s172 form

peter_the_piper

http://cambrian-news.co.uk/article.cfm?id=108558

Couple not able to say who was driving so both got points and fine.
mitigating circumstances?----We go to a lot of Bible Classes.
I know its not strictly legal but if they genuinely don't remember surely its simpler/cheaper to see who has least points and that one take the hit. Now they both have points, both have a hefty fine, he got ban due to tot up.
What would you do.

AdrianC

There's a bit more to it than a simple speeding photo, of course.

Abysmal overtake, potential dangerous driving charge, the judge's quoted comments on the evidence they gave - and then the "Oh, but it was BIBLE CLASSES..." eyelash-flutter-look-at-us-model-citizens-innit...

They knew exactly who was driving, but thought they could bull and slime their way to a lesser penalty.

Biggles

"We couldn't possibly remember who was driving a year ago". Yeah, but only two or three weeks had probably passed when they got the original notice asking who was driving and decided they'd try and be smart !!!!!! and go to court.

DavidFx

The charge was careless or dangerous driving including overtaking on a blind bend but they couldn't identify the driver. This implies they both drive like this on a regular basis so six points each is fair.

Fat_Walt

Biggles wrote: »

"We couldn't possibly remember who was driving a year ago". Yeah, but only two or three weeks had probably passed when they got the original notice asking who was driving and decided they'd try and be smart !!!!!! and go to court.

I should think it would have been within 14 days.

Interesting how both were convicted as one has no duty to name a driver.

Car_54

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Interesting how both were convicted as one has no duty to name a driver.

Not necessarily. Section 172(2) says: "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."

Either or both may have been the keeper (which is not necessarily the RK), and so required to identify the driver. Alternatively, if not the keeper, they were obliged to give any information etc.

Either way, they both clearly failed to comply.

peter_the_piper

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Interesting how both were convicted as one has no duty to name a driver.

http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring-offences/s-172-fail-to-provide-driver-identity/
£1000 fine and 6 points for failing to name the/a driver

Fat_Walt

peter_the_piper wrote: »

http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring-offences/s-172-fail-to-provide-driver-identity/
£1000 fine and 6 points for failing to name the/a driver

Yes, but there are two defendants. So if the keeper has implicated the second defendant then they've either done their job under the 172 requirement. If they haven satisfied the 172 requirement then there's no duty on the second defendant to name a driver.

peter_the_piper

I think you'll find that driver 1 has fulfilled the law, driver 2, by not accepting or naming has breached the law and will be done. Here both refused to accept either was driving then they are both deemed to have breached the law. That's as I read it anyway.

Fat_Walt

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I think you'll find that driver 1 has fulfilled the law, driver 2, by not accepting or naming has breached the law and will be done. Here both refused to accept either was driving then they are both deemed to have breached the law. That's as I read it anyway.

If both have refused to accept they were driving then they've probably named each other. But when the 172 is sent to them, then either the person who got it first has fulfilled their requirement to name the driver or there is no evidence to sent the 172 to the second person.

Car_54

Fat_Walt wrote: »

If both have refused to accept they were driving then they've probably named each other. But when the 172 is sent to them, then either the person who got it first has fulfilled their requirement to name the driver or there is no evidence to sent the 172 to the second person.

The police can send a 172 to anyone. There is no need for evidence.

There's no suggestion in the report that they named each other. In fact, the husband had “done nothing to try and ascertain who that vehicle was being driven by at the relevant time.”

So it's likely they both said "might have been either of us", and failed to carry out any reasonable diligence which might have given them a defence.