Do you want the Road Tax system to change? Do you have thoughts on the potential changes to the Road Tax system? | No thanks
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
There seem to be a number of car owners/registered keepers who have difficulty remembering who was driving the car they are responsible for at any given time. It's usually when the car's driver has been caught speeding or committing some other offence, like running a red light.

For the people who can't remember who they allow to drive their car, wouldn't it be sensible to expect them to keep a record?

Time to require keepers to keep records? - Armitage Shanks {p}
NO. The government already intrude on our lives enough, cameras, trackers, useless form filling (24 page form to get Disbility Benefit!), DNA data banks, VAT records, Criminal Records Bureau, sex offenders Register road charging devices in the future and so ad infinitum. If they want the information let them get it themselves if they think it is important!
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Hamsafar
I agree, AS, I already have my own Mummy and Daddy, I don't want 1000 more.
If Police stop and caution people at the time of the offence like they're supposed to there would be no issue, it's only because the government hid them all in offices creating pie charts that show us how good the government would like us to think they are.

The problem is when crime detection, justice and penalty is entrusted to sensors, cameras, software databases and laser printers. I don't agree with living a world where machines are king and we are only there to do what the machine can't do for themselves.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
AS, do you really think the CRB and Sex Offenders Register are bad things?

I presume you don't have children.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Armitage Shanks {p}
No obviously they are not but the overall intrusion of the government into our private lives has gone too far! Records of this and that, unlimited powers of access to our homes without warrants, for HMRC and council tax inspectors, information collected and unlawfully diseminated (recent Pensions Dept foul up sending banking details to 3rd parties.) Innocent persons details retained on a DNA data base. They have too much information that they don't need and they don't know how to use it for OUR benefit. And despite all this fantastic"Efficiency (NOT) they can't find over a million untaxed cars, they can't deport illegal immigrants who have overstayed their non-welcome and so it goes. Too much information, improperly collected and possible illegally collected too ,and no useful outcome.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - moonshine

Sorry, that is the least sensible suggestion I've heard in a long time.

It makes sense for owners of fleets to know who has a car at any given time, but for individuals it's a crazy idea. It just wouldn't work - how would it be enforced? What about loss of peoples freedom etc? How would you know that the records are correct?
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
But some owners/keepers (and many on this forum) seem to have such difficulty remembering who was driving. Getting them to keep a record could do nothing but help, surely.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - wemyss
It just isnt practical without keeping a log book in each car recording times driven etc (God forbid).
We have two cars on our drive which both my wife and myself drive.
On some days they go out several times and I wouldnt have a clue a couple of days afterwards who was driving into town at a particular time.
Lifes too short to be recording every move we make. The next one could be the tree huggers asking for info on who turned the central heating on or switched a light on at a particular time in your house.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Aprilia
Yes, 'not remembering' who was driving seems to be a 'get out of jail free' card that has been used by a few folk on occassion. I would suggest that if memory is so weak then it might be a good idea to keep a notebook in the car. Driving a car should be taken seriously. We currently have three cars between two of us, and I drive quite a few others in the course of the average month. I reckon I could say what I was driving and when, even a month later. Maybe I have a better than average memory? I got snapped by a camera. There were two other drivers in the car with me (including my wife) - I guess we could have agreed to 'not remember' who was driving, but I was brought up to be honest, and I try to bring my kids up the same way. You do it, you own up, even if you don't agree with the law/penalty.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - martint123
Just make the registered keeper responsible for any fines and points unless he can show someone else was driving.
Then it's up to the owner to keep records or not.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Hamsafar
OK, what about a kitchen knife register?
All knives to be kept in a locked cabinet and be signed in and out.
Registered knife-owners to keep records.

How modern.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
If your kitchen knife is used in the commission of a crime, and you "can't remember" who you lent the knife to, then yes.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Chuffer Dandridge
Vehicle ownership carries with it a number of responsibilities, one of which I would suggest would be to know who is using the vehicle at any given time. We are actually given the trust and freedom to take individual responsibility for this, so how you do it is up to you. Given that some people cannot recall who was using there vehicle at specific times over the previous 14 days some sort of personal record might be useful to them.

A more cynical Chuffer might suggest that the lack of recollection might be a ruse to escape being penalised for contravening the law.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Aprilia
OK, what about a kitchen knife register?
All knives to be kept in a locked cabinet and be
signed in and out.
Registered knife-owners to keep records.
How modern.


Maybe we do need that. Unfortunately in 'modern Britain' no one wants to take responsibility for their actions any more. It extends all the way from Chavs on council estates up to members of the House of Lords. If people can dodge their responsibility/liability and get a away with something then they will - and go to amazing lengths too, like the upstanding Chartered Surveyor who had a postcard sent from Bulgaria to try to dodge a speeding fine.... remember that one? People aren't embarrased with others knowing that they've 'got away' with something either - in fact I suspect they think they are rather clever.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Kevin
Unfortunately in 'modern Britain' there are too many people who seem to think that restriction of everyones personal freedom is the solution to a minor problem.

Kevin...
Time to require keepers to keep records? - mss1tw
You do it, you own
up, even if you don't agree with the law/penalty.


Yes I'll willingly forfeit my own sense of well being in order to comply with an arbitary law that I do not actually agree with, for a 'commiting a crime' that hasn't actually hurt ANYONE. What a fantastic idea.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Aprilia
Yes I'll willingly forfeit my own sense of well being in
order to comply with an arbitary law that I do not
actually agree with, for a 'commiting a crime' that hasn't actually
hurt ANYONE. What a fantastic idea.


So you only comply with laws that you agree with, and where no one has been hurt? That's a sad comment on your approach to life and neatly illustrates why the country is in such a poor state - too many people, especially young people, seem to think that way. Maybe you don't agree with laws on littering, and of course throwing litter doesn't actually hurt anyone. Or how about cranking the stereo up really loud? Or going out and getting drunk, throwing up and shouting abuse at a few people? No wonder Civil Society is going down the drain - perish the thought that your 'sense of wellbeing' or 'freedom' should be in any way dimished! Too many people acting like petulant children instead of mature adults taking responsibility for their actions.

I think most sane people would agree that we need speed limits (as least in urban & residential areas). If the limits are to mean anything then they must be enforced otherwise you'll have every boy racer doing 80 in a 30 zone. If you don't agree with the limit on a particular road (you think it should be a 40 rather than a 30) then lobby against it. However to argue against the enforcement of the law is the start of a slipperly slope. Where do you draw the line?
Time to require keepers to keep records? - mss1tw
So you only comply with laws that you agree with, and
where no one has been hurt?


Yep. Still have yet to mug an old lady, run someone over and drive off, or rob a shop.
That's a sad comment on your approach to life and neatly illustrates why the country
is in such a poor state - too many people, especially
young people, seem to think that way.


See above comments. To my mind, the reason the country is in such a state is people playing the rules for their own benefit, not breaking them.
Maybe you don't agree with laws on littering and of course throwing litter doesn't
actually hurt anyone.


I don't agree with littering full stop, but that is a highly tenuous link to speeding and you know it.
Or how about cranking the stereo up
really loud?


Surely you can do better than this? As with speeding, on a summer day at lunchtime I'll happily have the stereo cranked into the max. 11pm as I pull into my road (Or anyone's road)? No.
Or going out and getting drunk, throwing up
and shouting abuse at a few people?


This has nothing to do with the law. I just don't particularly enjoy being sick, funnily enough.
No wonder Civil Society is going down the drain - perish the thought
that your 'sense of wellbeing' or 'freedom' should be in any
way dimished! Too many people acting like petulant children instead
of mature adults taking responsibility for their actions.


No. I don't have any problem taking responsibilty for my actions. There's a thread on here somewhere where I describe leaving my name and number on a car I dinked where I could easily have driven off. So perhaps you could retract your statement of 'That's a sad comment on your approach to life'...

Also, when riding my motorbike, I don't have a choice but to be responsible for my own actions. I don't have a battery of safety aids looking after me, just my own skill, judgement and senses.

I have a problem with speeding being cited as the be all and end all of road safety, and where doing 35 in a 30 can have consequences for the driver when the actual real life (Not legal) consequences are nil.
I think most sane people would agree that we need speed
limits (as least in urban & residential areas). If the
limits are to mean anything then they must be enforced otherwise
you'll have every boy racer doing 80 in a 30 zone.
If you don't agree with the limit on a particular
road (you think it should be a 40 rather than a
30) then lobby against it. However to argue against the
enforcement of the law is the start of a slipperly slope.


No, what we need is people to drive appropriately in urban & residential areas. Whether that's 30 or 3mph. Speed limits is nothing more than driving by numbers. Any idiot should know that 30mph outside at a school at closing time is madness.
Where do you draw the line?


As I said before, as long as it doesn't affect other people negatively, I'll continue to speed as and where I see fit. I could still easily hit and kill someone at 30mph.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - horatio
>It makes sense for owners of fleets to know who has a car at any given time, but for individuals
>it's a crazy idea. It just wouldn't work - how would it be enforced? What about loss of peoples freedom etc?
>How would you know that the records are correct?

It would work very easily, in theory, if you can't remember who was driving - your legal duty as a vehicle keeper - you are given the fine and penalty points for failing to keep accurate records. A very simple process. You would know the records are correct just as we do today when a keeper names the driver who was driving, Generally speaking people tell the truth as to who was driving, they get the NIP and pay the fine. If they were not driving they would say so (doesn't happen very often) and it would be up to the data processors to work out what they think the truth is and to prosecute for it in court. The court then decides who is telling the truth.

It does bring up an interesting issue though. Exactly what would be the process if a keeper identified the wrong driver? Let's say the authorities prosecute the alledged driver, and he has as his witness the keeper of the vehicle who says under oath they may have been wrong in identifying the driver. The case against the driver would collapse. The question is would it them be too late to prosecute the keeper for "failing to identify"?

I suspect they would writ back to the Keeper to say Joe Bloggs has disputed he was the driver - are you sure he was the driver....sounds like it would all get very messy.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - No FM2R
I think the idea is that society is able to deal with at least some things without making a law about it.

Are you seriously suggesting this law or is it a bit of weekend trolling ?
Time to require keepers to keep records? - mss1tw
I think the idea is that society is able to deal
with at least some things without making a law about it.


What a fantastic idea! ;o)
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
"As I said before, as long as it doesn't affect other people negatively, I'll continue to speed as and where I see fit. I could still easily hit and kill someone at 30mph."

Would you apply the same argument to drink-driving?
Time to require keepers to keep records? - james86
Surely being under the influence of alcohol reduces your ability to decide whether your actions are likely to affect somebody negatively?

A speeder is far more able to make that judgement call than someone who has had a few drinks.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
I was talking about the principle of ignoring laws you don't agree with.

Although a speeder has less time to react than a non-speeder, in much the same way (albeit perhaps not to the same degree) as a drink-driver.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - mss1tw
I was talking about the principle of ignoring laws you don't
agree with.
Although a speeder has less time to react than a non-speeder,
in much the same way (albeit perhaps not to the same
degree) as a drink-driver.


This is precisely the point I am making you seem to be missing. I will drive at a speed where I can react to things in time, while observing for any potential variables (Junctions, gates, etc)

If speed limits are so fantastic, why do they seem to be so arbitary? What is so magical about 30mph vs 28mph, 32mph, or 24mph?
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Lud
Most people accept that there need to be speed limits to concentrate the minds of the barmy few.

People who knowingly exceed speed limits are not 'ignoring' the law. They are deliberately breaking it - perhaps partly out of habit - and if caught, will pay their fines. What else can they do after all?

Fortunately the police themselves often take a nuanced view of safe speeding. Unfortunately the enforcement of speed limits which aren't always reasonable or sensible is increasingly mechanised and in the hands of horrible faceless bureaucratic jobsworths hiding behind cameras and illiterate letters of rejection.

I know some serving police officers who use this forum would agree with this in principle although they can't necessarily admit it.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - madf
My views of new laws is simple:
Until current laws are kept and enforced especially with regard to burglary and violent crime (where we lead Europe), no more new laws.

Emphasis on enforcement of current laws pls.

PS and with the courts and jails incapable of dealing with current offenders...
madf
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
Sorry, still missing the point. I'm probably not very bright.

Are you saying there should be no speed limits, and that we should leave it to the judgment of individual drivers?
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
In fact, I can't even get a mss1tw quote into my message.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - mss1tw
Are you saying there should be no speed limits, and that
we should leave it to the judgment of individual drivers?


In a perfect world maybe...actually, at the risk of ridicule, yes that's what I'm saying. Totally unfeasible without a lot of training and turning people who drive cars into actual drivers, though.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Number_Cruncher
I think that the very presence of a speed limit is part of the problem. The driver thinks he doesn't need to think about safety, he only needs to keep the needle below the limit, and he's OK. Without a limit, a driver would constantly have to ask - "is this a safe speed?", which IMO would be a far more healthy state of affairs. Yes, there are some who would have difficulty with that, and if introduced, there would be an adjustment period, where those who were too dull to adapt would remove themselves from the gene pool, but in the long run, I suspect we would end up with safer roads.

IMO, the same goes for warning signs, paint on the road surface, and all the other nannying that we have grown used to.

Number_Cruncher
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
Maybe we've got a bit off-topic.

Time to require keepers to keep records? - mss1tw
IMO, the same goes for warning signs, paint on the road
surface, and all the other nannying that we have grown used
to.


What he said. ;o)
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
Oh, I absolutely agree. Like you, I have no need for speed limits.

I was really thinking of those drivers - other than the three of us - whose driving does occasionally fall below our level and who can't be relied on to drive at the appropriate speed.



Time to require keepers to keep records? - Vin {P}
Oh, for heaven's sake, just put a trackable chip in everyone's armpit and get it over with.

I have heard of more ridiculous ideas, but not many. The law as it stands is working pretty much as intended. Anyone who drives a registered car at a speed that triggers a camera pays a fine. It doesn't really matter if they manage to get another person so get the points, they still get a bit of a reminder in the pocket. Bear in mind, also, that the vast majority of people who have a vehicle legally registered to them will 'fess up, pay the fine and take the points. I certainly would. Most people are either fully law-abiding or not. Do you really think that the average scrote would give a tinker's cuss about keeping accurate records?

I feel really rather weary (and mildly depressed) when I hear of yet another demand that the law-abiding majority have their freedoms (and time) chipped away for no reward or benefit, while regular law-breakers will just carry on as before.

Please, in the name of God, just leave us alone.

V
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
"It doesn't really matter if they manage to get another person so get the points, they still get a bit of a reminder in the pocket ..."

"... the law-abiding majority ..."

?
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Vin {P}
Where's the contradiction? I talk abou the law-abiding majority in the context of people who will have to keep your proposed records of the usage of their cars*, not in the context of the people who might pay someone else to take their points. I'm pretty much crystal clear about that in my post, so please don't take my statements out of context and use them to make a dubious point for yourself.

* In order that you don't misunderstand me again, either deliberately or not, what I mean is that people who never speed, who keep their cars registered, taxed and insured, will have to keep your damned records. I really do despair of this.

V
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
Sorry, Vin. I'd obviously misunderstood your post.

I understood you, as a law-abiding person, was condoning (or being prepared to turn a blind eye to) the perverting of justice.

I apologise for suggesting you were one or the other.

;-)


And it would only be those who "can't remember" who they lent their car to who'd need to keep a record.

Or is that stating the obvious?



Time to require keepers to keep records? - IanJohnson
It is quite simple, just make the reg. keeper resposible for any offences where they are not able to remember who was driving! As they are if the other driver is uninsured - e.g. if Tiff did not know who was driving how did he know they had a license and were insured ? ? ? ?

Their memories will miraculously improve, or notebooks appear in cars.

All you have to know is that you don't have to set rules to make people do what you want them to do - just make sure they know it is in their best interests to do it.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Cliff Pope
If you regard a car as the equivalent of a shotgun in terms of killing potential, likelihood of misuse, vulnerability to theft, use by criminals, etc, then it should be:

1) Always secured in a locked cabinet (garage) when not in use
2) May only be used or kept by someone who has demonstrated a need, and whose licence application has been countersigned by a responsible person such as a magistrate, GP, etc.
3) Licence may be revoked, probably for life, after any offence relating to misuse or contravention of rules.
4) Written record to be kept of anyone borrowing it.

That should keep the roads a bit clearer!
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Vin {P}
This is all about criminalising people whose cars are registered to them (i.e. by definition, people who are abiding by at least one law of the land).

Why not attack the elephant in the room, namely the hundreds of thousands of cars not registered to their current keeper. By their actions:

1. They are showing that they are happy to break at least one law

2. They can drive through any speed camera at any speed with total immunity from prosecution. Provided they can complately get away from the scene of an accident, they don't even need to stop after a crash. They can drive as dangerously as they wish wothout fear of being tracked down. They don't need insurance or road tax, because they are untracable.

So why not attack that group before you try to force people like me to keep records? I'll tell you why? Because it's difficult and can't be addressed in a soundbite.

Keep some sense of proportion about howe big a problem this is, and leave the law-abiding majority alone for once.

V
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Cliff Pope
Footnote: - I wasn't being serious, just pointing out the anomalies in the way we are regulated for different activities.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - mjm
To save time and avoid forgetting to do it, I have already filled in this year's records.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Hamsafar
Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven gulity?'

The people who don't seem to value such a right deserve none.
If the state suspects me of a crime, then they need evidence, and they need to convince a court that I'm guilty.
It's certainly not for me to perpetually prove my innocence by keeping logs of what I do and what my property is used for.

If I decide to keep records or diaries, these are for my use or defence, not for self-incrimination.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
Vin: yours is a different elephant in another room. I would confiscate uninsured and unlicensed vehicles and sell or crush them. The ANPR system is a great and wonderful thing and I wish it were used more. Although no doubt the criminals who disobey the law re insurance and road tax would whinge about the police not going out and catching "real criminals". As we all know, speeders aren't real criminals, right?

But do say, which of the two are you: law-abiding or prepared to turn a blind eye to a bit of perverting the course of justice.

Cliff Pope: I agree with your main point, but don't you think that if we all had a legitimate daily use for a shotgun, the regulation might be a bit different? We'd all be a touch politer on the roads, for one thing.

Ashok: I'm probably missing something in what you say. The State doesn't suspect you of a crime without evidence. Once that suspicion is raised, it's for the State to prove it. Sometimes, however, laws are passed which provide for the proof to be shown in a different way.

Choosing to have a car brings with it certain responsibilities (see Cliff Pope's post above). If you don't want to have those responsibilities, don't run a car.

As you correctly point out, "If I decide to keep records or diaries, these are for my use or defence, not for self-incrimination." That's my suggestion. Keep a record so that, if property for which you are responsible for is used in the commission of a crime, you can exculpate yourself.

Sorry if I've misunderstood anyone. And thanks for the interesting replies.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - mjm
So you go to court and present your own, non-legally required records which show that you did not commit the offence, someone else was driving. Will the court take that as proof of your innocence or their guilt?
What if the "someone else" denies it? Will your records be taken as irrefutable evidence?
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
I'm guessing, mjm, that you've not been through the system. What you describe is pretty much what happens now.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - mjm
I've been through the "Fair cop, guv, bang to rights" once. (85 in a 60 limit). It was acted upon with far more diligence than the PC who was "hot on the case" of my stolen wallet.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Vin {P}
"But do say, which of the two are you: law-abiding or prepared to turn a blind eye to a bit of perverting the course of justice."

I'm law-abiding. And I'm sick and tired of being asked to prove my innocence. I abide by the law and if caught breaking it, I'll take the pain. I'm sick and tired (I mean, REALLY weary) of the fact that my freedom is constantly being eroded by people who want to take the easy option and add a layer of pain onto me because they can't be bothered to address the core problem. And the core problem of this thread appears to be people who don't get caught after passing though a speed camera over the limit.

Do we get an idea that will address the thousands of unregistered cars that plough blithely through them? No, we get an idea to address the handful (unsubstantiated claim) of cases where people try to claim they don't know who the dirver is. And the idea is to take people like me and FORCE us to keep records. Under what penalty? In what format? Not clear, but yet another thing that I have to do to avoid becoming a criminal.

I will support 100% any police force that follows up any case of perverting the course of justice. The point I made about people who pay someone else is just that I bet that even doing that changes their behaviour. The lawmakers who allowed speed cameras with the laws that surround them are responsible for their inability to prosecute correctly, NOT ME.

Think the following through; really do give it a try. Why not create a law that means you have to log your movements at all times, so that if the Police arrest you for burglary, you can show what you were doing. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? But when someone suggests it on here in relation to motoring offences, it's taken part-seriously.

As I keep saying, leave us alone.

V
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Hamsafar
Vin! You can't say Police Force in these modern times, it's Police Service! They did away with the aggressive connotations several years ago.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Armitage Shanks {p}
Also they cannot describe their Crime Prevention service (leaflets etc) as such as it is not guaranteed to prevent crime. It is now called Crime Reduction and all the leaflets have a disclaimer at the bottom saying something like "The ???? Police service offers this advice on the understanding that compliance with and observation of the recommendations contained herein is not guaranteed to prevent or reduce crime in any way"
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Cliff Pope
"Governments cannot guarantee to achieve any of the targets stated in their manifesto. Remember services can get worse as well as better, and taxes can go up as well as down. Your house may be in danger if you do not keep up your payments. Players must be 75 or over to get a pension, but this is not guaranteed.
Always read the small print. "
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
"Leave us alone", Vin? Dear me! I didn't mean you to take it so personally. I feel like a politician, almost. And, as I've said, I agree with you about those who rununinsured or, even worse, community cars etc. Might we agree on the answer to that problem, even (crush or auction)?

You suggest that whay I said is akin to a proposal to "create a law that means you have to log your movements at all times, so that if the Police arrest you for burglary, you can show what you were doing."

It isn't, for reasons I've already stated.

But let me try ("really try" ;-) ) to think through your analogy, and apply it to the case in point, Someone sees a burglary taking place at midnight. The burglar drives off in a black Mondeo with the registration number AB 05 CDE. I own a black Mondeo with the registration number AB 05 CDE. I can't provide an alibi witness - that is, I can't provide anyone who can say where I was at midnight. Two weeks later the police trace me and come and ask me what I was doing at midnight.

Don't you think I'd look pretty foolish if I said I couldn't remember who had had my car? And don't you think a court would find it a little difficult to accept that it might not have been me using the car that night?

It's only because "it's only speeding" that anyone has the brass neck to advance such an argument, isn't it?

Time to require keepers to keep records? - Sofa Spud
Modern electronics would allow cars to have a 'log-on' facility where only permitted drivers are allowed to activate the controls. A driver card could carry digitised information about licence status and insurance. Insert card into slot on car dashboard and screen says 'you may proceed' or 'you are not permitted to drive this vehicle'. Also if car is not taxed or MOT'd, car couldn't be drriven.

I believe this is already happenning to some extent with the new digital tachographs on lorries where drivers need a smart personal card.

We're all used to this sort of thing with computers, so why not cars? The big problem would be when it goes wrong and it won't let you drive your own car!!!!!
Time to require keepers to keep records? - Armitage Shanks {p}
Also if car is not taxed or MOT'd, car couldn't be drriven.

Not much use for legally getting your non-MOTd car to the testing station for a pre-booked appointment then, the way you can now. There is enough surveillance, cameras, form filling, DNA databases and government sponsored nosiness and down right interference that if they want to know where I am and where my car is they can check their own records. If they can't find the information, hard cheese!

Time to require keepers to keep records? - mjm
Groovy Mucker,

Let's assume that you are not the burglar. The police arrive and go through the "Are you the owner of the vehicle with this registration number, Sir?" routine.

You say yes, because you are.

They ask you where your vehicle was on that date at that time, and where were you. You can only tell the truth. You were in bed, asleep, and as far as you know, the vehicle was parked on your drive.( You can't swear to it because you are asleep but when you woke up the vehicle was where you left it the night before.)

How are your carefully, honestly compiled records going to help you? They will show that either no-one was driving it or if they are detailed enough they will show that it was out of use but under your care.

Will the court take home-made un-verified records as evidence of innocence?

How will your records stop car cloning?

You can buy, legally, a set of number plates with whatever combination you like on them with a few mouse clicks and a bit of keyboard use.
Time to require keepers to keep records? - GroovyMucker
mjm: I think you've identified the point at which the analogy breaks down. Have a word with Vin, will you? He's got a broken-down analogy and he probably wants to get it home.

Maybe we'd better stick with the chip-in-the-armpit after all.

Or else not overload the analogy until it can't take any more. We all know car number plates can be copied: but that's a third elephant in the police station canteen.

Rock on.



Time to require keepers to keep records? - Vin {P}
Deal with uninsured, unregistered, untaxed, unroadworthy vehicles being driven by unlicensed drivers before trying to deal with this minor problem.

Lest you think I've been off in analogy-land or that the vehicles described above are an exaggeration, a friend of mine collided with a motorcycle. It was uninsured, unregistered, untaxed and the rider held no licence. I have no knowledge as to its roadworthiness (though I suspect given the other facts, there's a chance that maintenance may not have been top of the rider's agenda).

Is it more important to get them off the road, or to add a legal requirement for me to keep track of who is driving my car at any given time, a log that will probably mean nothing in law, as it can't be verified?

That's all I ask. As I keep repeating, leave us alone.

V
 

Ask Honest John Right column

Value my car