
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ziltro
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 01:26 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
MondeoST24 wrote:
Has the law recently changed? We had this situation last year where we were genuinly not sure who the driver was (we were moving premises and had 6 drivers moving over 300 cars)

Someone phoned the ticket office to ask what the procedure was and they were told that if we did not nominate a driver the company secretary would recieve the fine and 3 points.

As it turned out one of the drivers agreed to take the rap for a small incentive :shock:

The correct and legal response would have been to give them a list of everybody who could have been driving. It's up to them to work it out.
Saying you were driving when you weren't is a much more serious offence.

_________________
Andrew.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
malcolmw
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:20 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
jomukuk wrote:
Not a problem ?
Make operating any vehicle owned or hired by a company subject to an operators licence.
Make logging users a legal requirement.
Then the company becomes subject to revocation of said licence, no court required.

Are you suggesting that more bureaucracy should be heaped on companies to solve a trivial problem which is not of their making? What you will get is exemplified by this post:

MondeoST24 wrote:
Has the law recently changed? We had this situation last year where we were genuinly not sure who the driver was (we were moving premises and had 6 drivers moving over 300 cars)

Someone phoned the ticket office to ask what the procedure was and they were told that if we did not nominate a driver the company secretary would recieve the fine and 3 points.

As it turned out one of the drivers agreed to take the rap for a small incentive

People will lie just to avoid suspension of their licence. Is this really justice or what you intend? Is it more important to collect a small fine or promote people to be truthful when responding?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
anton
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 13:30 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
MondeoST24 wrote:
Has the law recently changed? We had this situation last year where we were genuinly not sure who the driver was (we were moving premises and had 6 drivers moving over 300 cars)

Someone phoned the ticket office to ask what the procedure was and they were told that if we did not nominate a driver the company secretary would recieve the fine and 3 points.

As it turned out one of the drivers agreed to take the rap for a small incentive :shock:

Thats perverting the course of justice and a potential prison sentance for the company secretary abd the driver taking the rap.
39 Manchester cab drivers have been imprisoned for this very offence!
Yes 39

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Last edited by anton on Fri Dec 28, 2007 13:36, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
bombus
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 13:36 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
This is one of the fundamental problems of remote, automatic, conveyer belt speed "enforcement". I don't see how it's possible to have "cost-effective" (i.e. money-making) cameras without having this bullying into lying of those who genuinely don't know who was driving. If they start to give the benefit of the doubt to those who don't know who was driving, all sorts of drivers will start to abuse it. The only solution that is fair to everyone, as ever, is to scrap cameras.

Daily Telegraph wrote:
Andrew Howard, the head of road safety at the AA, said: "Probably the best course would be a fine big enough to scare these firms."

That idiot is single-handedly responsible for my decision never to join the AA. I should write to the AA to tell them so. The number of anti-car quotes we've had from him is breathtaking. Why would they betray their customers to such an extent unless there was some interest that we didn't know about? It's hard to believe that this is the same company which warned drivers of speed traps. The company's founders, assuming that they are no longer with us, would surely turn in their graves.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
anton
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 13:39 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I can't hep thinking the AA and RAC are after some big government contracts

road pricing, gps, or just plain recovery

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
jomukuk
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
A company I work for, whose drivers consistently ignore the digi-tach telling them to have a rest, has been informed that their operators licence is at risk if they do not insist the drivers take their rest periods when indicated. It is hardly rocket science to have company policy insist that each company vehicle is "signed out". With the digi-tacho the problem is solved by the driver having to have the smartcard to use the vehicle (unless the card is given to another to use). Note that the police interrogate the tacho unit in the event of an accident/incident, it gives a long printout of speeds/warning for a period of time.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Lum
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 01:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
fatboytim wrote:
At the moment it seems there may be a
finance Co as owner,
Lease/hire Co as supplier,

User company, head office, London
User company, North West regional office, Manchester
User company, branch office, Wallasey
Employee who the car is issued to
Other employee who was using that car for a couple of days while theirs was in for a service and the first employee was on holiday
Other employee's husband/wife/child/mate (insurance permitting)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » News » Road Safety, Speed Camera and Policy News

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.058s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off ]