Jokes1 min ago
Any Reason Not To Act On Info Sent In From Dash Cams?
20 Answers
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"Wouldn't the court have to prove you were driving, if there was no evidence on the video of your face?"
Yes they would. And they would do so by issuing a request under Section 172 of the Road traffic Act to the Registered Keeper (RK). The RK has a duty under S172 to provide the driver's details at the time of an alleged offence. If he fails to do so he will be guilty of an offence which carries 6 penalty points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for a number of years (as insurers do not like the endorsement code - MS90 - which goes with it). There is a statutory defence to the charge which I won't go into here.
Yes they would. And they would do so by issuing a request under Section 172 of the Road traffic Act to the Registered Keeper (RK). The RK has a duty under S172 to provide the driver's details at the time of an alleged offence. If he fails to do so he will be guilty of an offence which carries 6 penalty points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for a number of years (as insurers do not like the endorsement code - MS90 - which goes with it). There is a statutory defence to the charge which I won't go into here.
"Wouldn't the court have to prove you were driving" - don't see how that's relevant. Were as I don't doubt the judge, if someone sent in a video of a clear act of dangerous driving for example anonymously can they not act on it? look at some of the examples in the link.
"they only provide a snapshot. " - err no they are videos of the incident. - click on the top left, that has got to be bang to rights has it not? Would anonymous reporting not be enough to prosecute here? - Judge, please clarify.
"they only provide a snapshot. " - err no they are videos of the incident. - click on the top left, that has got to be bang to rights has it not? Would anonymous reporting not be enough to prosecute here? - Judge, please clarify.
## Yes they would. And they would do so by issuing a request under Section 172 of the Road traffic Act to the Registered Keeper (RK). ##
Hi Judge, I see your point, but many times watching police car chase programmes over the years, the police have sometimes said at the end, that charges were dropped against all three individuals, for dangerous driving, as there was no proof who the driver was.
Hi Judge, I see your point, but many times watching police car chase programmes over the years, the police have sometimes said at the end, that charges were dropped against all three individuals, for dangerous driving, as there was no proof who the driver was.
There’s two distinct scenarios where bad driving is involved.
The first is where sustained and deliberate furious driving takes place, often accompanied by a pursuing police car and/or helicopter. The vehicle may be stolen and/or other serious offences may be involved such as insurance deficiencies or disqualified driving. In these circumstances, the threat of a fine (which, if it is paid at all, would be at a fiver a week) when the other offences attract custody, or the prospect of six points when the other offences attract lengthy disqualifications are hardly likely to attract much response following a request for driver’s details.
The second is more what I had in mind when I looked at this question. This is where careless or inconsiderate driving is undertaken when other aspects (insurance, licence, etc.) are in order. Imagine this: I get a dashcam image of some bad driving. Apart from capturing the vehicle Reg No. it (unsually) also happens to capture a decent image of the driver’s face. I report this to the police. They (even more unusually) decide to follow it up. I don’t know the driver’s identity and neither do they. What do they do? Prepare an article for “Crimewatch”? Put out an “all ports warning” with photos of the miscreant? No. They send a S172 notice to the Registered Keeper requesting driver’s details at the time of the incident. This time the threat of a hefty fine and points often concentrates their mind (especially if they were not driving themselves).
The first is where sustained and deliberate furious driving takes place, often accompanied by a pursuing police car and/or helicopter. The vehicle may be stolen and/or other serious offences may be involved such as insurance deficiencies or disqualified driving. In these circumstances, the threat of a fine (which, if it is paid at all, would be at a fiver a week) when the other offences attract custody, or the prospect of six points when the other offences attract lengthy disqualifications are hardly likely to attract much response following a request for driver’s details.
The second is more what I had in mind when I looked at this question. This is where careless or inconsiderate driving is undertaken when other aspects (insurance, licence, etc.) are in order. Imagine this: I get a dashcam image of some bad driving. Apart from capturing the vehicle Reg No. it (unsually) also happens to capture a decent image of the driver’s face. I report this to the police. They (even more unusually) decide to follow it up. I don’t know the driver’s identity and neither do they. What do they do? Prepare an article for “Crimewatch”? Put out an “all ports warning” with photos of the miscreant? No. They send a S172 notice to the Registered Keeper requesting driver’s details at the time of the incident. This time the threat of a hefty fine and points often concentrates their mind (especially if they were not driving themselves).
"surely judge if they have the reg they'd send out an NIP and wait for them to confirm who is driving as they do with red lights etc."
That's exactly what I said, 3Ts ! Except....
The NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) is not a request for driver's details. It is simply what it says on the tin - a notification that a prosecution is intended. The Section 172 "Request for Driver's Details" (which usually accompanies the NIP and is often printed on the same piece of paper)is a separate document and it is that document which forms the formal request, not the NIP.
That's exactly what I said, 3Ts ! Except....
The NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) is not a request for driver's details. It is simply what it says on the tin - a notification that a prosecution is intended. The Section 172 "Request for Driver's Details" (which usually accompanies the NIP and is often printed on the same piece of paper)is a separate document and it is that document which forms the formal request, not the NIP.
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.