As most speed cameras still cannot indentify the driver, only the car, if you get a NIP through the post it will ask you for the drivers details. If you are lucky enough to have a parent/grandparent/brother/sister who has a licence but no longer drives, simply name them as the driver and they will get the points, which will not matter to them. It may require a small financial incentive or a trip to the pub with you buying all the drinks one night however as reward!
I am lucky in that I have a brother who has a licence but refuses to drive (no confidence) so I currently have 24 points to play with (I do not use this as an excuse to speed however).
|
Sorry martyn (BRM) but ...
YOU STUPID, STUPID, CLUELESS B*ST*RD!
What you are talking about can get you put inside. YES! In Prison!
It is called "Perjury", and if you don't understand the term, then speak to Mt Aitken and Lord Archer.
I suggest you reconsider your opinion VERY VERY carefully.
|
|
|
|
I realy don't agree with this practise either - I have a friend on nine points who just gave the next three to his wife to avoid a ban and continues to drive without a care in the world. Surely all these parties should be insured anyway - isn't it necessary to produce all your insurance / MOT documents as well ( although I can't rememebr doing this when I was photo-nicked for an SP50 - just had to give my confirmation as me as the driver I think ). I can remember visiting the local nick 20 years ago to produce ALL my documents within 7 days.
|
|
|
Yes Ian, I am well aware what the consequences would be if I were found out, but reading Pete W's comments simply confirms my belief that the police only care about getting a name and their £60 fine.
Regards
Clueless B******
|
Depends which side of the path you wish to walk, doesn't it?
I, for moral reasons, would not perjure myself, nor would expect somebody to do the same for me.
By the way, there's a chap outside called Lou Cypher, who want's to chat to you ...
|
|
|
But you voted them in Andy.........:-X
DVD .
|
|
|
|
|
Seems we'll have to agree to differ, there was no need for the personal insult though. I can't see how what I suggested puts me in league with the devil however!
|
I wrote:
Depends which side of the path you wish to walk, doesn't it?
I, for moral reasons, would not perjure myself, nor would expect somebody to do the same for me.
By the way, there's a chap outside called Lou Cypher, who want's to chat to you ...
I see no insult here. Could you explain where the insult be?
What you suggest is perjury (or defeating the ends of justice). That is a fact.
It is a question of ethics. (or scruples, or morals etc). If you get a warm glow from "beating the system", when you KNOW you were in the wrong, then I feel sorry for you.
And if you feel that me calling you a Stupid, clueless b****** is an insult, in this instance, then so be it. Feel free to email me and we can discuss the matter. ( I notice you didn't include your address).
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
Don't really want to take sides here. If your job depends on driving it is probably better to slow down and not get any more points! That said, there is 'perjury' or whatever on both sides of the fence. See today's reports on the collapse of a murder case in Lincolnshire, caused 100% by improper and illegal actions by the investigating officers. I am merely reporting what the judge said! The police need results and have Performance Indicators to meet (old name was Targets) so they have to try it on on sometimes.
|
|
|
I think the 'right to silence' case comes up before the European Court in February.
It can't be right that robbers, murderers and even terrorists have a right to remain silent, but we motorists (not a minority group by any standard) are treated like dogs.
How's this: 'We (the police) believe you to be guilty of X offence. Confess now. If you do not confess, you will be punished as if you had confessed anyway'.
Not right is it?
|
|
|
Agreed, Andy,
The only way that any law, rule, criteria, etc. can operate acceptably is if it is applied to all cases equally, without fear, favour or exception.
As soon as you start making exceptions you are in the smelly brown stuff.
I know, I've been there.
|
|
|
There was a case in NZ some years ago when a radr expert was snapped by a speed camera, essence of the story was that he ran rings around the authorities with regard to interfernce from positioning. This was from the simplest of things like microwave ovens, flourescent lights etc.
Made for entertaining reading at the time.
|
|
|
Andy
Not only speeding does the law require owners/drives to declare details that might compromise them.
Sceneario: Wife and child of Andy seriously injured by hit and run merchant.(PG may it never happen). An excellent witness from HJ's forum into motor cars takes the VRM of the offending car. Police trace owner through DVLC and interview. He knows he was the driver but as you would wish claims Human Rights non disclosure and escapes only with failing to give details. You really want this? What about my rights to drive without the hassle of being among foot hard down merchants etc who try to make roads their personal racetrack.
Used to be a trait of being British that we were a proud, honest and truthful nation. To me we are going down hill rapidly.
OK smart move to lie advocated by some above and someone else pick up the points. It's an old one this, well known and when the wheel comes off as it does both of you will really get it in the neck. Deservedly so.
DVD
|
|
|
It works. I've known three people that have done it.
It's only purjury if someone cares. [1]
The courts don't care one bit. They need a license and 60 quid. That's it.
Ian (Cape Town) - Your moral position is comendable but too idealistic. What if you don't remember who was driving? You need to offer a random name (usually your own) or you'll get done for failure to disclose and your insurance company won't like that.
[1] This may not be a kosha principle of law. ;-)
|
Dave wrote:
> Ian (Cape Town) - Your moral position is comendable but too
> idealistic.
err, so being ESSENTIALLY honest is now idealistic?
damn my eyes - that's a new one on me...
|
|
|
|
DWD - The point you make is a good one, but the principle remains. It is grossly unfair to have one set of laws for all law-breakers except the motorist. Being honest and decent is one of our families traits (I can't think of a single instance of trouble with police), and I would expect the government to be honest and decent too.
But they're not, are they? They tell us outright lies about 'speed kills', twist the facts on CO2 and global warming, tax us like crazy and take away the right to silence simply because we stray over a (newly lowered for no good reason) abitrary limit.
If you think this is honest and decent behaviour, read the novel '1984' and see where we are heading.
|
Andy is quite right - the govt is making life a misery for all motorists. In London over the last few years we have seen endless re-routing of traffic and traffic calming measures plus bus lanes which do nothing but create more delays and more bottle-necks.
As regards speed cameras I got flashed last week at midnight doing about 39mph in a 30 mph zone - no traffic perfect road conditions. It dirves me nuts! Wasn't there a case recently where a police inspector got off for speeding where in reply to the NIP he simply said he could not remember who was driving.
|
Offender was an inspector in Cleveland police in North east (Same people have spent £6 million on an inquiry to get Ray Mallon (Robocop photographed with saint tony before election0 but very quiet now)
Now 30 % of all tickets issued for cameras are now getting same excuse i.e. could not remember driver
Thats probably why his latest mate in ACPO is asking for face recognition cameras!!!!
|
|
|
|
I did?
I could have sworn I voted for our local Conservative candidate.
Andy.
|
|
|
"Wasn't there a case recently where a police inspector got off for speeding where in reply to the NIP he simply said he could not remember who was driving."
He must have been telling the truth: wasn't he the head of traffic who actually introduced the speed cameras.
If he can't remember where his own cameras are, or even what the speed limit is, how can you expect him to remember who was driving ?;-)
|
|
|
Hello again Ian, can I just set a couple of things straight. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I have personally used this trick to my own advantage, this is not the case, having only being caught speeding once along time ago in nearly ten years of driving (in fact the only 'criminal' offence I have ever commited).
My post was aimed at those poor souls who work all hours and require their licence for their jobs who could find themselves banned for as little as two indiscretions in a three year period, and because of this lose their job, house, dignity etc. I know as you have pointed out it is very wrong in the eyes of the law, but if you were ever in that position, what would you do? One to ponder, don't you think?
Some of the above posts mention the police inspector who when issued with a NIP turned round and said he could not recall who the driver was, and got off with it. Was he being less than truthfull by any chance, commiting 'perjury'?, abusing his position? In my OPINION he was, but the police dropped it, whereas if you or I said that we would probably end up having to take the penalty.
I look forward to more debate with you in future.
|
Miller. point taken.
My feeling was that, by making the comment, you are encouraging others to break the law.
Plod's reaction (and subsequent get-off) is just as bad. Two wrongs down't make a right, and I'm disgusted that Plod was not hauled over the coals by higher authority - even at Westminster level.
With acts like that, is it any wonder that the boys in blue are *all* perceived as bad?
|
|
|
|
Yes Ian it is. I broke the speed limit at least 4 times on my drive in this morning.
I won't be tearing my license up and giving up driving for the average totting up ban period.
Needless to say this is dishonest but won't be troubling my conscience at all.
In the same way I really don?t get overheated when someone else saves their job by ?accidentally? sending in the wrong license when a vehicle is camera?d.
Getting away with speeding isn?t the worst of crimes.
You didn?t answer my point about cases where you genuinely don?t know who was driving. As registered keeper you have to send a random license in (prolly your own) or take the points for refusal to disclose the driver. I defy anyone to do that.
|
|
|
