uncertainty over driver responsible for speeding

cyclonebri1

scotsman4th wrote: »

Lie? And risk jail

Well at least someone "gets" the issue :T:T

fadetogrey

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

It always amazes me when someone says in effect they can't remember were they where and what they were doing at a certain time of day, when the exact time and place is written on the ticket.

Call me suspicious but you have to be, it's the oldest attempt get out in the book, I even tried it once, couldn't tell them it was the wife driving as the photo clearly showed someone with a full moustache.:eek:

Well in my case it could have been the wife,her tache is better than mine.:whistle::whistle:

victor2

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

You ask me what i was doing last thursday at !3:35 I would have no idea though. The only way i would be able to tell would be look up my diary and try and work it out from there.

Not everyone has a pin point memory like you - whether its being old and maybe losing their memory to people who are extremely busy and have most days roll into one.

Please dont judge people that you know nothing about. It's a horrible trait.

But if you're asked if it was you or somebody else driving your car along a certain road at a certain time on a particular day recently, and the odds are you'd be able to work out who was driving.

bigjl.

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

It always amazes me when someone says in effect they can't remember were they where and what they were doing at a certain time of day, when the exact time and place is written on the ticket.

Call me suspicious but you have to be, it's the oldest attempt get out in the book, I even tried it once, couldn't tell them it was the wife driving as the photo clearly showed someone with a full moustache.:eek:

I'd sooner take the points than the flak from trying to blame that 1 one 'er indoors.

So it was the wife driving then.:D

im-lost

WolfSong2000 wrote: »

my father claims it can't have been him as he knows where the police park to use the speed radar in that particular stretch of road so he would have noticed it, but like I said he can't remember who was driving at the time of the incident.

Well this is simple, if he believes it wasn't himself, then it was his wife :rotfl:
This isn't rocket science, its one or the other, unless others have access
to his car.

But I'm confused by your fathers claims that he would have noticed, yet
cant remember if it was him that was driving, likely story seems he
has an issue with selective memory loss, has he had this problem checked
out?

keith1950

If it was a mobile camera ( in the back of a van ) there will be some sort of image available for which to make an informed decision. Otherwise toss a coin and decide who's going to take it. Morally someone should stand up and be counted instead of trying to evade responsibility.It's down to one of them so if not sure decide who's got least to lose !

cyclonebri1

bigjl. wrote: »

So it was the wife driving then.:D

You been on the falling over water again chap?

Hermione_Granger

Morally someone should stand up and be counted instead of trying to evade responsibility.It's down to one of them so if not sure decide who's got least to lose !

What's being moralistic about lying which is what you are suggesting the OP or their wife does.
If they don't know who was driving at the time then whichever one of them chooses to "stand up and be counted" may be admitting to committing an offence when it wasn't them at all.

Morally, all they should have to do is to be totally truthful when replying to the NIP and state that neither of them can remember who was driving the car at the time.

RTA 1988

(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.

cyclonebri1

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

What's being moralistic about lying which is what you are suggesting the OP or their wife does.
If they don't know who was driving at the time then whichever one of them chooses to "stand up and be counted" may be admitting to committing an offence when it wasn't them at all.

Morally, all they should have to do is to be totally truthful when replying to the NIP and state that neither of them can remember who was driving the car at the time.

RTA 1988

But I think the issue here is that it's probably 50/50 whether the owner does know who was driving.

I know it's slurring the OP but the fiddle can't be ruled out, and I for one am suspicious of anyone who says they can't remember who was driving, assuming of course it's not a pool car or such like

Thinking about it it's probably more 80/20 in favour or an attempt to riddle out.

peter_the_piper

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

What's being moralistic about lying which is what you are suggesting the OP or their wife does.
If they don't know who was driving at the time then whichever one of them chooses to "stand up and be counted" may be admitting to committing an offence when it wasn't them at all.

Morally, all they should have to do is to be totally truthful when replying to the NIP and state that neither of them can remember who was driving the car at the time.

RTA 1988

Someone is going to have to take the fall, I do not think a "Don't know which driver" will cut it. Unless either driver is on 9 points I don't see what the fuss is about. As said before its likely to be a speed awareness course anyway. Not admitting anything will get it escallated to F2F and lots more money and greater points.