NIP - speeding ticket when driver is not from UK
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Alan Holmes on 19 Apr 2007 17:02 "SteveH" <steve(a)italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message news:1hwtx7t.1iz0kdk4238k7N%steve(a)italiancar.co.uk... > <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. Does he know for certain, that his friend was exceeding the speed limit? Alan > -- > 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: cupra on 20 Apr 2007 02:24 Alan Holmes wrote: > <dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1177002495.685498.72370(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > >> >> >> 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. > > Did you ask to see the 'evidence', this is vital. No it's not.
From: Adrian on 20 Apr 2007 03:42 PM (pm(a)m_.com.invalid) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : > I don't see where the onus is on the OP to have to prove that his > friend was insured. The Road Traffic Act, AIUI. There's no explicit requirement for the OP to prove the insurance himself. He could quite legitimately ask his Canadian friend to do so. However, if the friend is found to have been uninsured, then the OP himself will be liable for prosecution, and will end up with an IN14 on his licence. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/EndorsementsAndDisqual ifications/DG_10022425 > Of course, we all assume that the friend (if there was one) was not > insured. But isn't this the sort of loophole that the OP could use? No.
From: NM on 20 Apr 2007 03:58 Adrian wrote: > PM (pm(a)m_.com.invalid) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying : > >> I don't see where the onus is on the OP to have to prove that his >> friend was insured. > > The Road Traffic Act, AIUI. > > There's no explicit requirement for the OP to prove the insurance himself. > He could quite legitimately ask his Canadian friend to do so. However, if > the friend is found to have been uninsured, then the OP himself will be > liable for prosecution, and will end up with an IN14 on his licence. > > http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/EndorsementsAndDisqual > ifications/DG_10022425 > >> Of course, we all assume that the friend (if there was one) was not >> insured. But isn't this the sort of loophole that the OP could use? > > No. Assuming there is no accident if the cops want details of insurance they must demand at the time the offence was thought to be committed or as soon as practicable after (this does not mean as an afterthough much later on) or in the event of proof not being available on demand they, as a concession, can issue a produce notice, they cannot at a later point demand proof, there is nothing to stop them requesting the information then prosecuting on that information but if their request is denied then there is little they can do. Speed cameras proceedings are not a valid reason to demand proof of insurance, especially retrospectively. It's a squeeze to freak a 'confession' then payment, tell them to foxtrot oscar. I can't see a prosecution succeeding unless you open your mouth and put your foot in it.
From: Steve Firth on 20 Apr 2007 06:00
PM <pm(a)m_.com.invalid> wrote: > Yes, but where's the legal requirement to produce the insurance > documentation? RTA 143(1b) RTA 165(1c) RTA 165(2a) > No HORT/1 has been issued. Irrelevant. |