Saving money on your reckless driving

TyreLever

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39706672

Sums up what is wrong with British justice, lets all point at it and laugh!

I dont understand that if a car is seen by a speed camera driving above the speed limit, the driver is prosecuted. If the identity of the driver cannot be established, the registered keeper of said car is prosecuted. So why, in this case, dont they prosecute the registered keeper of the car if he or she cannot provide reasonable evidence that they were elewhere at the time of the incident?

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Strider590

The dash cam car was a BMW driver, an X5 at that, i'm betting the court saw the rest of the footage and made a judgement based on that.

Perhaps i'm biased, but i've just driven 4 hours to London and back, i'd need 3 pairs of hands to count the number of stupid/idiotic examples of driving ive seen and the vast majority were BMWs.

Car_54

How do you know the RK hasn't been prosecuted for failing to identify the driver?

And what judge?

AdrianC

Car_54 wrote: »

How do you know the RK hasn't been prosecuted for failing to identify the driver?

More likely the RK simply doesn't exist.

tho_2

The bit I don't get is the insurance not paying. That's on the car not the driver and surely not in dispute which car caused the collision.

According to the BMW driver, the focus tried to jump him at the roundabout just before and the BMW accelerated and held his ground. Funny how that footage isn't being released to general public mind, more there to that I reckon.

TyreLever

When I say judge, I meant who ever came to the decision that the driver isn't to be prosecuted. Judge, jury, prosecutor, I have no idea of the correct terminology. However I do know that the outcome (based on that article) is beyond ridiculous. Dashcam footage, details of registered keeper? These should be enough for a prosecution unless the RK can show the car was taken without his knowledge. Then its an investigation of theft aswell which is another subject.

AdrianC

tho wrote: »

The bit I don't get is the insurance not paying. That's on the car not the driver and surely not in dispute which car caused the collision.

He just says he's "out of pocket" - excess, NCB...?

According to the BMW driver, the focus tried to jump him at the roundabout just before and the BMW accelerated and held his ground. Funny how that footage isn't being released to general public mind, more there to that I reckon.

Oh, yes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39385809

Video starts with the Focus overtaking. Perfectly decent overtake - yet the BMW driver gives it full beam. That's definitely not the start of it all, is it...? That article mentions some argy-bargy at a previous roundabout...

The Focus then stops, sticks hazards on - and sits there for two whole minutes, before !!!!!!ing off into the distance. Then, 30 seconds later, back he comes. Walking-pace nudge, reverse, clonk down the side. You can see the frontal does very little damage to the Focus...

RichardD1970

Strider590 wrote: »

The dash cam car was a BMW driver, an X5 at that, i'm betting the court saw the rest of the footage and made a judgement based on that.

Perhaps i'm biased, but i've just driven 4 hours to London and back, i'd need 3 pairs of hands to count the number of stupid/idiotic examples of driving ive seen and the vast majority were BMWs.

No perhaps about it, your views of anybody driving a "prestige" brand of car are well known on here.

tho_2

AdrianC wrote: »

He just says he's "out of pocket" - excess, NCB...?



Oh, yes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-39385809

Video starts with the Focus overtaking. Perfectly decent overtake - yet the BMW driver gives it full beam. That's definitely not the start of it all, is it...? That article mentions some argy-bargy at a previous roundabout...

The Focus then stops, sticks hazards on - and sits there for two whole minutes, before !!!!!!ing off into the distance. Then, 30 seconds later, back he comes. Walking-pace nudge, reverse, clonk down the side. You can see the frontal does very little damage to the Focus...

Excess would be paid for by car at fault wouldn't it?

And what I meant was funny how every news footage starts at the focus overtaking. Haven't seen one link where they show the roundabout. There's more there that's not being shown.

AdrianC

tho wrote: »

Excess would be paid for by car at fault wouldn't it?

Well, for the usual "NCB" definition of at-fault, which really means the insurer whose hand is in their pocket. If the car and/or driver are untraceable - and if they were traceable, then the CPS would be prosecuting - then the BMW driver's insurer are paying. So he's covering the NCB and excess.

And what I meant was funny how every news footage starts at the focus overtaking. Haven't seen one link where they show the roundabout. There's more there that's not being shown.

Oh, yes.

Car_54

TyreLever wrote: »

Not meant to be taken literally that bit. Just cursing.

When I say judge, I meant who ever came to the decision that the driver isn't to be prosecuted. Judge, jury, prosecutor, I have no idea of the correct terminology. However I do know that the outcome (based on that article) is beyond ridiculous. Dashcam footage, details of registered keeper? These should be enough for a prosecution unless the RK can show the car was taken without his knowledge. Then its an investigation of theft aswell which is another subject.

If the driver can't be identified, then how can he/she be prosecuted?

The RK can be prosecuted for failure to furnish, and as I've said already, we don't know that he/she hasn't.