Speeding ticket

Flyboy152

devildog wrote: »

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.

I did write, "During the the working day, of the average driving instructor"

Flyboy152

dmliverpool wrote: »

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.

Having a speedometer which underreads is an offence, as is driver error, there are no allowances for either.

geordieracer

Happychappy wrote: »

Where did you find this bit of useless information? where does it say that an instructor MUST buy a second speedometer before a car can be used for delivering lessons? Road Traffic Act ? Construction and Use Act, !!!!!!!! down the Pub Act ? ahh I think I know :T

Are you going to find the answer to this question for us please Flyboy? You seemed to find a pic of an extra speedometer for sale so this shouldnt be too difficult for you.

I await your answer.

HO87

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

I beg to differ.

Firstly, at no point in s.172 does it use the words "registered keeper" in the context you are referring to. It quite specifically uses the words "person keeping the vehicle" and there is a considerable and important difference at law between the two. It is perfectly possible for a "registered keeper" to also be the "person keeping the vehicle" but a "person keeping the vehicle" need not be the registered keeper and neither need be the "driver"

This is best illustrated in the case of a company car where the company (or often a lease company) are usually the registered keeper but it is the the member of staff to whom the car is allocated who, most frequently, would be the person keeping the vehicle but his wife, for example, could have been the driver at the relevant time.

Secondly, the section creates two entirely different duties of the person of whom the requirement is made (in relation to the type of information they must provide) dependent on whether they are the person keeping the vehicle or any other person. The duty to exercise reasonable diligence is that of the person keeping the vehicle and not the registered keeper and to suggest otherwise could mislead.

Thirdly, a person who having made their enquiries still cannot identify the driver at the time of an alleged offence should not expect that to be the end of the matter. The section simply says that they would not be guilty of an offence and whilst that may be so, in reality this means that it is a court who will decide guilt based on whether the enquiries and checks made by the recipient of the requirement amounts to reasonable diligence. The bar is invariably set rather high.

Indeed it is easy to refer to legislation although I think that what you actually meant was to cite legislation. The relevant section may be read in full here.

A few cases? There have been many.

Flyboy152

geordieracer wrote: »

Are you going to find the answer to this question for us please Flyboy? You seemed to find a pic of an extra speedometer for sale so this shouldnt be too difficult for you.

I await your answer.

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.

shaun_from_Africa

Firstly, at no point in s.172 does it use the words "registered keeper" in the context you are referring to.

I agree, but it is the registered keeper that the NIP will be addressed to, and it is the registered keeper who will be asked to provide the details of the person who was driving at the time of the offence.
There is no way for the relevant bodies to know if the "person keeping the vehicle" is different to the registered keeper, so they have to use the details that are held on the DVLA database.

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.

The duty to exercise reasonable diligence is that of the person keeping the vehicle and not the registered keeper and to suggest otherwise could mislead.

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.

Thirdly, a person who having made their enquiries still cannot identify the driver at the time of an alleged offence should not expect that to be the end of the matter.

Again, I agree, and this point was shown in the quote I gave.

geordieracer

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.

I understand why it COULD be needed in a learner drivers vehicle. You are stating that it IS NEEDED by law to be in a learner drivers car and i want you to show me the LAW as you claim, that it IS REQUIRED to be in a learner drivers car.

Just show me the LAW that backs up your claim and we can move on.
Your silence and inability to do so is just like it was in the brighthouse thread- the one where you still havent shown the law that you were referring to then either.

Chuuuump.

Flyboy152

geordieracer wrote: »

I understand why it COULD be needed in a learner drivers vehicle. You are stating that it IS NEEDED by law to be in a learner drivers car and i want you to show me the LAW as you claim, that it IS REQUIRED to be in a learner drivers car.

Just show me the LAW that backs up your claim and we can move on.
Your silence and inability to do so is just like it was in the brighthouse thread- the one where you still havent shown the law that you were referring to then either.

Chuuuump.

I think a review of the posts is required at this stage and then perhaps you can actually answer the question:

Originally Posted by geordieracer

Of course your going to bring me pictures and show me proof of whatever you say aren't you.

Flyboy152 wrote: »

http://www.pentagontoyotaparts.co.uk/yaris-1999-2005-driving-school-speedometer-pz445-b0e31-00-i2893.html

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Actually, it's a part an instructor has to buy, if they want to use that particular car as a driving school car....I'll let you have a guess as to why it would be required.

geordieracer wrote: »

Yes - thats a part you can buy. Im asking you to show me a picture with it in the car working.

So, do you have any idea why a second speedometer would be needed, in a driving school car, in a Toyota Yaris (oops, a bit of a clue there)? The same goes for Vauxhall Corsa I believe.

I don't rememebr stating that the second speedometer was required by law. Perhaps you could be so kind as to show my where I wrote that.

geordieracer

so you are saying they are needed as you outlined by saying in law? Im asking you to provide me with this law that states these cars need them. Im only on my phone so cant quote right now but everyone can see it is there.

And why doyou say these cars need them and not any others? Are you making it up as you go along?

And what about the law you stated in the brighthouse thread
Where is your quote then?
Dont reply without facts please or else you will prove your just a talk big proving nothing

Flyboy152

geordieracer wrote: »

so you are saying they are needed as you outlined by saying in law? Im asking you to provide me with this law that states these cars need them. Im only on my phone so cant quote right now but everyone can see it is there.

What flipping law are you on about, I never mentioned a law. What the flipping heck are you on about? Show me where I mentioned a law.

And why doyou say these cars need them and not any others? Are you making it up as you go along?

Now I know you're trolling. I have told which car they would be needed in, why haven't you bothered to look. Oh sorry, I forgot, trolls do do google, do they. Did you not even look at the link I so kindly provided for you?

And what about the law you stated in the brighthouse thread
Where is your quote then?
Dont reply without facts please or else you will prove your just a talk big proving nothing

You really are unhinged, aren't you.