Safe Speed Forums

This IS Plymouth Here
This is appalling and I guess only a matter of time before this happened. It is interesting to know what the Courts will do ! I wonder if they will reduce the fee to the already paid figure - they have already withdrawn the speeding fine ! So where is the 'crime'? Failing to not ID a driver when there is no stipulation other than to 'try to' do all you can to ?
I have obviously not seen the photo in question and am only going on the article above ...
This may set a trend ... people do not like to be unfairness and this feels terribly unfair and unreasonable. I appreciate the Courts have to 'do their job' but if no one knows who was driving they really cannot 'just appoint joint blame' surely?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Joint blame does seem to the obvious answer. But for the original charge. 1.5points and £30 each. I suspect that such an approach would jog a lot of memories.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

errr not quite it states : So they each got a heafty penalty.
Now when they say that the speeding fine was withdrawn I am unclear as to whether some of that penalty was also withdrawn - have to call the Courts I guess to learn more...

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

If you remember the previous thread about a similar case, Fisherman said that it was relatively easy to show reasonable diligence in trying to ascertain who was driving. Reasonable diligence is all that is required for acquittal. Saying "I don't remember" is not reasonable diligence.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

If saying "I don't remember" was sufficient to et a charge dropped than we certainly wouldn't have a prison overcrowding problem.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

In the absence of a successful appeal this case is settled. The fine now becomes a separate matter. It is a court order and is subject to the normal enforcement procedure.


The fine paid by one of them has ended that persons involvement in the matter. The other person hasn't paid anything. There never was a speeding fine, merely an allegation of speeding which led to the s172 being issued. That allegation has now been withdrawn as the CPS don't know who to prosecute.


Failing to ID the driver is not a crime. Failing to exercise reasonable diligence is.


This article follows a regular trend. Ignore the much larger numbers of people who do exercise reasonable diligence and are found not guilty because that doesn't lend itself to the creation of sensational headlines. Then print something, with at least one error of fact, that will sell papers.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

Hi ,
just came across this thread,well i am e.liepins and as far as i see --I got fined by some old dried up prune(should i just say BITCH ) of a magistrate for having no idea who was driving a car i do not own, on some date i don't recall,my crime is that in live in the same house as the owner of the car and i am one of the people that use the car. still as far as i see this is just a way to screw the motorist out of more money and nothing to do with justice .

(post edited by PeterE as moderator 09/02/11)

I presume that by "due diligence" they mean that the driver of whom the request is made, should either provide an alibi - i.e. show that they were somewhere else at the time, with witnesses, or have proof that they could not have been driving - e.g. a cash withdrawal from an ATM miles away.

Unfortunately, few people lead their lives with providing such an alibi in mind!
So could I fall victim to a request to show I was not driving my vehicle?

I keep all my fuel receipts for my business - but as a frugal driver I only fill up every 14 - 21 days so what are the chances of a sales receipt showing I was elsewhere at the time?
I don't use ATMs except in exceptional circumstances.
I often spend long periods working alone, (or posting on forums) where nobody else knows where I am for certain. I live in a rural area, and I could not tell you what the neighbours three doors away in my street look like, let alone know their names, as we all come and go at odd hours!

When I received a speeding ticket in the post for my wife's car - which was registered in my name, I very nearly paid the fine - until I realised it was at a strange time of morning - 7.00 am, in a town ten miles from where we live, and travelling towards home... a time when we would normally be still in bed!
Alerted to the unusual circumstances, I then checked the date - and discovered the offence took place while we were on holiday in France!

Having informed the ticket office of this, you would have thought that was the end of the matter - but no - I was hounded (no better word to describe it) to say who else had been driving the vehicle, as we were holidaying in my car!
Through out, the attitude of the ticket office was accusatory - as the owner, I MUST have known who was driving.
At no time did the thought that the details could have been wrongly recorded cross their minds!

The offence of failing to identify the driver of a vehicle is one largely created by the use of remote enforcement. An officer stopping a vehicle at least can SEE who the driver is.
A truly innocent driver is likely to be found guilty as soon as those who are upholding the law make the assumption that the driver WAS behind the wheel, or knows who is.
If you are not a detective, or are simply leading a blameless life and not recording every detail of your movements, then you will have an uphill struggle to show to some, that you exercised due diligence.

In my own case I was asked WHO might have had access to the keys. Well not my brother in law who was sitting my house, because the spare keys were in my works - to which he had no access.
The bakery next door had the spare keys to my works, in case of emergencies, but unless they searched, would not have known the vehicle keys were there.
The vehicle? It had a puncture on the day we departed on holiday, so we left the vehicle outside of work with no spare wheel - so I had to admit there was a remote possibility that somebody COULD have taken the key and the vehicle - but having told this, it was ME who was expected to ask the workers at the bakery!!

This whole sorry episode took up a great deal of my time, and I felt embarrassed at treating friends as potential criminals and asking them if they had taken the vehicle without consent... and for what?
So that the authorities could replace a proper traffic police officer with a camera, safe in the knowledge that it wasn't the police who would carry out the investigation when something went wrong!

What has happened to the principal of innocence until proven guilty? Now you are guilty unless you can prove you were innocent! There seems to be a determination to convict and punish at any cost.
Cannot make the speeding charge stick through lack of evidence? Then let us punish the driver for not being able to conduct an investigation into who was driving the vehicle.

A few years ago the boss of Eddy Stobbarts was stopped on the M6 for speeding.
The officers asked who he was - and he told them. The BMW car was registered to him, and a NIP was issued.
However in court, Nick Freeman asked the police officers what proof they had that the driver was who he claimed to be - and they had none, and the driver was found not guilty!

If a police officer has trouble proving who was driving a vehicle, what chance have we mere mortals?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Well, if he wasn't but was , for example, in the passenger seat I would expect the charge to be dangerous driving . Unless it was a self-drive car

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I thought this thread was going to be about you Claire. Phew!




Not bitter then?

Seriously though, sorry to hear it, speaking as someone who has been on sh1tty end of British justice too

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Not Bitter !! I got 6 points on my licence which had been clean for over 10 years ,and have to pay more for insurance ! Still that is not the full story. My first conviction on this alleged offence was 6 points and a fine of £680 that was because my not guilty plea took TWO WEEKS TO GET TO COURT , But having read how courts lie about not getting letters with not guilty pleas and going ahead and fining us poor Plebs vast sums of money i registered my not guilty plea and after a lot a hand wring they reheard my case. And yes M/s Stoner and i could have tossed a coin in the air and the loser could have picked up 3 points and a £60 fine but as nether of us could recall driving the car and could not recall any body else doing so we very foolishly went to court to get justice
what i should have done was as lots of other people do .
Pay someone to take the Points and fine and it still would work out cheaper than going to court ,cause unless you can afford justice you WILL NOT GET IT you are a Pleb so fuc* off take your fine as the court need the cash, and as for a appeal you will never afford it THIS is British Justice at it BEST .

To be fair to Fisherman, after two experiences in Kendal Magistrates court, the magistrates there do not have much of a clue as to procedure, and are guided by a clerk to the court who thinks he is Judge Dredd!

When the defence disclosure document was presented in court which CLEARLY stated that the defence intended to question the calibration evidence (or lack of it), the case was adjourned to a future hearing.
At THAT hearing, a different CPS solicitor stood up and claimed that they had no idea the defence intended to question the calibration evidence, and wanted a further adjournment to further prepare their case and evidence. The clerk advised that this was in order, despite the clear evidence that the CPS DID know of the defence case - they had the copy of the disclosure document with them!
The magistrates at THIS hearing clearly agreed with the defence solicitor that the CPS were remiss, as despite the defendant changing their plea to guilty after a degree of intimidation, they granted costs of nearly £7000 for the adjourned hearing!

THEN, when they were ordered by the court to disclose THEIR case by 11th February, the CPS failed to do so until the 18th of February - but that was OK too, because the clerk said so!

I'm sure Fisherman can confirm that different courts work to different standards, despite what is required of them - which is why in some cases the defendant is cleared despite expectations to the contrary, and in others they are found guilty on the flimsiest of evidence - which a good solicitor should have had thrown out... e.g. the recent case of a driver flashing the vehicles coming the other way because of a speed trap.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I think there is something fundamentally wrong when in order to get justice for a supposed crime of which you are in absolutely no doubt you are not at fault you have to pay for it and there’s still no guarantee you will win.

Seems to me that if you dare to challenge them they will come down on you like a ton of bricks unless you’ve got Anthony Scrivener QC on your side. That was my experience back in 78 when I was done for careless driving.

I guess it's what's known as Character Building

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

It' a sad world when this Country makes criminals out of law abiding citizens because they can not remember who drove a car 30 days before the alleged offence and yet the same Home Secretary can let a Libyan MASS Murderer go free for the price of a barrel of Oil . Thank you Jack Straw.

That sounds very much like the old-fashioned school approach of punishing the whole class unless someone owned up.

And of course it's treating people as guilty unless they can prove their innocence.

_________________
"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

It's easy pickings - a way for the police etc to meet their targets without having to go out and do battle with real criminals.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Yes Peter
Funny how our laws are made by MP's who lie cheat and steal our money and consider this normal behaviour ! Why they can even send our troops to fight a war and get killed and maimed all on a lie and they get away with it,hell we as the general public even give them a fat pension for stealing off us it would be a funny old world if it was not so tragic.
Justice in this country is going down hill fast.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=10&t=964163&mid=105161&nmt=Knowing+who+was+driving+at+the+time

Might want to take a look at this Elmar!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Taken of the thread PistoHead.

The Information Commissioner has issued a Decision Notice in respect of a complaint made about West Yorkshire Police failing to respond fully to a Freedom of Information request.

ICO Case Ref FS50348635 said:
The complainant made a request for the name and number of a police officer who had parked a police vehicle on the pavement outside a police station. The Constabulary were unable to identify any single officer as the driver of the vehicle in respect of the times specified by the complainant. The Constabulary identified two officers who may have been responsible for the vehicle concerned. The Constabulary therefore considered the request in terms of both officers. The Commissioner finds that the exemption in section 40(2) (third party personal data) was engaged and was correctly applied by the Constabulary. The Commissioner does, however, find the Constabulary to have breached sections 10(1) and 17(1). He requires no further steps to be taken.
Streaky


I got 6points and a £180 fine !! I should have been a Police Man the law does not seem apply to them !!

Don't they know who drives there cars ? What if that car had had a accident !!

Is there no log !!

After all it was surgested to me i should keep one or a note of who drove my car and on what days.