Damn, got a NIP
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
Yeah, that's what I mean. Say he can't remember who was driving and nobody owns up, and the photo doesn't identify the driver. Doesn't it then go against the owner?
Genuine question, in response to crinkleshoes's comment that if they can't identify the driver, then they will just get away with it?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Ok ... so you're just being a technicality nazi
The actual meaning/usage of the term "law abiding" is more used to express the words "non-law-breaking" instead of the original dictionary definition of the word abiding...
Technically you could be "law abiding" if you broke every law in the book as it's most basic dictionary definition actually means "law enduring"... you can endure the laws without sticking to them!
That's from the original definition of abiding anyway...
However... changes were made to expand the meaning of the word abiding a long time ago (well before either of us were born!), here are the applicable meanings:
So to be law abiding you would have to "accept the law without opposition or question" or "to act in accord with law"...
... meaning if you break any law, no matter how big or small you are not "law abiding"
Both of these accepted definitions make your point wrong, I'm afraid...
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
That's correct, they'll get away with it... if nobody owns up, there's no idea who the driver was and the photo doesn't identify the driver then the registered keeper cannot be held responsible!
Look at it this way... say it's a hire vehicle... two people registerred as being able to drive it at the time of the incident... neither of whom remember who was driving and the photo doesn't identify them... in that scenario in your suggestion... the fine/point would go to the hire firm.
The crux is you have to have taken "reasonable steps" to identify the driver... but then if you didn't, it would be on their head to prove that you didn't and that would be almost impossible for them to do!
If you are the only person insured on the vehicle... it would be hard, although others can still drive your vehicle on their policy... so not impossible.
If there are two of you able to drive it, neither of you can remember and you don't keep a diary of where/when you're going places and with whom... there's nowhere for them to go
I'm not being a technicality nazi at all! I was perfectly happy to use my powers of understanding to elicit what the OP meant by "law abiding" - it was Burnsy who had issues with it!
Ok ... so you're just being a technicality nazi
Not at all.
Firstly, who accepted those definitions? Where are they from? What is their basis? There are definitions all over the place. The Collins English Dictionary defines it as
Collins said:
Note the 'more or less'.
Secondly, the very fact that the OP used the term, and I and others were subsequently completely able to understand the term to have the meaning the OP intended, demonstrates the fair usage of the term to mean 'reasonably' law abiding.
My original point is that it is not unreasonable for the OP to consider himself a 'law abiding citizen' just because he has a minor speeding infringement. The technicality that was pointed out is just not everyday usage of the term. This is an absolutely ridiculous tangent argument that is a waste of everyone's time and I cannot believe I am pursuing it.
Last edited:
That's correct, they'll get away with it... if nobody owns up, there's no idea who the driver was and the photo doesn't identify the driver then the registered keeper cannot be held responsible!
Look at it this way... say it's a hire vehicle... two people registerred as being able to drive it at the time of the incident... neither of whom remember who was driving and the photo doesn't identify them... in that scenario in your suggestion... the fine/point would go to the hire firm.
The crux is you have to have taken "reasonable steps" to identify the driver... but then if you didn't, it would be on their head to prove that you didn't and that would be almost impossible for them to do!
If you are the only person insured on the vehicle... it would be hard, although others can still drive your vehicle on their policy... so not impossible.
If there are two of you able to drive it, neither of you can remember and you don't keep a diary of where/when you're going places and with whom... there's nowhere for them to go
I would be extremely surprised if this were the case, as it would be all too easy for most people to get out of most NIPs (I would imagine the majority of insurance policies have at least 1 named driver, and even if not, most people have DOC cover)
In the case of a hire car, whenever I've hired a car before, there's a section you have to sign which basically states that you take full responsibility for any offences which occur while you have it.
Do NOT do this.
I did that I should have contested it. The van was on the wrong side of the road and he was aiming in between trees.
I didnt as I had a clean licence. Then 12 months later got caught 50 foot before a NSL sign so now 6 points.
Do whatever you can to keep a clean licence. You never know when you could be in an area you dont know and could get done 3 times in a day
It is an offence NOT to tell them who was driving BUT if you go to court with the other "possible" driver and tell them that it could have been either of you. But you dont know. You'll prob be let off.
I know someone who WAS let off
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
that definition came from dictionary.com ... remembered after you pointed it out that it's American based... so went to Oxford's site:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/abide
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/abide
They also show law-abiding to be the following:
I've also just checked on Collins' site and get the following result... different from yours!
.... all definitive, no mention I can find anywhere of "more or less", especially in the way you refer to it...
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Most people I've heard use the term pre-face it with one of two words... "generally" or "mostly"... this also suggests to me general consensus is that "law-abiding" is a finite 100% term with no flexibility.
That's what Oxford and Collins think too...
Conversely to a definition... I agree with you that people who break the speed limit should still be able to be classed as law-abiding... but that's got nothing to do with the definition of the term as technically they are not "law-abiding" by breaking the speed limit which is breaking a law. The law is wrong though.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/law-abiding
But it's besides the point.
The whole point of this is that the technical or legal definition is completely irrelevant in this situation.
But it's besides the point.
The whole point of this is that the technical or legal definition is completely irrelevant in this situation.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2009
- Posts
- 11,924
- Location
- London, McLaren or Radical
Both my sources are more reliable than that
It's almost like you just quoted wikipedia as a reliable source
You brought it up
If you look at the definitions they are from cited sources.Both my sources are more reliable than that
I didn't. The first person to raise it was:You brought it up
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=20455344&postcount=13
Since that post the argument has been whether to call yourself 'law abiding' after doing 39 in a 30 is such a stretch of the imagination that we are all far too stupid to possibly comprehend in our wildest imaginations what the meaning may be. Feel free to be part of that camp, but I was quite able to deduce the meaning of the phrase, one which is used (evidently) to mean law abiding 'more or less' and with reference to crimes of remotely considerable importance.
Last edited:
Surely, if you are law abiding it simply means you respect the law and will do what they says. If a speed restriction was broken and a fine issued and it's paid how is that not law abiding?
While the restriction shouldn't have been broken ideally this doesn't imply it was broken knowingly (as it appears in this instance). Therefore the OP is law abiding by accepting the punishment as depicted by the law.
Ignorance isn't a defence and the OP is accepting the punishment without argument.
This to me seems like the very definition of law abiding citizen.
Now, if they could only base a film upon a genius killing CIA operative...
Either way, does it really bloody matter?
While the restriction shouldn't have been broken ideally this doesn't imply it was broken knowingly (as it appears in this instance). Therefore the OP is law abiding by accepting the punishment as depicted by the law.
Ignorance isn't a defence and the OP is accepting the punishment without argument.
This to me seems like the very definition of law abiding citizen.
Now, if they could only base a film upon a genius killing CIA operative...
Either way, does it really bloody matter?
No, not at all, even in the slightest.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
As much as I'd like to say I was completely squeaky clean, I couldn't say that, but then again I wouldn't profess to.
I imagine he is, he also extremley anal about things like this and therefore I took the opportunity to have a dig
I'd expect nothing less
Anyway, it was fun while it lasted