Safe Speed Forums

I am being prosecuted for both exceeding the speed limit and for not providing the identity of the driver of my vehicle for the same incident - is this alowed? I thought they could only prosecute you for one or the other offence?

In addition, the aledged speeding offence took place on the 7th May 2004 but the Summons was issued (after protracted corospondance - standard letters on their part) on the 31st August 2004 (served on me on the 15th September 2004). I thought there was a three month window in which they had to Summons?

Any help on these points would be appreciated.

They must send you the original NIP within 14 days of the offence, and issue a summons within 6 months of the offence.

You cannot be prosecuted for both offences, because being prosecuted for Failing to Provide the Driver's Name means that there is no evidence of who was driving, so they don't know who to charge with speeding. (Unless you do something silly like admit you were driving after getting convicted of failing to name the driver, in which case they could prove both).

If he has committed both offences, he can be prosecuted for them.
Why not?
Usually don't, but theres nothing to stop them.
Rightly so!
Another 172 cropper!

_________________
Drive in haste, repent at leisure.

First, you don't have to have committed an offence to be prosecuted for it. Remember a person is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

What usually happens in these cases is the prosecuters will try to bargain. They will offer to drop the s172 if the defendant pleads guilty to the speeding charge. (In my opinion that is nothing more than bullying).

They cannot find him guilty of the speeding if they find him guilty of the S172 because they have no evidence.

Another case for Pepipoo I think.

Just to clarifie the position, I was not driving - in fact I was about 40 miles away at the time - and have offered to provide evidence to that effect. In return all I recieve from the CSP are standard letters saying I must tell them who the driver is!

My argument is that - as I was 40 miles away, even if I knew for cirtain who I had lent the car to on the day of the offence, I would not be able to say who was driving the car at the time of the offence as I could not see them.

The process seems to rely on someone incriminating another person even though he has no evidence to so incriminate - surley thats an offence?

It is the responibility of the keeper of the car to know who is driving, so if you lent the car to someone you will have to find out who was driving it.

If you were 40 miles away and did not lend the car to anyone, then it sounds like someone was using false number plates. In which case, I have no idea what the correct thing for you to do is. But if you are sure no one was driving your car, I would imagine you have to say that on the form. Otherwise you would be perverting the course of justice, and if they insist you name someone, then they are inciting you to pervert the course of justice.

Sorry Zamzara, but you are not correct. There is no law that makes it a vehicles keepers responcibility to know who is driving their vehicle at any given time - if you think the logic through you will see that such a law would be imposible to complie with (until some form of fingerprint, eye scan or DNA system for starting the vehicle becomes common place - which I am sure will be the case in the future).

If you are not with your vehicle you can not know who is driving it! Even if you gave your friend permision to drive your vehicle how can you know that he hasn't let someone else drive it? Any vehicle may be driven by anyone with a valid licence for that type of vehicle and valid insurance. Since most people who own/keep vehicles have 3rd party cover in respect of driving other vehicles the number of potential drivers of your vehicle is a very large one.

The law makes allowance for this in that the act alows that if you have demonstrated "reasonable diligence" in trying to assertain who was driving then you are not guilty. Whats reasonable - who knows - but to my mind it should be for the police to prove that you have not used reasonable diligence.

As you may have by now guessed I am totaly against the Speed Camara approach to road safety or indeed policing speed limits. That having been said in this case I was not driving and can not with reasonable cirtainty say who was. I will therefore have to see what the court says - and if necessary appeal - because unless the stance of 'guilty until you prove yourself inocent' is taken, I can not see what evidence the police can produce to prove iether charge.

Final point - according to the Wales Safety Camera Unit, the polices role is "to record the details of the vehicle and not the driver" - just as well they don't limit themselves to this role in respect of crime getaway cars. I am ofcourse being flipent here, as the fines dished out for aleged (and in many cases unproven) speeding are quite offten higher than those dished out for theft, assult, mugging and many other crimes - ofcourse speeding may be the worse crime - if so, they should not limit themselve to just recording the vehicle.

In theory I agree with you Lynton, but as you probably realise, people accused of driving offences form a kind of special category under our law, in that they alone are considered guilty by the system until they can prove otherwise.