From: SteveH on
<dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> this is a speeding issue, not whether he was insured or not. I
> identified the driver...why is it expanding towards insurance. If they
> want more details about the driver, they need to contact him, right?

Because he was caught speeding it has brought up the other issues
regarding his eligibility to drive in the UK.

UK law is such that *you* are responsible for ensuring he's insured if
he's driving your car.

Just because it was initially a speeding offence doesn't stop the police
from making further investigations based on the evidence presented to
them.

Sounds like you're a bit worried now - you either made up the Canadian
story or you know that he probably wasn't insured in the UK, so you're
now facing a much more serious charge than the original NIP.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
From: Clive George on
"SteveH" <steve(a)italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1hwtvrz.88lgo01rafjzjN%steve(a)italiancar.co.uk...
> <dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My original question still stands...where does the law state that I
>> need to provide proof of insurance for a speeding ticket? Section 172
>> of Road Traffic Act 1988 talks about identifying the driver. I did
>> that. Does it make any sense for me to call the number given on the
>> letter to ask them?
>
> Unless you're going to claim that he took the car without your consent,
> it's your responsibility to ensure he had qdequate insurance.

In case it isn't entirely clear, what's happening isn't that you're being
asked to provide proof of insurance for a speeding ticket. You've identified
a driver, and they're now asking a different question, viz were they
insured. The rules as pointed out by SteveH above and by others elsewhere
mean you have to be able to demonstrate that, irrespective of any speeding
tickets etc.

If you are confused, calling the number on the ticket is probably a good
idea - but basically what they'll say is "you need to demonstrate he wa
insured".

Question for you : You obviously don't want to provide these insurance
details. Is this because you're making a stand against the cameras/etc,
because you don't have the details, or just can't be bothered? I ask,
because the easiest think to do in your situation is to provide the
requisite details should you have them. If you don't have them, you may have
a problem.

cheers,
clive

From: dotmoc on
On 19 Apr, 17:51, s...(a)italiancar.co.uk (SteveH) wrote:
> <dot...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > this is a speeding issue, not whether he was insured or not. I
> > identified the driver...why is it expanding towards insurance. If they
> > want more details about the driver, they need to contact him, right?
>
> Because he was caught speeding it has brought up the other issues
> regarding his eligibility to drive in the UK.
>
> UK law is such that *you* are responsible for ensuring he's insured if
> he's driving your car.
>
> Just because it was initially a speeding offence doesn't stop the police
> from making further investigations based on the evidence presented to
> them.
>
> Sounds like you're a bit worried now - you either made up the Canadian
> story or you know that he probably wasn't insured in the UK, so you're
> now facing a much more serious charge than the original NIP.
> --
> SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'www.italiancar.co.uk- Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
> Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
> BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #


no, i'm not worried...just frustrated that I'm pretty sure i have the
law on my side, to some extent, yet i don't know it THAT well to argue
my points to the police, and they'll just run over me just like they
do to other people who just decide to accept the fine and move on.
I didn't make up the canadian story. It's true, and I think i still
can specify a different person because i got "form B" which is
basically a duplicate of the original form where i need to fill in
details of the driver at the time the offence and "should the
particulars entered relate to the driver previously named..." to
provide the insurance details for them. So looking at that, I think
they're just giving me another chance to give a british driver name so
they can fine that person instead of having the hassle to contact the
canadian guy (which they probably wouldn't bother).
As you can see...playing the law......and those that know it well have
the upper hand, in this case the police...and it just seems like they
can play it well because they also have the strong ability to threaten
you with legal action, even though they might not actually have a
strong case.

it's just frustration...that's all...not worry.

From: SteveH on
<dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> no, i'm not worried...just frustrated that I'm pretty sure i have the
> law on my side, to some extent, yet i don't know it THAT well to argue
> my points to the police, and they'll just run over me just like they
> do to other people who just decide to accept the fine and move on.
> I didn't make up the canadian story. It's true, and I think i still
> can specify a different person because i got "form B" which is
> basically a duplicate of the original form where i need to fill in
> details of the driver at the time the offence and "should the
> particulars entered relate to the driver previously named..." to
> provide the insurance details for them. So looking at that, I think
> they're just giving me another chance to give a british driver name so
> they can fine that person instead of having the hassle to contact the
> canadian guy (which they probably wouldn't bother).
> As you can see...playing the law......and those that know it well have
> the upper hand, in this case the police...and it just seems like they
> can play it well because they also have the strong ability to threaten
> you with legal action, even though they might not actually have a
> strong case.
>
> it's just frustration...that's all...not worry.

Erm, are you stupid? 'cos you're certainly coming across as being
perhaps the most stupid person to post here since 'dot' disappeared.
Unless you are 'dot'.....

If the driver had insurance, then get the details from him and let them
know. If he didn't, you'd better bend over and be prepared to be shafted
hard from behind. Sideways.

There is absolutely no way out of this.
--
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
From: dotmoc on
On 19 Apr, 17:52, "Clive George" <c...(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> "SteveH" <s...(a)italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1hwtvrz.88lgo01rafjzjN%steve(a)italiancar.co.uk...
>
> > <dot...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> My original question still stands...where does the law state that I
> >> need to provide proof of insurance for a speeding ticket? Section 172
> >> of Road Traffic Act 1988 talks about identifying the driver. I did
> >> that. Does it make any sense for me to call the number given on the
> >> letter to ask them?
>
> > Unless you're going to claim that he took the car without your consent,
> > it's your responsibility to ensure he had qdequate insurance.
>
> In case it isn't entirely clear, what's happening isn't that you're being
> asked to provide proof of insurance for a speeding ticket. You've identified
> a driver, and they're now asking a different question, viz were they
> insured. The rules as pointed out by SteveH above and by others elsewhere
> mean you have to be able to demonstrate that, irrespective of any speeding
> tickets etc.
>
> If you are confused, calling the number on the ticket is probably a good
> idea - but basically what they'll say is "you need to demonstrate he wa
> insured".
>
> Question for you : You obviously don't want to provide these insurance
> details. Is this because you're making a stand against the cameras/etc,
> because you don't have the details, or just can't be bothered? I ask,
> because the easiest think to do in your situation is to provide the
> requisite details should you have them. If you don't have them, you may have
> a problem.
>
> cheers,
> clive


Thanks for clearing things up. You posted this before i completed my
previous post.
My arguments are partially based on this statement off a website that
seems to know enough to give drivers some support in situations like
this:

---
"My car was being driven by someone else at the time." You should
provide the police with the details of the driver and they will then
pursue them for the speeding offence. If the driver was visiting from
outside of the UK and especially outside of the EU, then experience
shows that they will not pursue the case outside of the UK.They may
write to you and try and get you to prove that this other person was
driving, but you only need to give them the name and address and don't
need to supply any more info.
---

Looking at that, i dont see why i need to go any further in providing
information. If this was an insurance case where there was a traffic
accident, it would make sense for me to provide the insurance cover
information. But in this case insurance is off the table...it's about
speeding, and since they have the name and address of the driver at
the time, they can contact them and pursue the issue that way.