Speed Camera Laws set to Change!

Mr Joshua · 21 Sep 2007 at 15:13

wedgie said:
What's the issue?

Shouldn't the owner of the vehicle know who is driving their car at any given time?

Seems fair enough to me, if it is a problem as in munchers example then perhaps a log of who is driving what and when will be appropriate.

Muncher · 21 Sep 2007 at 15:23

Or to get around it you make the registered keeper a limited company and either the secretary doesn't have a license or from April 2008 there is no secretary so no-one gets the points.

mrgubby · 21 Sep 2007 at 15:38

Excellent , you can now pick somebody you don't like , hire the same model / colour of car. Stick fake plates on it & drive it through a nearby speed camera when they're in the area.

Six points guaranteed & a nice fine

Booner! · 21 Sep 2007 at 15:41

mrgubby said:
Excellent , you can now pick somebody you don't like , hire the same model / colour of car. Stick fake plates on it & drive it through a nearby speed camera when they're in the area.

Six points guaranteed & a nice fine

cracking idea... therefore - law = flawed

hittman · 21 Sep 2007 at 15:54

Muncher said:
I have access to 4 cars and am the registered keeper of 3. If I go out in one car and leave the other car with keys at home, 3 people have access to that car and routinely drive it, how can I possibly know who was driving it at any particular time?

You ask them? :confused:

Looks like the government are ensuring the registered keeper find out who was driving at the time as oppose to them playing "ping pong" and wasting tax payers money.

If I got a letter with a fine on it through the post and I was certain it was not me driving, I would do my up most to find out who was driving at the time of the offence as i would not be happy with 6 points on my license. If people are insured to drive your car, you would mostly trust them enough to own up.

If you truthfully do not know who was driving then someone has got to take the hit. Seems harsh but someone did and they should take it.

Muncher · 21 Sep 2007 at 16:06

hittman said:
You ask them?

And unsurprisingly they all deny it. The CPS can't summons all of them and in any event it would achieve nothing at all. So as the registered keeper, who couldn't possibly mislead the court you have to say "I don't know".

hittman · 21 Sep 2007 at 16:10

Muncher said:
And unsurprisingly they all deny it. The CPS can't summons all of them and in any event it would achieve nothing at all. So as the registered keeper, who couldn't possibly mislead the court you have to say "I don't know".

don't know what to say then. Usually the letter says the date and time of offence, which should narrow it down to a list of suspects? if not, the registered keeper has got to take the hit.

Dolph · 21 Sep 2007 at 16:22

hittman said:
don't know what to say then. Usually the letter says the date and time of offence, which should narrow it down to a list of suspects? if not, the registered keeper has got to take the hit.

Why? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the police cannot prove with evidence who was driving, then everyone should be assumed to be innocent... That's the way the law works in every other situation, why should driving be different?

Vertigo · 21 Sep 2007 at 16:24

BigglesPiP said:
What if the registered keeper doesn't have a licence?

What if the registered keeper and/or owner never drives it?

If the vehicle is leased then the lease company will quiz the customer (i.e. the employer) about who was driving. Should the customer refuse or be unable to say who was driving, does that mean the lease company, as owner/registered keeper of the vehicle, is liable for the penalty?

BigglesPiP · 21 Sep 2007 at 16:28

I mean, for example.

You own the car and have a licence. Your wife is the registered keeper and has no licence. You get caught speeding, your wife refuses to identify the driver, where do the points go?

Fr0dders · 21 Sep 2007 at 16:32

Dolph said:
Why? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the police cannot prove with evidence who was driving, then everyone should be assumed to be innocent... That's the way the law works in every other situation, why should driving be different?

exactly

except your not innocent till proven guilty as a motorist

because we're the scum of the earth

or cash cows

or maybe a combination of both .....

hittman · 21 Sep 2007 at 16:32

Dolph said:
Why? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the police cannot prove with evidence who was driving, then everyone should be assumed to be innocent... That's the way the law works in every other situation, why should driving be different?

don't know. Ask the PM.

TruffleShuffle · 21 Sep 2007 at 16:35

What if you can PROVE you weren't the person driving it but ARE the registered owner of the vehicle. Surely thats a Catch 22. If i use another crime as an example, murder.

(Policeman) Right we know for certain that 1 of you 3 commited the murder, but we have absoloutly no way of proving this. However Mr Wilson is the registered owner of the property where the murder took place, so despite the fact that he was in another country at the time of the murder, and still is today. We will charge him with the crime and you 3 can go free.

It all seems a bit Monty Python to me.

!bluetonic! · 21 Sep 2007 at 16:48

Regarding the plates and the MOT failure, it's still not a deterrent if you can switch plates, have your MOT and switch back to illegal ones again. Same goes for removal of Catalytic Converters etc.

BigglesPiP · 21 Sep 2007 at 16:53

!bluetonic! said:
Regarding the plates and the MOT failure, it's still not a deterrent if you can switch plates, have your MOT and switch back to illegal ones again. Same goes for removal of Catalytic Converters etc.

If you're caught on the road with your cat removed/missing, you get a fine, and if your car detects the missing cat and records the time it's been missing, you get a fine times the miles driven.

MrMatteh · 21 Sep 2007 at 18:22

BigglesPiP said:
If you're caught on the road with your cat removed/missing, you get a fine, and if your car detects the missing cat and records the time it's been missing, you get a fine times the miles driven.

you what?

The_Dark_Side · 21 Sep 2007 at 18:27

penski said:
I know a group of about eight people who all drive the same car; they're smelly hippy types and have an old merc 190E between them. It's fully taxed and MOT'd and they're all insured on it...

...What if they genuinely don't know which of them was driving it?

Would they pick someone at random to punish?

*n

I'm guessing the registered keeper would end up getting the fine/endorsement.

Muffin` · 21 Sep 2007 at 18:43

Dolph said:
Why? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? If the police cannot prove with evidence who was driving, then everyone should be assumed to be innocent... That's the way the law works in every other situation, why should driving be different?

Doesen't apply to traffic offenses, only criminal.

penski · 21 Sep 2007 at 18:58

The_Dark_Side said:
I'm guessing the registered keeper would end up getting the fine/endorsement.

The registered keeper does not drive. Nor does she have a licence.

They all live together and they all look vaguely the same (like I said...hippies). There are three brothers you can only tell apart when they speak.

*n

The_Dark_Side · 21 Sep 2007 at 19:01

penski said:
The registered keeper does not drive. Nor does she have a licence.

They all live together and they all look vaguely the same (like I said...hippies). There are three brothers you can only tell apart when they speak.

*n

That's an unforseen twist. The registered keeper can't be guilty as they have no license.