OT Sort of, it is about speeding

They were guilty - of failing to identify the driver.

 

The answer is the same as in all the other cases - someone volunteers
to be fall guy.

 

In terms of driving offences that is exactly the case and was upheld at the
Euro court.

It's like your gun. It is licenced to you. If someone is killed with it YOU
are going down unless you can prove it was in the possession of A N Other.

And as we all know, vehicles are weapons of child destruction.

 

Hmm I heard about someone who escaped one of the first Gatso Nip's in NI.
Fortunately said Carrera was a pool car and no log had been kept. The nice
hossifers let the company off with a jolly stiff letter and the company
promised to keep a log. It only works ONCE.

Of course you might have to indulge an ex Chief Cunstable with considerable
food and Guiness lest anyone ask to see the "pool car" insurance policy.

 

That sort of attitude loses wars.

 

"And I'd like several thousand similar offences taken into consideration"

 

I'm sure most criminals don't feel they're doing anything wrong, but
it doens't make them correct.

 

"I'll decide what is right and what is wrong"

 

An SP30 only costs £60 with no effect on insurance, IME.

 

Citizens should challenge bad law, don't you think?

 

Or that recent case: three bikes, one some distance in front of the
others. The two behind are charging through traffic, allegedly in an
attempt to catch up to the first, who was the 'leader' and had put some
distance on the other two at a junction.

Plod on bike clocks the 'followers' at NSL+~40, never clocks the lead
bike. All three get done for the same speed and the same offence,
because the "leader was encouraging the others to break the speed
limit" by not waiting for them.

How does that sit, Mick?

 

6pts, and a fine up to £1000.

 

2x SP30 cost me a fiver a few years back. I know this cos the insco
bitched when I claimed on the theft of the Triple, and demanded that I
paid this as I had forgotten to inform them previously, and this was the
difference in premium.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/

 

Badoom-tish!


Or for others

Ding!

 

To quote Adrian:

"Yup. That's because s172, RTA 1988 does actually mean you ARE guilty of
failing to provide details unless you can prove you can or you couldn't
reasonably be expected to..."

 

Challenging is different to disregarding, and I believe should be done
within the framework of law.

Ignoring a law because you don't like it doesn't make you a better
person.

 

www.jesusandmo.net

 

So you feel that the imposition of arbitrary, countrywide limits on the
speed of vehicles is 'bad law', do you?

Surely it is the responsibility of any good citizen to accept the
consequences of their actions, for whether a law is good or bad, should
the law be broken then there may be consequences.

 

Last time I had cause to look, worst cases were...

Careless: 2 grand fine, up to 11 points

Dangerous: 5 grand fine, up to 11 points, mandatory disqualification
with extended retest, 6 months inside via magistrate or 2 years via a
judge.

Or something like that.

AIUI insurers really don't like convictions for failing to provide the
info, whereas careless doesn't bother them too much. Dangerous, otoh,
isn't good.