How about the guy who checked the ECU pointing at you saying "It woz him, Guv", "It wos him wot did 203mph in that car"? Combined with the post here and any relevant paperwork at the dealer?

as the speedometer / ecu was not cailbrated it would be meaningless. And he couldn not prove where the speed occured.

What she was saying is that a while back, she got a camera flash ticket through the door. She assumed it was her and so signed it as her and took the points as fair play. But then after it was all done, she came to realise that it wasn't her and was her b/f. She didn't do it on purpose nor did she mean to cause and problems to the police so just left it.

She then commented on a Megane site that she had made a mistake which is what the police have grabbed her for.

I think most of you have got the wrong end of the stick tbh.

How about the guy who checked the ECU pointing at you saying "It woz him, Guv", "It wos him wot did 203mph in that car"? Combined with the post here and any relevant paperwork at the dealer?

It couldn't be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that this speed was attained on public roads...

Rob.

It couldn't be proved beyond all reasonable doubt that this speed was attained on public roads...

Wouldn't that depend on how long he had the car, if there's anywhere nearby that had space for that feat, plus the fact he's now admitted it was on the M6?

I see where you're coming from, but all it takes is a few motorists to remember a car (that would fit the dealers description) going 200+mph and 'resonable doubt' could be passed. It is, after all, 'reasonable doubt', not 'solid proof'.

Better to be safe, even if it avoids the whole hassle of arrest & court just to prove you can't be prosecuted.

Thats Scary' date=' the police never pay anyone a visit when they say theyve had their stereo nicked tho.

but certainly that is a lesson to be learned,

Since its being mentioned i drove the 50 miles to work today at 1mph under the speed limit mr officer, and i have tax,insurance and legal tyres.[/quote']

What you mean the barstuards didn't block the gate to give you another day off at my expense. :thumbdwn:

I'd tend to agree - posting the likes of "I overtook a Ferrari in my Fabia VRS on the M1 and left him for dead" :peepwall: is a different matter to admitting to attempting to pervert the course of justice. The former could be (probably is) bullcack, the latter is probably a provable fact.

Wish I'd seen that post

I wish the police would channel there efforts into worse things like getting cars off the road with no tax/insurance.

What she was saying is that a while back' date=' she got a camera flash ticket through the door. She assumed it was her and so signed it as her and took the points as fair play. But then after it was all done, she came to realise that it wasn't her and was her b/f. She didn't do it on purpose nor did she mean to cause and problems to the police so just left it.

She then commented on a Megane site that she had made a mistake which is what the police have grabbed her for.

I think most of you have got the wrong end of the stick tbh.[/quote']

Richard - read her posts again. She makes it it very clear that she was aware that it was not her driving when she took the points i.e she did do it on purpose and its not just a mistake.

This has to be ****** right???? Surely hey can't do it!!

What you mean the barstuards didn't block the gate to give you another day off at my expense. :thumbdwn:

mah bunch of gits, if you know any tell them mondays a good day tho, because ive got a busy weekend

I wish the police would channel there efforts into worse things like getting cars off the road with no tax/insurance.

Why? This is important, getting people who lie about points, to save other dangerous motorists having licences possibly revoked and I'm in agreement with the police on this one.

And didnt we have a thread on a similar line not so long ago, someones Mum offering to take points for speeding.

Yep , although it looks like his camera was empty so it never came to that

Yep , although it looks like his camera was empty so it never came to that

What if?

On a long trip, two drivers in the car, they swap over regularly and within two weeks an notice of inr=tended prosecution comes through post for speeding.

The drivers cannot decide who was driving at time, so they ask for photographic evidence. This is inconclusive as the registration is clear, so no mistake with vehicle, but cannot see who's at wheel.

What do yuo think would happen here?

Who do you name as driver?

Are you committing pergery by naming either?

The notice of intended prosecution gives you( the registered keeper) 28 days to comply.

By the way maximum sentence on indictment for pergery is LIFE.

Any ideas!

Ade

If that happens I'd get in touch with someone knowledgeable with that part of law. If you are not sure, than it's a problem.

Not a clue what would happen but it could end up being points on both in that case.

If that happens I'd get in touch with someone knowledgeable with that part of law. If you are not sure' date=' than it's a problem.

Not a clue what would happen but it could end up being points on both in that case.[/quote']

It's not,

They cannot prosecute both of you, HUMAN RIGHTS and all that.

Any other ideas!

Ade

:Owned:

Hehehe.. ive been waiting for months to use that

edit: and the damn smiley doesnt work!!!! gawwdammit ColinD!

its suppost to say "0WNED"

:Owned:

Hehehe.. ive been waiting for months to use that

edit: and the damn smiley doesnt work!!!! gawwdammit ColinD!

its suppost to say "0WNED"

However,

As a registered keeper of a vehicle you are obliged to disclose who was the driver at the time.

If you truly cant say, then there's another offence of not disclosing the information.

crazy but, how can you disclose when you dont know.

You can have more than one driver of a vehicle though.

i.e

learner being supervised. The driver commits a carelss driving offence, as they are under the same rules as a qualified driver.

The supervisor can be classed as a driver as well, and may aid and abet the offence.

Ade

If a driver is under supervision (or meant to be) the supervising person will be held responsible.

If a driver is under supervision (or meant to be) the supervising person will be held responsible.

No,

He - the supervisor, aids and abets the main offence.

The driver- the provisional licence holder, is judged under the the same guidelines as any normal driver.

Ade

I have been following this on the pepipoo forum.

It would appear that there is a loophole. The police would have to prove that you weren't acting with diligence at all times. They cannot make you remember if you can't and they cannot prosecute (Although they will have a bloody good try at it) both of you.

The burdon of responsibility is for you to name all potential drivers not argue who it may or may not have been. If you name all drivers concerned you have complied with all aspects of the law.

Ade if you are in this position then pop over and have a read, also if you join you can get some more specific advice.

I have been following this on the pepipoo forum.

It would appear that there is a loophole. The police would have to prove that you weren't acting with diligence at all times. They cannot make you remember if you can't and they cannot prosecute (Although they will have a bloody good try at it) both of you.

The burdon of responsibility is for you to name all potential drivers not argue who it may or may not have been. If you name all drivers concerned you have complied with all aspects of the law.

Ade if you are in this position then pop over and have a read' date=' also if you join you can get some more specific advice.[/quote']

The form they send out doesn't ask you for who the potential drivers are. It asks for who was driving at a particular time , day, date and location. It then states why they need to know, i.e. the potential offence being considered.

I would agree with anyone who says the law is an ***, as bits and pieces of law keep getting added when they discover loopholes, and after a while a particular piece of legislation is in a right mess. What they do then is re-write the whole legislation on that particular subject.

I'm off to work in a mo, but is the issue on the scooby site.

If so send me the link

Ade

OK, I'll go into a bit more detail to explain -

The latest loophole involves submitting a seperate PACE statement instead of signing the form they provide. I that statement is where you name the drivers.

You should read the forum for the full story.

OK' date=' I'll go into a bit more detail to explain -

The latest loophole involves submitting a seperate PACE statement instead of signing the form they provide. I that statement is where you name the drivers.

You should read the forum for the full story.[/quote']

Been sunning myself,

Can't look at the full story, link works, but info removed.

Ade