Speeding ticket

HO87

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.

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 am not interpreting the law. The law is available to be read and it is extremely clear. A link to the relevant section intoto was included in my earlier post.

Read it here

Unfortunately, the section is long and provides for many potential situations and some are inclined, not unnaturally, to skip and summarise rather than stick to its precise wording. This includes the police who have come unstuck on numerous occasions with regard to the law, NIP's and s.172 because they thought they knew what the law said but were proved wrong.

I am more than willing to be corrected - from authoritative sources - but having worked with this law since the mid-70's (the iteration that appeared in the 1988 statute is a refresh of a section that first appeared in law going back, I believe, to the 1920's) and having failed to bark my shins on it yet I would be somewhat surprised.

One might construe what I have written as an opinion but my opinion, if that is what you wish to call it, is based firmly on the wording of the law not on the opinon of a third party. In essence the common mistake that is made - which applies, with respect to both shaun of africa and the various police websites quoted - is that the words "person keeping the vehicle" is interpreted as meaning "registered keeper".

Had Parliament intended that they would have used the words registered keeper. They did not and the reason for that is that they fully understood that there would be numerous circumstances in which the registered keeper would simply, but quite properly, have no idea who was driving their vehicle and that it would be iniquitous to penalise them for it. As I said earlier, the law is precisely worded for a reason.

By all means conduct your own research. I make no claim to have a monopoly of rectitude in this matter and am just concerned that people may be misled.

cyclonebri1

barackroom lawyers, don't you just love 'em,

Happychappy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If you can't be bothered to even start to look at why that item would be needed in that car, then all I can imagine is either you know the answer and have realised what a chump you are, or you do not have the wear-with-all to look it up.

Flyboy you clearly are not yet a full licence holder and I imagine you may just be starting to take your first lessons or saving up for them?

YOU made the statement that a driving instructor MUST have a second speedometer in order to use the car to deliver lessons?

I simply pointed out you were wrong and asked for you to come up with the legislation you believe which makes it compulsory for the instructor to have a second speedometer? unfortunately as with everything else, you failed to answer the question

Flyboy152

Happychappy wrote: »

Flyboy you clearly are not yet a full licence holder and I imagine you may just be starting to take your first lessons or saving up for them?

YOU made the statement that a driving instructor MUST have a second speedometer in order to use the car to deliver lessons?

I simply pointed out you were wrong and asked for you to come up with the legislation you believe which makes it compulsory for the instructor to have a second speedometer? unfortunately as with everything else, you failed to answer the question

Where the flip did I mention a law? I was specifically referring to that car as, up until recently, they were fitted with hologramatic speedometers, which could only be seen by the driver. Now does it make more sense? Jeez!! :wall:

m1974m

warehouse wrote: »

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

I agree but let's backtrack and analyse it. The post that appears to have caused the problem is Post 45 which states:

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

In this statement, made by Flyboy152, there is clearly NO mention of the Law and NO mention of the word "must". Flyboy152 has used the words "has to" which was interpreted by geordieracer to mean there is a legislative backing behind the rest of the sentence. However Flyboy152 did not use the words "has to" in this way, but merely to state an opinion and indicated what would be highly desirable for the instructor to buy for that particular car (as opposed to required by Law). In other words there has been a misunderstanding between the two posters brought about by the interpretation of the words "has to"!

I think I need to get out a bit more.

Trebor16

m1974m wrote: »

I agree but let's backtrack and analyse it. The post that appears to have caused the problem is Post 45 which states:

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

In this statement, made by Flyboy152, there is clearly NO mention of the Law and NO mention of the word "must".

The use of "has to" in this context is clear that an instructor would be obliged by law to buy a second speedo in order for them to use that car as a driving school car. "Has to" in this context means the same as "must"

Flyboy152

Trebor16 wrote: »

The use of "has to" in this context is clear that an instructor would be obliged by law to buy a second speedo in order for them to use that car as a driving school car. "Has to" in this context means the same as "must"

When you discovered this wonderful gift of clairvoyance, why did you not decide to use for good instead of evil?

How on Earth can you possibly know exactly why I have written something?

George_Michael

How on Earth can you possibly know exactly why I have written something?

They can't, so to end the argument, why don't you explain exactly what you meant when you stated that if the instructor wanted to use that particular car as a driving school vehicle, then they had to buy the secondary speedo.

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

Bongles

Trebor16 wrote: »

The use of "has to" in this context is clear that an instructor would be obliged by law to buy a second speedo in order for them to use that car as a driving school car. "Has to" in this context means the same as "must"

It is glaringly apparent from the longevity of this discussion that "clear" is entirely the wrong adjective to describe Flyboy's use of "has to". It is precisely the lack of clarity that has caused the argument to rage for so many years (is it actually years, or does it just seem like it?).

I don't think you're in a position to make statements like your last sentence. As the person who actually said it, Flyboy is:

a) the sole arbiter of what "has to" actually meant (regardless of what you or I or anyone else thought it meant), and
b) responsible for the confusion arising if what he actually meant was significantly different to what was likely to be understood.

Flyboy152

George_Michael wrote: »

They can't, so to end the argument, why don't you explain exactly what you meant when you stated that if the instructor wanted to use that particular car as a driving school vehicle, then they had to buy the secondary speedo.

M1974m has managed to do that very nicely.