Speeding ticket

geordieracer

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I have asked you repeatedly to show me where I have stayed anything about the law. Your reluctance to do so proves only one hing....i doesn't exist.

Ok then to keep it simple for you - the way you have come across implies you state things as law,so i was wrong.

Now will you answer mine and someone else question as posed earlier? Please just answer it clearly without trying to say some thing else.

And speaking of answering things can you go back to the brighthouse thread and answer the questions posed to you there too please? Or is that too much for you? Ill bump it if you want a reminder.

HO87

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Details from one of the safety camera partnerships.

Following an alleged offence, a Section 172 statement is sent to the registered keeper as recorded on the DVLA database. It is a legal requirement for the registered keeper to provide the drivers details.

If you were the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence you are required to complete part 1 of the Section 172 statement.

If you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, you are required to give any information in your power which may lead to the drivers identification by completing the appropriate part of the Section 172 statement.

Perhaps either you or S. Yorks Safety Camera Partnership would like to explain where in law it states that it is a legal requirement that the registered keeper provides the driver details?

That is a material misrepresentation of s.172 and totally ignores the specific differentiation of duty the section actually creates. it is also a good advertisement for not taking as gospel what Safety Camera Partnerships say about the law and legal duties.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why?
As explained above, it is the registered keeper who is responsible for providing the required details, and as their name is the one on the V5 and on the NIP, they are the one who will be prosecuted for failing to provide the name of the actual driver or for failing to show a good reason why they were unable to do so.

I'm afraid the overall thrust of your point is wrong and would seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the differing duties s.172 creates.

A registered keeper is responsible for replying to the requirement. I agree so far. However, they need not be under a duty to identify the driver and nor does the law require that they do so - per se. As I endeavoured to explain in the earlier post the law does not place the legal duty to provide the driver's details on the registered keeper but on the person keeping the vehicle. The two need not - and frequently are not - the same.

What happens if they do not know who was driving as happens with the vast majority of fleet hire companies, for example? The vehicle is not under their immediate control. They are not the person keeping the vehicle so why should they be dealt with as you seem to suggest (and as SYSCP erroneously suggest on their website)?

This is where the important difference in duties comes into play. As they are not the person keeping the vehicle but are any other person (within the terms of the section) they are only required to supply such information as they may have that will lead to the identification of the driver - and they do not have to exercise reasonable diligence.

In all likelihood a fleet hire company will only be able to identify who they believe to be the person keeping the vehicle. It is that person - inevitably - who will probably identify the driver and in so doing must exercise reasonable diligence.

Please do not help to perpetuate the myth that it is solely the duty of the registered keeper to identify the driver. It is not - and as I was attempting to make clear - there are many potential situations where they would no more know who was driving at the time of an alleged offence than who was going to win the 3.30 at Kempton the following day and will not be held to account for that.

Trebor16

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Well that's hardly surprising really is it, seeing as sat nav is not accurate either.

How do you know that sat navs are not accurate?

warehouse

geordieracer wrote: »

So flyboy was still operational up until 2 am tonight yet never came back to answer any questions..

Well done flyboy - you shied away from something else again :T:T:T

Could you do everyone a favour and get yourself and Flyboy out of this thread? It's absolutely pathetic.

shaun_from_Africa

Perhaps either you or S. Yorks Safety Camera Partnership would like to explain where in law it states that it is a legal requirement that the registered keeper provides the driver details?

No problem.

7)A requirement under subsection (2) may be made by written notice served by post; and where it is so made—


(9)For the purposes of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 as it applies for the purposes of this section the proper address of any person in relation to the service on him of a notice under subsection (7) above is—

(b)in any other case, his last known address at the time of service.

(10)In this section—

“registered address”, in relation to the registered keeper of a vehicle, means the address recorded in the record kept under [F3 the Vehicles Excise and Registration Act 1994] with respect to that vehicle as being that person’s address, and
“registered keeper”, in relation to a vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under that Act;

So in brief, any NIP is sent to the registered address held by the DVLA and this address is that of the registered keeper, and it is their responsibility to provide the required information.


Perhaps you know more about the law than the safety camera partnerships, (as all of the ones I have looked at state exactly the same) and legal firms who all state that that it is the registered keeper that it sent the NIP and is responsible for providing the required info, in which case every registered keeper who has been prosecuted for failing to provide the required information should take your advice and appeal against it.

Surrey SCP.

The Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) is the first letter you will receive if you are the registered owner of the vehicle that was photographed by the safety camera. You are required by law to complete the NIP form to provide details of the driver at the time of the offence, and return it within 28 days.

It is an offence not to provide the information required and you will be prosecuted if you do not do so. Click on the link below for answers to frequently asked questions about the NIP.

And a couple of others, and there are plenty more saying the same thing.
http://www.lbsafetycameras.co.uk/index.php/frequently_asked_questions/the_process/
http://www.safetayside.co.uk/faqs/faq-nip.html
Etc
Etc

Trebor16

As a DSA approved motorcycle instructor one of the things that I instil in my trainees is appropriate use of speed. This includes adhering to speed limits and it is important for me to ensure they don't stray into territory where they are exceeding the speed limit. I certainly believe that the instructor has a responsibility to ensure the trainee drives lawfully at all times, which is a bit more difficult to achieve teaching someone on on a motorcycle as they are on their own machine and driving independently, unlike in a car where the instructor has dual controls and can intervene more easily.

With regards to the need for a second speedo in a car used by a driving instructor, Flyboy said this :-

"Actually, it's a part an instructor has to buy, if they want to use that particular car as a driving school car"

Saying the instructor "has to buy" a second speedo does seem to suggest it is a legal requirement.

geordieracer

warehouse wrote: »

Could you do everyone a favour and get yourself and Flyboy out of this thread? It's absolutely pathetic.

I would like to but when people post factually incorrect information to others then this needs to be highlighted and pointed out so that people get the right information would you not agree?

HO87

Shaun of Africa

Rather than simply cutting and pasting the interpretive subsections of s.172 which only act to provide a clear interpretation of the terms used (and have no bearing whatsoever on the duty the section creates) I refer you to the relevant subsection which you have so studiously ignored thusfar. Sec. 172(2) says:

(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and
(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

There is no mention of the term "registered keeper" in this operative section.

I fully appreciate that the registered keeper is the first person in the chain to receive a s.172 requirement but in a very significant number of cases they cannot name the driver because they are not "the person keeping the vehicle" and do not therefore have the level of knowledge. Instead, their duty (because for the purposes of the subsection) is that of "any other person" and they are simply obliged to disclose information that is in their power that may lead to the identification of the driver - not the name of the driver.

Where a registered keeper is also "the person keeping the vehicle" then they should name the driver but the requirement for them to do so does not flow from their being the registered keeper but from being "the person keeping the vehicle". To suggest otherwise is thoroughly misleading and that includes your SYSCP quote which materially misrepresents the section.

Now moving onto the Surrey SCP quotation.

This is yet another sloppily written and therefore misleading bit of copy that once again conflates and mispresents the law. As I have been at pains to point out merely because it appears on a police or SCP website does not mean that it is correct. That is not to say that the SCP/Police, collectively do not know what the law says but merely that the person who wrote the copy didn't.

I do not intend to drone on at length but Notices of Intended Prosecution are governed by s.1 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - an entirely separate and independent section to s.172 (Road Traffic Act 1988). A NIP and a s.172 requirement are bundled together (in the case of speeding and a limited number of other offences) for convenience only. A NIP is not a s.172 and nor is a s.172 an NIP. The NIP places no obligation whatsoever on its recipient to respond in any way shape of form. Both can be used independent of the other and frequently are.

The law is precisely worded for a reason and that is to avoid doubt. Trying to summarise it or reduce it to "the common circumstance" inevitably misleads.

George_Michael

This is yet another sloppily written and therefore misleading bit of copy that once again conflates and mispresents the law. As I have been at pains to point out merely because it appears on a police or SCP website does not mean that it is correct. That is not to say that the SCP/Police, collectively do not know what the law says but merely that the person who wrote the copy didn't

But surely this statement applies just as much to posters and responders on these boards as it does to the police, camera operators and other bodies.
Your interpretation of the law may well be due to a misunderstanding on your part, as could that of shaun from africa.

IMO, I would hope that the info posted by the organisations mentioned above was correct, or if it wasn't, I would have thought that there would have been an abundance of websites pointing out their errors.

Bongles

George_Michael wrote: »

But surely this statement applies just as much to posters and responders on these boards as it does to the police, camera operators and other bodies.
Your interpretation of the law may well be due to a misunderstanding on your part, as could that of shaun from africa.

Of course it could. However, HO87 has made the point that the law in question refers to the "person keeping the vehicle" and not the "registered keeper". That's not a matter of interpretation or opinion. That's a matter of fact.

George_Michael wrote: »

IMO, I would hope that the info posted by the organisations mentioned above was correct, or if it wasn't, I would have thought that there would have been an abundance of websites pointing out their errors.

I would not be at all surprised if info posted by safety camera organisations was somewhat simplified when compared to the actual law in all its intricate glory - quite possibly simplified to the point, in certain circumstances perhaps less likely to be of relevance to the expected readership, of being technically incorrect.