Showing Documents

DoaM

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

How about driving licences? If you don’t have yours with you, can the police access the DVLA’s database, pull out the photo on John Smith’s licence, verify it’s him, etc? Or are they not this technologically advanced?

So how many John Smith licences should they be expected to look through before they find the right one? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Are you thinking they'd take a photo of the driver and use a facial recognition algorithm?

SouthLondonUser

How many motorists can there be with the same name, born on the same day in the same place, and resident at the same address??

Warwick_Hunt

DoaM wrote: »

So how many John Smith licences should they be expected to look through before they find the right one? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? Are you thinking they'd take a photo of the driver and use a facial recognition algorithm?

They don't look, the computer will find it.

Warwick_Hunt

Car_54 wrote: »

Yes, but as onomatopoeia99 has already pointed out there is a statutory defence if you produce them within seven days as specified in section 164(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

I've never said there wasn't but thanks anyway.

Marvel1

Car is insured, doesn't mean I'm entitled to drive it though.

Alter_ego

wgl2014 wrote: »

Indeed they do, one of the reasons is that you are driving a motor vehicle on a road.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VII/crossheading/powers-of-constables-and-other-authorised-persons/enacted

Thanks, that is RTA 1988. Sadly I pre-date that.

Car_54

Alter_ego wrote: »

Thanks, that is RTA 1988. Sadly I pre-date that.

Do you also pre-date the Road Traffic Act 1930?

And haven't you read the Highway Code since 1988?

Mercdriver

Car_54 wrote: »

Yes, but as onomatopoeia99 has already pointed out there is a statutory defence if you produce them within seven days as specified in section 164(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

There being a statutory defence doesn't stop it being an offence, though, much like passing a traffic light at amber is an offence with a statutory defence if it was not safe to stop. In fact the fact there is a statutory defence rather defines the fact that it is an offence, otherwise, why would there be a statutory defence?

SouthLondonUser

And what is the point of this pedantry?
The fact remains you have a week to show your documents. I believe most people will be interested in this practical point.
Then, by all means, let the pedants and the legal scholars obsessed over these other details with no practical impact...

Mercdriver

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

And what is the point of this pedantry?
The fact remains you have a week to show your documents. I believe most people will be interested in this practical point.
Then, by all means, let the pedants and the legal scholars obsessed over these other details with no practical impact...

There is a point as there is a time limit to the statutory defence. The offence is already complete. You only have a statutory defence for 7 days, and it only counts once you have complied within that time framework.

The law is full of pedantry and it's important to understand that to have any stab at a defence. Not just this offence, but others too.