Safe Speed Forums

I just received a standard NIP for speeding - 49mph in a 30mph - middle of a deserted industrial estate on a Saturday Morning.

Stupidly - having been told by a friend that it would work, I put down an address of someone in the States, as the driver.

The Police have now come back, and asked for proof of the person being here, which I cannot provide.

Your suggestions, should I say I made a mistake, and take the points or what?

Many thanks

I would be quite sure that this could well be a point for them to mull over:

I am sure that nowhere on a NIP does it caution the reader / addressee by saying any untruths will be deemed as perjury. Nowhere on the NIP does it say that it will or may be used in evidence in a court of law. (this is why the self-incriminating NIP rests so uneasy within the rest of our society's laws).

It would be quite interesting to see what would happen if someone had written Micky Mouse's particulars on the form. Are there any other views on this particular point?

I would not advise you to lie to the Police at all but If I were writing a book about this sort of thing (you know, a fictional thriller) I would entertain my readers by saying I would suggest that now you've put your foot in it so to speak you stick by what you said and let them run to the expense of checking things out.

The one to whom the NIP is addressed is solely required to answer the NIP: If and when that person has nominated somone else as the driver at the time, it is then THEIR job (the old bill's) to chase that newly nominated driver or to prove someone has lied or let it go - it is not for anyone to have to prove their case against them.

Repeating that I would not advise you to lie to the Police and emphasising that f I were merely writing a book about this sort of thing (you know, a fictional thriller) I would entertain my readers by saying if you have a relative in the USA just get him her to write to you to thank you for your hospitality in letting him or her stay over the week in question.

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

Many thanks for your advice for writing my book.

In regard to this matter, as would be detailed in the up and coming novel, the problems are that the person in question may never have been in the country at the time of the incident.

This may well bring the chapter to a close, in the fictional book, of the person saying that said driver has now lost contact and cannot be contacted, and see what happens next.

This may lead to the owner having to take responsibility in this instance, but will let you know, how the fictional book progresses..

I'd own up mate, and hope the police don't try to pursue you for obstruction by proffering what is now a transparently fatuous explanation as to who was driving.

It's not perjury because that is a false statment made under oath. It is perverting the course of justice and many NIPs do actually state "it is an offence to knowingly or recklessly furnish information you know to be false or do not believe to be true".

The problem all ahead full has is that he may be forced into perjury if he maintains his current line. What he does about it is between him and his conscience. If he is minded not to stray into the dangerous territory of perjuring himself, it would undoubtedly be better to try and find a way of correcting his previous 'inadvertent' false statement sooner rather than later, but I could not say how likely it is the police will simply let the matter rest there.

[edited to add]

This is an occasion where the services of a solicitor to act as an intermediary would be useful, and all ahead full must disclose the whole truth to the solicitor (protected by privilege anyway) if he takes that course.

Two points here:

1. It is not for you to prove that the person named was the driver. You have provided the information requested and unless they can PROVE ABSOLUTELY thsat the person named was not driving, then it's not your problem.
2. However, if they can PROVE ABSOLUTELY that the person named was not and could not have been driving, then prepare for some possible jail time for 'attempting to pervert the course of justice'.

So, you might think about how they could get that proof. Is the person named a friend of yours? If so, could the UK Police contact the US Police to go and ask him/her if he/she was in the UK at that time? They can do this within Europe, but I'm not sure about the USA.

A friend of mine had exactly this happen. He named a foreign national and the Police then asked when that person arrived/departed the UK, by what flight and at what hotels he stayed. My friend replied that he had provided the information requested under S172 and that if they wanted more then they are the Police and must do the detective work. It all went away and he heard no more. That was 3 years ago.

again thanks for your all your advice, will let you know what happens.

What does the law say about this? Mr. Webmaster, you have a responsibility in the law to give this chap's confession to the authorities, if not a legal responsibility then certainly a moral one.

But of course you won't, even though you don't condone breaking the law.

If you've spent any amount of time on this forum then you'd have noticed the many, many postings by serving police officers.
No need to tell the law, they already know all about it.

Cheers
Peter

Sorry, I should be more specific for the hard of thinking,

will the webmaster pass on the details including the email address of this self confessed criminal?

I rather think the person has covered his tracks in any case.

But it's a matter for the chap and his conscience to accept consequences.

I'd get some legal advice to see how best to limit damages on this one. - if I were him...

Start with pepipoo and try and some solicitos do offer a free half hour consultation - check out your yellow pages or lists of the firms in your main library.

Not a hanging offence yet - but may hit the wallet a lot harder if you dig yourself in much deeper.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

..........Nah! I'm not going to rise to the bait. Rather bide my time and let your comments come back to bite you on the bum.

Cheers
Peter

I see that there have been a couple of comments about perverting the course of justice - but having a conscience and coming clean....

The sad thing about it is although the bloke who originally said it was a Yank driving has now got rather worried, etc; if he just "comes clean" and confesses to his 'sins' then the police will throw the book at him and if the fellow is otherwise a quite decent chap it will cost him a fortune!



If the speeding fines and endorsements were genuinely and generally appropriate given the nature of the transgressions, people would more readily accept matters when being 'caught'.

For example - if no AUTOMATIC speeding ticket were an endorsement AND the fine was say £2 per mile an hour over the top, most people would accept it.

As it is, 4 lots of 36 - 38 in a 30 (for example) can tot up and ban someone who is basically safe for absolutely nothing other than exceeding the posted speed limit in a very minor way.

Who is the least desirable on the road - the bloke who eventually got caught with no insurance (and may have been doing this for years) or the bloke who speeds in a minor fashion from time to time?

I don't know what all the codes are for all the possible 'offences' but I think we need to get them in proportion.

At the end of the day, I think most people would respect the law if it were enforced properly - and I don't mean nick everone doing 1mph over the posted limit. I mean use the speeding laws in the way they always used to be - namely if somone takes the piss, nick them!

And before someone comes back and says "enforce the law, no bending or interpreting the spirit of the law", consider this. At a red traffic signal, the law says the vehicle must stop behind the stop line unless that line has already been passed at green or amber.

Do we nick people who come to a standstill 9 inches beyond the line ? 2 inches beyond the line? 2 mm beyond the line ??? It is the law, after all!

So do we then ignore and just accept the bloke who just crept across the line tight to the back of the car in front in traffic who subsequently emerges across a dangerous road junction perhaps 5, 8 or 10 seconds after the 'other way' has gone green. (Remember he had "crossed the line" before they went red)????

We don't live in a black and white world. People's behaviour and intentions can be surmised in various shades of grey from the brightest white to the darkest black. The only 'safe' way to catch a speeder is on video film where a third party onlooker can see and take into consideration all the other factors such as weather, time of day, number or density of hazzards and driving style as well as the speed itself.

At the end of the day the definition of "reasonable" has to be what most ordinary people would do or accept as acceptable or reasonable given those circumstances. And people who exceed these limits need to be severely censured the first time they transgress and have their licences revoked for any further transgressions. As it is, the really dangerous, onerous drivers out there are to be found hidden in with the multitudes of unlucky 'good' ones.

Punishing everyone collectively does nothing for road safety nor does it do anything for the image of the 'law' in the eyes of the public - the very people the 'law' is supposed to serve and protect.

I just hop that Tony Blair and other MPs read some of these forums and might start to think about the damage they're doing to the esteem and standing of the police in society at large.

Like I say, I am not the only 42 year old bloke who's never been in trouble with the law before who's now looking at them as a bit of a damp joke. The part of me that loves my country weeps for the disrepute into which the police have been dragged and the damage done thereto.

The law has to be changed before too many ordinary, placid fellows like me get too pissed off with this legalised theft (because that is what it is). Ultimately, the country could become ungovernable - exactly what caused the Americans to eventually call for independence. So these types of mistake have been made before.

Think about it Scammers, JPs, police officers and MPs (if you're reading).

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

I'm not sure he has confessed to anything. He says he named a non UK resident as the driver. He also says he has no proof they were in the country at the time. Nowhere does he say this is untrue.

It is slightly implied but nowhere is it categorically stated.

If you get a visit from a friend you don't ask them for copies of their flight tickets and passport number.

In any case would it not be better to work with this person to allow them to come to a decision themselves before running to mommy?

In any case it looks like the police have not just let it drop. How far will they take it? Who knows, they went to France to get evidence to convict Mr Simmonite. It would be a nice little holiday for someone to pop over to the States. And lets not forget that huge expenses budget the scammers have to spend!

I've had a sleep on this particular post overnight from 'Handy' and have the following observations to make:

I wonder what 'Handy's' part in the "Scamerati" is. What are you, Handy? A copper, cameraman, magistrate or some other entity in the wheels of the State? Thought Police (otherwise known as Gestapo, Stazi or KGB)?

You seem to want an awful lot of "State's Retribution" on this poor fellow who may well have never appeared in front of a court in his life. Or is it me? The loud mouthed dissenter you want silenced with your Hand his contact details over so we can pay him a visit inferences.

Evil prevails when good men do nothing.

I may currently be just one of a few prepared to voice my views about this racketeering operation on the part of the State whose clamours and claims about safety are nothing more than a sophistry to cover up their own immorality.

Your comments appear to be those of someone who has had his nose in the trough, so to speak. I think this should worry anyone who thinks that in a so-called democracy where we are supposed to be allowed to air our dissenting voices about the status quo someone like you can come on here and demand the details of the source of dissent claiming that denying the Gestapo such detail is bad for the State.

Perhaps in a similar vein to the strict discipline of enforcing ludicrously low speed limits, you want to send some sort of 'NIP' with the demand "Who was typing at the time?"!.

Well, Handy, I ain't going to shut up about it. The law is being abused and either it or its enforcement needs changing drastically - shutting the likes of me up so you can have a quiet life without having to read my 'repugnant' comments about ripping off the public and bringing the law ito disrepute would only serve you to get a bigger meltdown at the end.

For all my comments of anguished dissent, I still love my country and it is because I do that I feel the call to say it and tell it how I see it "how as it is". This is bad law and bad practice and has to be changed!

Having me "silenced" or "dealt with severely" for my views won't change the way I think, nor, would I imagine, will it change the views of others who will follow me or who have or are suffering this in silence right now. So in closing I'd say enjoy it while it lasts (whether that be the exercise of power or revelling in other people's personal distress or financial anguish) because sooner or later this will get changed and this little gravy train scam will come to an end.

There are thousands of reasons why other methods of road policing would be better and regain the vast majority of the public's consent. You can read them all over this website. Shutting up people for pointing out the obvious is not one of them.

Have a great day, Handy, won't you!

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

You, of course, have never exceeded a speed limit by any amount at any time during your driving career


And some of them may have confessed to an occasional nudge above the limit in their private vehicles.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Rant mode on!

There some very big loop holes emerging and driving people into more doggy-doo-dahs as a result.

We have one loop hole which our "full steam ahead" here was dippy enough to try out. Only - some scammers or BiBs like a nice little holiday to try to find the naughty speeding foreigner. If by chance - he is an asylum seeker over here or an unemployed chav - magistrates are quite happy with a hard luck story and only too willing to show how politically correct they are.

It can be very soul destroying for us when the mags fall for this

But the scammers receive so many foreign drivers "borrowing" the driver's cars that it begins to look fishy. Also - there is the little matter of insuring your car for these mythical foreigners to drive. They do need cover notes after all. But then this is another failing of these scma-merchants - they are only interested in £60 fine and trying to act as if they are acting in the interests of safety. We had one thread last year - Satin - and her boyfriend was allegedly was pinged driving her car - and the dozy woman did not know if he was insured to drive her car or not!

If people only knew the number of actual criminals we catch on a routine insurance/dcument check....and how many of these are actually wanted for something else....

Now I read in a tabloid that there is a growing "industry" for off-loading points. All JJ does is record a reg number and send NIP to RK. (We actually run checks - there's the difference and could explain why we are that bit safer here by applying professional police graft!).

I read that millions say they would pay a student to take the points for them. So not about £60 - it's about loss of mobility for 4 just over offences in 3 years.. The driver is risking jail if caught and the student - so much for strings of A* grades ) and more proof of declining standards - ends up driving without insurance as premium is loaded beyond their reach as they are only 22/23 years old on graduation - and already so far saddled with debt that they consider "budgeting" by failing to insure the cars...

Then - how about this one for return to Dickensian exploitation of your work force: one employer is reported as paying his members of his staff £250 for taking his penalty points and £60 fine. Given the loading on their insurance premiums - they are not getting a bargain. Do they get a P45 if they refuse - I wonder?

This is what a draconian sledge hammer approach is creating - and it is not a pretty sight.

The same paper (and same page in "Express") has story about the 100 yard bus lane which nets £1m per annum.

Fleecing members of the public and applying any laws without applying basic common sense is creating a wider disregard for law and order.

It is making my job a lot harder each day!

I think we need to get back to common sense values and take the wider picture into account. This means - looking at all speed limits, road engineering, BiB training and officer numbers, general driver training and common sense application of the rules.

But then - said it all before. My guvnor has said it... N Yorks has said it... even Dick is thinking about it a bit more...

There - had a good old fashioned rant!

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

In Gear

Respect!!!

Don't take my angst personally - your post tells me you're a decent enough copper who wants to do 'the job' for the right reasons....

Like I say, I'm only whinging about it because I also care about the consequences of the actions of these P.C. idiots in "Camera Partnerships".

I find it very, very hard to respect the law when it is brought into such disrepute by people ABusing the process.

If this wasn't so serious it would be funny.

Nice weekend

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

ahf

Don't want to re-state advice others may have offered more eloquently than I, but this may be of some additional use if you've not yet taken any further action on this matter.

Three years ago or thereabouts, the sales manager from my German office was over here for three days. He actually WAS driving my car - for real, with me in the passenger seat - when we were flashed by a Gatso in Cardiff. After discussing the issue with him on the phone to Germany I named him on the NIP, and had the same type of letter as you received from the scamerati there.

Now being basically bloody-minded on principle about these thieving scammer-partnerships' activities, I did a bit of research, and found out that your legal obligation extends only to nominating the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence. You are not required to offer any further proof, and if they ask you for it, write back politely and refuse, pointing out that what they 'demanding' is 'contrary to law' - which it is.

If they suspect you're being untruthful, they will then choose either to expend vast resources investigating it, or let it go. I must admit that in my case, I was rather hoping that they would initiate a costly investigation and charge me with 'giving false information' or something, just so I could produce my colleague in court to testify and win. I actually relished demanding costs in full from the prosecution, and getting paid out.

However, after I wrote back politely telling them to basically get stuffed, as I had fulfilled my legal obligation by nominating the driver and that was all they were going to get, they wrote back to me that 'no further action will be taken.' So I missed out on the joyful day in court.

One of the ironies of this case is that he drove over from Duesseldorf, having a lot of stuff to transport. His car was parked in the hotel car park in Hemel Hempstead. If we'd taken his car that day instead of mine, the scamerati would not have even sent a NIP, as the car is registered to a German company with German plates, and in such cases they don't even bother.

My advice would be to stick to your guns. They have to PROVE your nominated driver was not driving. This will be very hard to do. They will try to bully and threaten you, but in law you don't have to further prove anything. If it is further investigated (very, very small risk of this) it will help, of course, if your American friend is a real person at the real address you wrote on the NIP, and is prepared to back you up, as they can't touch his US driving licence. Then you know you're in the clear. You have complied with the law by filling in the NIP. That's all you need to do.

Don't let the thieving swine intimidate you.

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts