Speeding ticket

Flyboy152

bigjl wrote: »

Yeah, whatever.

Is that an agreement?

cyclonebri1

Flyboy152 wrote: »

These are really all moot points, because I don't really believe a word of it.

A ticket, all of a sudden, lands on the door mat and the instructor hasn't said anything to the student at all. It takes a number of weeks for a ticket to resent to the nominated driver. Can we really believe the instructor said nothing during those weekly lessons?[/QUOTE]


That's exactly how see it, unless there's something strange going on

newfoundglory

Flyboy152 wrote: »

If the registered keeper cannot, or will not, declare who was driving at the time of the offence, the default is that the registered keeper is liable.

During the the working day, of the average driving instructor, he rarely sits in the driver's seat. He may drive to his first lesson, then the student drives for that lesson and then to the next student's home. The next student then drives the first student's home and so on, until the end of the working day, when the instructor drives home.

Its always possible to declare a LIST of drivers, you do not have to identify the actual driver.

I would say your example is not quite correct - I know when I had lessons, the instructor would drive between each lesson after the student was taken home first.

shaun_from_Africa

Originally Posted by Flyboy152
If the registered keeper cannot, or will not, declare who was driving at the time of the offence, the default is that the registered keeper is liable.

Wrong.
Provided that the registered keeper has made a reasonable effort to determine who was driving, and was unable to do so, then they will not be held liable.
This is clearly stated in The Road traffic act 1988, section 172. (see Flyboy, it's easy to post links to the relevant legislation if it actually exists)

Duty to give information as to identity of driver etc in certain circumstances.

2 (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
(4)A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.

There have been a few legal cases backing this up.

When a policeman used a legal loophole to escape a fine for speeding, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate was full of self-righteous condemnation.

The Labour peer - a government adviser on crime - expressed outrage that the case was dropped because the officer in question claimed he did not know who was at the wheel at the time of the offence.

Six years on, the same loophole has been successfully exploited...by Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate. He was taken to court after his BMW was caught on camera doing 45mph in a 30mph limit stretch in Gateshead.

Lord Mackenzie, a former chief superintendent who advises the Home Office on law and order issues, claimed he had been out of the country at the time and had not been driving the car.

The Crown Prosecution Service dropped his case after the peer told investigators that a number of people could have been driving the vehicle when it was clocked and he could not establish who it wa

s

Happychappy

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Although I was kind of joking about having a guess, I really didn't expect someone to actually try and get it so wrong. I will let you have another try though....if your interested.

Can I guess that your part of the "make a stupid statement brigade and then when people find out I haven't got a clue what I'm on about I will try and turn it round"......did I win :T

shaun_from_Africa

Can I guess that your part of the "make a stupid statement brigade and then when people find out I haven't got a clue what I'm on about I will try and turn it round"

He's more a part of the "make a stupid statement and then when people find out I haven't got a clue what I'm on about I will ignore any posts asking me to back up what I stated" brigade.

devildog

Interesting thread.
When I was learning to drive(more years ago then I care to remember) I was speeding, realised and slowed down and made some comment to instructor about it and his response was that he never said anything because he wanted to ensure that I was not frightened of speed-as in it can equally be as dangerous to drive slower than other drivers-lol. I know what he meant but surely not to the degree of breaking the speed limit.

Ds has recently been having lessons, with driving instructor(in a car that was a coulpe of weeks old!) after lesson came home, instructor with a grim face saying that ds had been in accident and damaged his(new) car. I went to look at damage and my mind was racing trying to think about who was responsible(panicking) The so and sos(to put it mildly) were having me on, someone had gone into the car and wasn't anything to do with ds.

Also, when he took his test(and passed) apparently 3 times he came across one of those light up faces that tells you to slow down if over the limit, 3 times it indicated he was over the limit and each time examiner checked the speedo and he was within limit. What a nightmare!
re Flyboy's comments about pupils drivng to next pupils house, here the pupil drives home and instructor drives to next pupils address.

dmliverpool

You are on a provisional licence as a learner and to be an instructor they have to be skilled enough to stop you speeding to instill this in your nine when you pass. My instructor did back 5 years ago. If I strayed he would tell me off and if he saw me intentionally speeding which most of the time you have to be when getting flashed by a speed camera then he is to blame. Let's not forget the police and the speed cameras usually allow for speedometers that are slightly out as well as driver error. Unlike in Wales where the driver error is set lower than in England which our gov is wanting to match. So if in England you get a speeding ticket its likely you where doing at least 7-8 mph faster than you should be which on a speedometer is very clear-cut. I would argue that the instructor didn't make you aware of the speed limit they were new roads that you where not used to or just lie and say you wasn't there and put the instructor in the deep end by the way get another one that guy or lady pound crappy.

Flyboy152

Happychappy wrote: »

Can I guess that your part of the "make a stupid statement brigade and then when people find out I haven't got a clue what I'm on about I will try and turn it round"......did I win :T

In other words, you do not understand the question. Which is fair enough, but it might have been better to have said that, don't you think.

Flyboy152

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Wrong.
Provided that the registered keeper has made a reasonable effort to determine who was driving, and was unable to do so, then they will not be held liable.
This is clearly stated in The Road traffic act 1988, section 172. (see Flyboy, it's easy to post links to the relevant legislation if it actually exists)



There have been a few legal cases backing this up.

s

Then I stand corrected.