From: Cynic on
On 19 Mar 2010 17:14:21 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> Would an executor be required or even reasonably expected to know of
>> vehicles that the deceased is RK of but does not drive or own?

>> As said, it is not an unusual situation for a father to give/lend his
>> son or daughter money to buy a car on the understanding that the father
>> is the RK even though the offspring drives the car. The reason for
>> doing so is so that the father will know if the offspring gets any NIPs.
>> I know of two parents who have done that.

>I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the offspring to be aware of
>their father's death, do you? And for the offspring to make the executor
>aware...

The offspring would almost certainly be aware of their father's death.
Whether it is reasonable to expect a grieving son or daughter to think
about telling the executor that their father had been the RK of their
car is however highly debateable. I would argue that it is not at all
unreasonable for such a detail to slip one's mind.

And even if the offspring *did* realise that the executor should be
informed of such a detail, the question as to whether they would be
held accountable for the consequences of not doing so is something
else again.

And that was just a single example of a case where the RK dies but the
vehicle is still being driven by someone else. Is there any onus on a
driver to *know* who the RK of the vehicle he is driving is, and if so
is there an onus on the driver to know whether the RK is still alive?

--
Cynic


From: S on
On Mar 16, 7:51 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
> > "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> > messagenews:_UPnn.50799$Ym4.4900(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >> Brimstone wrote:
> >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
> >>> messagenews:dpznn.50620$Ym4.41311(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> >>>> S wrote:
>
> >>>>> What about drivers identity clearly displayed on the outside of
> >>>>> their cars?
>
> >>>> Doh!  Its called a number plate knobhead.
>
> >>> That identifies the vehicle, not the driver.
>
> >> It identifies the registered keeper and if the vehicle is involved in
> >> breaking traffic law the registered keeper is obliged to name the
> >> driver. Same thing innit?
>
> > No, because there's no guarantee that the registered keeper will know
> > who the driver is.
>
> Oh really?  In that case the registered keeper is liable.
>

No, you just need to have a good lawyer and create reasonable doubt.
If you were in hospital in coma at the time, that should be a good
enough reason for not knowing who was driving, and there are less
extreme circumstances people used to get out of identifying the
driver.



From motorlawyers.co.uk:

What if I don't know who was driving at the time of the offence
alleged in the Notice of Intended Prosecution?
Your legal obligation is to identify the driver, the assumption being
that you know who was driving the vehicle at all times. If you cannot
be sure, then the Police have the option to prosecute for failing to
identify the driver. If there is a genuine reason why you cannot
provide this information (and you may have an entirely justifiable
explanation), then you should advise the Police accordingly. If there
has been no attempt on your part to with–hold information deliberately
or negligently, you may have a defence. However, such circumstances
are rare and it would be prudent to seek legal advice before returning
the Notice of Intended Prosecution. If you require assistance at this
stage, please use our Summary Telephone Advice Service. If you are
still unable to provide information to the Police, you should expect
to end up in Court as the Police are now very likely to prosecute for
failing to identify the driver and whilst they will say that there is
no justified defence, the Courts have not always agreed. Before
declaring that you cannot identify the driver, ask to see the Police
photos, which whilst used by the prosecution to identify the vehicle
only, it may actually assist you in identifying the driver.

From: S on
On Mar 18, 1:03 am, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> S wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 11:30 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
> > blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> S wrote:
> >>> On Mar 13, 4:27 pm, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)no-spam-
> >>> blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Mike Smith wrote:
> >>>>> I will never pay a licence fee to ride my bicycle. Let the wimps
> >>>>> fall in line if they feel bullied into doing so.
>
> >>>> Shouldn't be surprised by this comment. Cyclists are habitual law
> >>>> breakers.
>
> >>> As are motorists.
>
> >> Only in your weird deluded mind.
>
> > Are you a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists to make such a
> > diagnosis?
>
> Are you a member of the human race?  Sorry, my mistake, you are a cyclist &
> therefore scum.
>
> > I assure you that law breaking by motorists is common, if you open
> > your eyes, you will see plenty of it.
>
> I used to cover 40,000 miles a year.  I trust your views are based on
> similar experience?
>
> > 1. Running red lights. Amber to most motorists seems to mean "speed
> > up" instead of "stop", and people accelerate even when it is clear
> > that they will never make it before the light turns red. There are
> > also many who *start* to turn right just after the light turns red.
>
> Red to 100% of psycholists means "it doesn't apply to me".  Motorists can be
> identified on camera & prosequted.  Cyclists can't.
>
> > 2. Driving in the wrong direction in a one-way street. I live in a
> > one- way street and see plenty of it, there have been at least two
> > crashes as well. Last year the water company dug up the entrance, so
> > there should have been no traffic except for cars already parked on
> > the street leaving. Instead of this there was a steady stream of cars
> > entering at the wrong end, driving down the street, seeing their exit
> > was blocked and turning around.
>
> Bollox.  Driving the wrong way up a one way street is something psycholists
> do all the time.
>
> Another desparate cyclists trying to defend the indefensible.
>

I am just pointing out that motorists break the law on a large scale.
From: S on
On Mar 18, 8:17 am, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> S wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > 2. Driving in the wrong direction in a one-way street. I live in a one-
> > way street and see plenty of it, there have been at least two crashes
> > as well. Last year the water company dug up the entrance, so there
> > should have been no traffic except for cars already parked on the
> > street leaving. Instead of this there was a steady stream of cars
> > entering at the wrong end, driving down the street, seeing their exit
> > was blocked and turning around.
>
> Whereas, presumably, they should have sat in their vehicles patiently,
> waiting for the roadworks to end in however many weeks' or months' time, so
> that they could get out again. Give 'em a chance to lose a bit of weight, at
> least, eh?

Read my post again. The *entrance* was dug up. All the cars came in
through the exit end, with road markings, no left/right turn signs and
a big red "No entry" sign. Is it too much to expect of motorists to
notice at least one these three things?

> Was the one-way order still operative for the duration of the period when the
> street was a cul-de sac? If o, one has to wonder about the sanity of the
> authorities in your area.

From: JNugent on
S wrote:
> On Mar 18, 8:17 am, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> S wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> 2. Driving in the wrong direction in a one-way street. I live in a one-
>>> way street and see plenty of it, there have been at least two crashes
>>> as well. Last year the water company dug up the entrance, so there
>>> should have been no traffic except for cars already parked on the
>>> street leaving. Instead of this there was a steady stream of cars
>>> entering at the wrong end, driving down the street, seeing their exit
>>> was blocked and turning around.
>> Whereas, presumably, they should have sat in their vehicles patiently,
>> waiting for the roadworks to end in however many weeks' or months' time, so
>> that they could get out again. Give 'em a chance to lose a bit of weight, at
>> least, eh?
>
> Read my post again. The *entrance* was dug up. All the cars came in
> through the exit end, with road markings, no left/right turn signs and
> a big red "No entry" sign. Is it too much to expect of motorists to
> notice at least one these three things?

I saw that. Is it your position that digging up of one end of a one-way
street effectively closes the whole street to all non-pedestrian traffic for
the duration? And that those who had legitimate business there (perhaps
getting to their driveways/garages or parking outside their homes) simply
could not do so?

As I asked:

>> Was the one-way order still operative for the duration of the period when the
>> street was a cul-de sac? If o, one has to wonder about the sanity of the
>> authorities in your area.