Go Safe Photo of Driver

dr.fuzzenstein

Spook_ie wrote: »

Apparently in the UK if you say you don't know who was driving you can get the maximum points for the offence

http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/know-who-is-driving-your-car.html

I think in the UK as far as the law is concerned, motorists rank somewhat lower than rapists and child murderers.

Quazzie

Let it go to court. The prosecution then has to prove it was you, or someone else driving the car. If they can't then no charges will be given as you will have sworn under oath that you are unsure about who was driving. They cannot convict where there is reasonable doubt.

Pro Hoc Vice

Quazzie wrote: »

Let it go to court. The prosecution then has to prove it was you, or someone else driving the car. If they can't then no charges will be given as you will have sworn under oath that you are unsure about who was driving. They cannot convict where there is reasonable doubt.

There is a legal presumption that the registered owner was driving but the driver can rebut that presumption in evidence.

Once AGS prove that the car was speeding then the presumption arises, such presumptions are constitutional and used in road traffic cases.

There is of course a chance that the Judge will accept the defense but remember the point on fixed penalty notice is 3 on conviction in court its 5 plus the cost of a solicitor and appeal if necessary. Its the OP's choice.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Quazzie wrote: »

The prosecution then has to prove it was you, or someone else driving the car. If they can't then no charges will be given as you will have sworn under oath that you are unsure about who was driving. They cannot convict where there is reasonable doubt.

You are categorically wrong. The actual words of the law were posted upthread.

The owner of the car is responsible, and gets the fines and points unless they can prove they were not driving at the time. If the OP swears under oath that they are unsure about who was driving, they are admitting guilt.

Unless he can get a photo from the speed camera showing that he is not the driver, the OP is getting the fine and points. If he goes to court, he's getting double points.

Henry Ford III

I'm still unconvinced this "it wasn't me" argument is sufficient. The way I'd see it is produce the offending driver, or incur the penaties.

ironclaw

So, am I right in saying, if you had a relative who worked abroad but held an Irish license, they were the registered owner and the car was snapped speeding, a legitimate defense is they didn't know who was driving? And as they were outside the country at the time its obviously they were not, then no conviction can be secured?

Seems a bit easy if you ask me given the amount of people currently working and living abroad.

dr.fuzzenstein

ironclaw wrote: »

So, am I right in saying, if you had a relative who worked abroad but held an Irish license, they were the registered owner and the car was snapped speeding, a legitimate defense is they didn't know who was driving? And as they were outside the country at the time its obviously they were not, then no conviction can be secured?

Seems a bit easy if you ask me given the amount of people currently working and living abroad.

I would say it is one thing to land someone with points and fine if they simply state they weren't driving, but can't disprove it or say who was driving, but it is quite another thing to land someone with points and fine who can clearly prove they where not driving and could not have been driving.
That may just go a bit too far.
Imagine if someone stole your car and committed 28 separate offenses in it, would you think it is fair that you should lose your license over it?
And why would you land people abroad with points and fine anyway?

Zubeneschamali

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That may just go a bit too far.
And why would you land people abroad with points and fine anyway?

As the law is written, if the owner can prove they were not driving to the judges satisfaction, they will not be convicted. Obviously, being provably in Australia would do it.

Why would you stick someone abroad with points? Hypothetically, if my brother is in Australia and likely to stay there for four years, points can't hurt him. They'll have expired before he gets back.

joujoujou

Would they send Fixed Penalty Notice to OZ?

Just curious.

Henry Ford III

Again it's arguable. Consider the following theoretical courtroom exchange...

Registered owner: I wasn't driving at the time of the alleged offence judge, I was on holidays in France at the time, and here are docs to prove it.

Judge: Fair enough. Who was driving and speeding in your car though?

R.O. : No idea Judge. Could have been a few people.

Judge: You get to take the increased fine and points. Next case!

bigboss1986

RootX wrote: »

Does any of the drivers hold a foreign license? If yes, nominate him and split the fine

There is similar process of ''selling'' penalty points in Poland.In Poland you have 24 points for 12 months.But you can get cumulative penalty for 2 offences( eg. speeding+seat belts etc).So police gives you on the spot 15 points.2 weeks later you got caught by speed camera.Another 10 points.So total 25=BAN.There is special forum where people who have driving licence but not driving selling their details to get penalty points :rolleyes:
Offender gives trader details to cops but trader was paid let say 200€ for it.
Thousand people avoiding points that way.Naming someone else.

Also there is an option to pay higher penalty for being caught on speed camera but no points.Modern way of corruption :eek:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ironclaw

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I would say it is one thing to land someone with points and fine if they simply state they weren't driving, but can't disprove it or say who was driving, but it is quite another thing to land someone with points and fine who can clearly prove they where not driving and could not have been driving.
That may just go a bit too far.
Imagine if someone stole your car and committed 28 separate offenses in it, would you think it is fair that you should lose your license over it?
And why would you land people abroad with points and fine anyway?

I completely agree with your logic fuzz, no argument.

Going a step further, can a business own a vehicle? Because then, if the director can prove they were not driving, it goes no where again. You simple appoint a director that is never in the country.

I just think we're missing something here as this seems way, way too easy to get away with

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Registered owner: I wasn't driving at the time of the alleged offence judge, I was on holidays in France at the time, and here are docs to prove it.

Judge: Fair enough. Who was driving and speeding in your car though?

R.O. : No idea Judge. Could have been a few people.

Judge: You get to take the increased fine and points. Next case!

I suppose the judge could say that, but that isn't what the law says, so I think it is unlikely.

Henry Ford III

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I suppose the judge could say that, but that isn't what the law says, so I think it is unlikely.

I thought that was exactly what the law did say. Registered owner is responsible if the offending driver doesn't come forward.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I thought that was exactly what the law did say. Registered owner is responsible if the offending driver doesn't come forward.

No, what it says is:

in a prosecution of that owner or another person for the alleged offence, which is a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b) relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that—

(i) where the registered owner is an individual, he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle

So if you "show to the contrary", that is, prove you were not driving, you're good.

The normal method is to say who was driving. But if you were in jail, in hospital or in Australia, you cannot have been driving.

In the case of a company car, the wording is explicitly different:

(ii) where the registered owner is a body corporate or unincorporated body of persons or has hired out under a hire-drive agreement or leased the vehicle—

(I) the person permitted under an approved policy of insurance or under an agreement, as the case may be, to drive the vehicle was driving or otherwise using the vehicle, or

(II) in the event of being unable to ascertain the identity of that person, the registered owner is deemed to have been driving or otherwise using the vehicle,

So for a company car, there is a specific clause that says if you can't identify the driver, the owner gets hit, but for a private car, that wording is not there. The owner only gets hit if he/she can't show they weren't driving.

Henry Ford III

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They might indeed, but very few people can afford to go ask them decide.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

blackwhite

ironclaw wrote: »

I completely agree with your logic fuzz, no argument.

Going a step further, can a business own a vehicle? Because then, if the director can prove they were not driving, it goes no where again. You simple appoint a director that is never in the country.

I just think we're missing something here as this seems way, way too easy to get away with

A business can own a vehicle, as anyone with a company car can attest to.

A director claiming, under oath, that they cannot identify who was driving a company car will leave themselves open to much worse than a fine and some points. i.e. a potential investigation from the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, and a possible prosecution for breach of their fiduciary duties.

The directors are legally responsible for ensuring the safekeeping of the assets of the company. If they admit under oath to failing in their legal duties, then it's quite likely that a pissed-off judge/guard will make a complaint to the ODCE.

Henry Ford III

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, what it says is:

in a prosecution of that owner or another person for the alleged offence, which is a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b) relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that—

(i) where the registered owner is an individual, he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle

So if you "show to the contrary", that is, prove you were not driving, you're good.

The normal method is to say who was driving. But if you were in jail, in hospital or in Australia, you cannot have been driving.

In the case of a company car, the wording is explicitly different:

(ii) where the registered owner is a body corporate or unincorporated body of persons or has hired out under a hire-drive agreement or leased the vehicle—

(I) the person permitted under an approved policy of insurance or under an agreement, as the case may be, to drive the vehicle was driving or otherwise using the vehicle, or

(II) in the event of being unable to ascertain the identity of that person, the registered owner is deemed to have been driving or otherwise using the vehicle,

So for a company car, there is a specific clause that says if you can't identify the driver, the owner gets hit, but for a private car, that wording is not there. The owner only gets hit if he/she can't show they weren't driving.

I guess that's one interpretation of it.

Pro Hoc Vice

blackwhite wrote: »

A business can own a vehicle, as anyone with a company car can attest to.

A director claiming, under oath, that they cannot identify who was driving a company car will leave themselves open to much worse than a fine and some points. i.e. a potential investigation from the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, and a possible prosecution for breach of their fiduciary duties.

The directors are legally responsible for ensuring the safekeeping of the assets of the company. If they admit under oath to failing in their legal duties, then it's quite likely that a pissed-off judge/guard will make a complaint to the ODCE.

Can you point to one example where that happened.

Quazzie

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the OP swears under oath that they are unsure about who was driving, they are admitting guilt.

How in any definition of the English language is that "admitting guilt" :rolleyes:

CiniO

bigboss1986 wrote: »

There is similar process of ''selling'' penalty points in Poland.In Poland you have 24 points for 12 months.But you can get cumulative penalty for 2 offences( eg. speeding+seat belts etc).So police gives you on the spot 15 points.2 weeks later you got caught by speed camera.Another 10 points.So total 25=BAN.There is special forum where people who have driving licence but not driving selling their details to get penalty points :rolleyes:
Offender gives trader details to cops but trader was paid let say 200€ for it.
Thousand people avoiding points that way.Naming someone else.

Also there is an option to pay higher penalty for being caught on speed camera but no points.Modern way of corruption :eek:

Over 24 points doesn't mean automatic BAN.
They just ask you to pass the driving test again instead. Only if you fail it, you will be banned, until you pass it.

Zubeneschamali

Quazzie wrote: »

How in any definition of the English language is that "admitting guilt" :rolleyes:

If your car is speeding and you can't prove you were not driving, you are guilty.

"I swear I don't know who was driving, maybe me, maybe one of these other guys".

You just swore that you can't prove you were not driving: guilty.

Quazzie

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If your car is speeding and you can't prove you were not driving, you are guilty.

"I swear I don't know who was driving, maybe me, maybe one of these other guys".

You just swore that you can't prove you were not driving: guilty.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Surely there is an emphasis on proven guilt rather than proven innocence.

pa990

Plenty of keyboard warriors here offering their interpretation of the law.

How many have real world experience of how this matter will actually play out on court ?

The reality is, whether you like it or not, is that the registered keeper is responsible for the vehicle, whether that be parking tickets, speeding tickets, no tax tickets* (*where the car was unattended at the time)

Unless the registered owner can nominate another person.

Everyone here can argue all they want, but remember, legislation may be worded in such a way that is ordinary language meaning, and legal meaning may differ.

Ie, may, shall, must , should.

The judge will have the final say on the day in court, and it's not like TV, speeding cases are dealt with swiftly.

Q, are u the registered keeper
A, Yes
Q, 4points €160

Quazzie

pa990 wrote: »

Plenty of keyboard warriors here offering their interpretation of the law.

How many have real world experience of how this matter will actually play out on court ?

The reality is, whether you like it or not, is that the registered keeper is responsible for the vehicle, whether that be parking tickets, speeding tickets, no tax tickets* (*where the car was unattended at the time)

Unless the registered owner can nominate another person.

Everyone here can argue all they want, but remember, legislation may be worded in such a way that is ordinary language meaning, and legal meaning may differ.

Ie, may, shall, must , should.

The judge will have the final say on the day in court, and it's not like TV, speeding cases are dealt with swiftly.

Q, are u the registered keeper
A, Yes
Q, 4points €160

As someone who has been in court over an unpaid speeding fine, I think it'll blow your mind to hear I received no fine, and no points.

So it's not quite as straight forward as you like to put forward.