Petition: 6 pts for fail to identify driver

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I think you have mistaken a penalty with "innocent until proven guilty" which tbh undermines a reasonable arguement.

In my opinion, you appear to standing on the "speeding is not a serious offence, but the consequences of a ban are" line (is that your opinion?).

As a society, we have to make a decision as to what is socially acceptable - as drink driving was not too many years ago - and what is not.

I can only say that my opinion is formed by my experience, and that with confidence, if most normal, balanced people had experienced what I have, I truely believe they would feel (to some extent) the same as I do.

If your only experience of this issue is as the recipient of a penalty, I can see how your opinion would be very different to mine.

There is alot of twaddle talked by people with axes to grind, agendas to hide and big mouths but no trousers.

Having experienced enforcement :)mad: ), training, disaster, victims and probably the worst scenario you can imagine in peacetime on the roads, I think that there needs to be a clear penalty for drivers unwilling to accept responsibility for their actions.

I note that with driving (and with sex) that when accused of doing something wrong, a significant proportion of the populations first reaction is to deny it (whatever the truth might be).

I wont be signing the petition, but genuinely welcome the debate.

:eek:
 
I think you have mistaken a penalty with "innocent until proven guilty" which tbh undermines a reasonable arguement.

In my opinion, you appear to standing on the "speeding is not a serious offence, but the consequences of a ban are" line (is that your opinion?).
:eek:


No, my objection is that a non-driving offence (failing to identify the driver of a car) can be punished by removing half the allowance on your licence. Mistakes happen, often its weeks before NIPs arrive, there's no obligation to keep records and yet the onus on identification lies with the keeper.

For example:

If you were the company secretary with a large fleet, and 12 of your staff, all insured for company cars, take 3 cars to a trade show, and all get caught on camera doing 60 through the roadworks on the way home on the M1, there are 12 possible guilty drivers, but no way of proving who were the three that committed the crime.

That's 18 points please.

Thankyou.
 
No, my objection is that a non-driving offence (failing to identify the driver of a car) can be punished by removing half the allowance on your licence. Mistakes happen, often its weeks before NIPs arrive, there's no obligation to keep records and yet the onus on identification lies with the keeper.

For example:

If you were the company secretary with a large fleet, and 12 of your staff, all insured for company cars, take 3 cars to a trade show, and all get caught on camera doing 60 through the roadworks on the way home on the M1, there are 12 possible guilty drivers, but no way of proving who were the three that committed the crime.

That's 18 points please.

Thankyou.

OK, now I understand.

It is the MAXIMUM penalty that you object to? ie the fact that the maximum is available to the Courts?

Don't you think that it makes sense for the Courts to have that sanction available to them? or should it be that it would never be appropriate?

:eek:
 
OK, now I understand.

It is the MAXIMUM penalty that you object to? ie the fact that the maximum is available to the Courts?

Don't you think that it makes sense for the Courts to have that sanction available to them? or should it be that it would never be appropriate?

:eek:

I don't think any points are appropriate, it's not a driving offence, so why apply a penalty to the driving license? Yes I know people try to use it as a get-out for a speeding case, but they can be charged with perjury if it is discovered that they lied to get out of the ticket.
 
IThere is alot of twaddle talked by people with axes to grind, agendas to hide and big mouths but no trousers.
My complaint is quite simply it is a lazy law. I have no problem with prosecuting speeding motorists. If you commit the crime then we should be prepared to do the time.

BUT let's not kid ourselves and think we are acting for the greater good and saving the lives of anyone. It is simply a lazy law where the prosecution are relying on the accused to admit the offence just because they do not have enough evidence.

Two wrongs never make a right, but how many times have real criminals walked because of so called lack of evidence?

forum member said:
And co-incidentally on the same day two people caught (matching fingerprints and dna in car) but let free as...

no evidence of them being my house, so not burglary
no evidence of them stealing my car, just being in it
no evidence of them being "carried by a stolen car" as although they had been in it there was no evidence of them being in the car when it was moving... (hmmm, crash, blood, dna)
no evidence of aggravated something....
 
My complaint is quite simply it is a lazy law. I have no problem with prosecuting speeding motorists. If you commit the crime then we should be prepared to do the time.

BUT let's not kid ourselves and think we are acting for the greater good and saving the lives of anyone. It is simply a lazy law where the prosecution are relying on the accused to admit the offence just because they do not have enough evidence.

Two wrongs never make a right, but how many times have real criminals walked because of so called lack of evidence?
HERE HERE couldn't agree more
 
I don't agree it is a lazy law, far from it - it required the same standard of proof as any other.

It does make it clear where the responsibility lies though.

Don't mistake the maximum penalty with any change in the standard of proof.

:eek:
 
For example:

If you were the company secretary with a large fleet, and 12 of your staff, all insured for company cars, take 3 cars to a trade show, and all get caught on camera doing 60 through the roadworks on the way home on the M1, there are 12 possible guilty drivers, but no way of proving who were the three that committed the crime.

That's 18 points please.

The company fleet department is supposed to keep a record of who drives company cars at all times.

The question is what would happen if this was not adhered to. Presumably the recorded driver would be persued, though not necessarily prossecuted.
 
There's a difference between "Failure to" and "Proven inability to".

In order to 'qualify' for the six points, the case would have to go to court (ie, it's not a FP), and at that point, if a case such as the one timskemp envisaged were proven, then the six points would not be applied in the way the stories suggest.

They are not out to pin points on anyone caught in the headlights, so to speak; they are trying to stop the obvious loophole of speeders saying "It wasn't me guv', prove it was!"

It may be seen as an invidious penalty, but it wouldn't have been introduced if the number of people ducking the three points was insignificant.

PJ
 
If you were the company secretary with a large fleet...That's 18 points please.

I'm not sure what it is you're petitioning about (just in from the pub). Are you thinking that a company, or company secretary, would attract penalty points for a failure to inform?

I can't imagine a company not "fingering" the normal user of a company car, allegedly speeding, but surely it would be the user who would (or would not) put his / her hands up?

I'm all for complaining about pointless and / or unfair legislation but maybe I need a good night's sleep or something :confused:

Edit: Are you referring to the other thread, that's running here just now, whereby it is proposed that someone "forgetting" who was driving when a speeding affence occured would nett 6 penalty points? Because that's just a proposal, for now, isn't it - it isn't law?
 
Last edited:
It may be seen as an invidious penalty, but it wouldn't have been introduced if the number of people ducking the three points was insignificant.

I read somewhere there have been 2300 convictions for failure to identify, over 2 million camera issued speeding tickets, and over a million drivers now on 9 or more points.

2300 is not exactly significant, though it probably takes up a bit of court and police time.
 
I'm not sure what it is you're petitioning about (just in from the pub). Are you thinking that a company, or company secretary, would attract penalty points for a failure to inform?

that is the threat

Edit: Are you referring to the other thread, that's running here just now, whereby it is proposed that someone "forgetting" who was driving when a speeding affence occured would nett 6 penalty points? Because that's just a proposal, for now, isn't it - it isn't law?

It's law now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The failure to identify bit is law now and has been for a while but the 6 point penalty bit was just on the Sky News site as "the Government's planning to increase the penalty for failure to identify a speeding driver".

Where are you seeing that a 6 point penalty is the current punishment for a failure to identify?
 
The failure to identify bit is law now and has been for a while but the 6 point penalty bit was just on the Sky News site as "the Government's planning to increase the penalty for failure to identify a speeding driver".

Where are you seeing that a 6 point penalty is the current punishment for a failure to identify?

The failure to identify law & maximum 6 point penalty came into effect from yesterday, Monday 24th of September, according to Pistonheads, please see quote below:

"First up, don’t forget that starting this Monday, the 24th September, anyone caught “failing to identify the driver,” when caught by a speed camera or suchlike, will automatically earn themselves double points.

Thanks to the provisions set out in the Road Safety Act 2006, the government has amended the law which now means that drivers who don’t admit to their indiscretion will receive six penalty points.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "This change has absolutely nothing to do with road safety - it's just spiteful."
"Vehicle owners should be aware that they have no obligation to 'name the driver' if they do not know who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence, and cannot discover the identity of the driver using reasonable diligence. This is a statutory defence - sometimes known as the Hamilton defence - and is enshrined in statute 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988."
 
"First up, don’t forget that starting this Monday, the 24th September, anyone caught “failing to identify the driver,” when caught by a speed camera or suchlike, will automatically earn themselves double points.

Thanks to the provisions set out in the Road Safety Act 2006, the government has amended the law which now means that drivers who don’t admit to their indiscretion will receive six penalty points.

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "This change has absolutely nothing to do with road safety - it's just spiteful."
"Vehicle owners should be aware that they have no obligation to 'name the driver' if they do not know who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence, and cannot discover the identity of the driver using reasonable diligence. This is a statutory defence - sometimes known as the Hamilton defence - and is enshrined in statute 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988."

I love accurate quotes and reporting.......

Failure to identify does not automatically result in 6 points - if you refuse to identify or fail to demonstrate due diligence in being able to identify then you can have up to 6 points added to your license. As an individual, providing a list of those who were likely to have been driving your car would show due diligence. Companies are in slightly different circumstances and may need to take advice on what would be diligent (which could then be demonstrated to the court).

The quote from the SafeSpeed guy is also wrong -there is no section 172 of the RTOA - so when he spouts about "statutory defence" I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

I'm not going to get embroiled in another circular debate (we're not going to see more police, etc, so let's move into the real world where we live today) but would like to throw a couple of points into the pot:

1. How would members suggest dealing with the "I wasn't driving and don't know who was" get-out? You get a NIP within 28 days - surely close enough to remember in most circumstances who had the car or, if sharing the driving, when you swapped over?

2. Purely anecdotally, the incidence of speeding offences doesn't seem to be in decline. We have views on cameras, etc - but if they don't seem to be working what else (other than ratcheting up the penalties) are the alternatives?
 
Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed.org.uk, said: "This change has absolutely nothing to do with road safety - it's just spiteful."

This would be a completely impartial Paul Smith who always give a balanced view on motoring issues I guess?
 
Have there been any records showing average speeds on a road before and after cameras?
I know there are records for accidents on a road before and after cameras but what about speed.
If the speeds are not reducing, then the reduction in accidents could be caused by other things
 
IThe quote from the SafeSpeed guy is also wrong -there is no section 172 of the RTOA - so when he spouts about "statutory defence" I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

There is a section 172 of the RTA, presumaby the part he was referring to is where it states:

"(3) A person who fails to comply with the requirement of subsection (2)(a) above is guilty of an offence unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle or, as the case may be, the rider of the cycle was."

I knew about that but wasn't aware that a 6 point penalty was in force, as of yesterday.
 
Have there been any records showing average speeds on a road before and after cameras?
I know there are records for accidents on a road before and after cameras but what about speed.
If the speeds are not reducing, then the reduction in accidents could be caused by other things

I don't see how there could have been any meaningful record of average speeds before cameras. How would they know? Spot checks maybe? Hardly seems worthwile.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom