Loopy Speeding "Loopholes"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Failure to comply with a Section 172 notice, which requires identifying the driver of a vehicle at the time of an offense, can result in a £1,000 fine and 6 penalty points on your licence. This requirement is a strict liability offense, meaning intent doesn’t need to be proven for a conviction.
Credit: magistrates.bl...
Free £50, bonuses, and more:
linktr.ee/blac...
Exclusive content: www.blackbeltb...
Become a Channel member: / @blackbeltbarrister
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein. Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
Good to know. Instead of this, I will simply tell the court I was too intoxicated to control the vehicle and therefore, could not speed.
Good call! ;)
:))))
I did hear about a motorcyclist that had a photo of him speeding ...only problem was in the photo he had fallen off so they said he was not liable for speeding as he was not on the bike at the time :D
Haha. That's a good one.
@@EastyyBlogspot garbage
@@Cartsp70It’s entirely possible, you can get thrown off by a tankslapper, a glancing blow from a car, or an unexpected wheelie, and the bike will carry on upright for a long time due to the gyroscopic effect of the wheels/forwards motion.
The effect is stronger the faster you go, so getting thrown off, and having the bike carry on, still speeding, before it hits something and falls over, is plausible.
@Jonathan_Doe_ Even on a push-bike - as a kid, I used to bail off the back of the saddle, catch up and run alongside my bike then jump back on 😂
Heh. I wonder if that's the same guy I read about in Motorcycle News a few years ago. This bloke was apparently selling his sports bike and wanted to go out and record a last ride on it, which he did, with a video camera strapped to the tank. Unfortunately for him, he fell off, and after he'd been carted off to hospital in an ambulance, the cops were rooting around the scene and found his camera which had landed in the grass alongside the road. So of course they played back the footage, which showed a clear image of his speedo reading 170mph 🤣 I believe he spent Christmas inside 😋
I listened to a man on the radio here in Brisbane recalling a time when he got a ticket for driving too close to the vehicle in front of him. He had modified a tub from an old Toyota Hilux into a trailer and was towing it when the camera took the photo. He went to court and got away with the offence when they realised he was towing his own trailer.
People would have more respect for these traffic laws if they weren’t abused for the purpose of making money.
Things like motorways having their speed limits reduced for no reason whatsoever.
I’ve seen them dropped to 40mph at 2 in the morning with nothing on the road and no roadworks.
How about a lunatic driver in the outside lane going at a steady 50mph, deliberate obstruction by anyones standard. And the driver? Well, whoever was driving King Wingnuts down the M5 last week and causing total chaos.
If the citizen are required to live by the letter of the law, why should we allow the establishment not to do so if as claimed justice is blind 🤨
We all knew Mr Vobes wouldn't have the last word on this lol! The gate keepers always need to remind you that legal advice needs to be paid for!
Just be careful. Courts have a record of punishing drivers who claim inaccurate cameras etc. In reality, speed cameras do lie but courts believe a calibration certificate is proof of infallibility, yet they also believe MOT certificates are invalid once you leave the garage. Every loophole has a response; they've all been seen before. Not speeding is no defence. A tractor driver once got done doing 40 in a 30 in a machine that was limited to 17mph. He was hit with the max fine for the audacity of arguing the camera was wrong. As per Hill Street Blues "be careful out there".
All speeding offenses are ultimately designed first and foremost to take money from motorists rather than actually make for safer roads. Of course they will do absolutely everything they can to enforce them.
It is worth measuring the distance between the graduation lines on the road after the camera. I have known them be closer together than they should be, giving an artifically high reading.
As a lorry driver if you go downhill you can blow past the speed limiter of 56mph by quite a bit while going downhill. Mind you it will register an infringement if you do it for longer than 30 seconds but rumor has it with the perfect weight (more is better as long as you have enough horsepower to take it over the hill at a minimum of 50mph) and the right hill you could even go as fast as 75mph while limited on a private road in Mexico, or so I've heard. So a tractor doing 40mph could be possible to me.
love the hill street blues quote
You cannot be prosecuted for speeding, but you are automatically gulity of another crime, which has the same or greater penalties .... "Loophole"
Thats why speeding is never a cause for a crash. Hence there are so many other ways to be prosecuted. they want any reason to do you over these days. One that comes to mind is the driving rules for HGV/PCV drivers that dont apply to car drivers yet a car driver can do just as much damage as a HGV/PCV at 70mph and they fall asleep
Speed can absolutely be a root cause. Example being if you are going so fast towards a junction you appear between the final observations and setting off. In that case, your speed is the root cause that led to the chain of events. This is one reason for lights and sirens which can be heard when you're not directly looking.
One of the factors to consider when exceeding the speed limit without lights and sirens is whether your speed exceeds the reasonable sample rate of observation.
Approaching a roundabout at such a speed that you appear and enter into a situation impossible to save between someone seeing its clear to the right, turning their head and looking looking in the direction they are now travelling... That's another one where the speed of one vehicle is absolutely the root cause.
If you want to argue that there's the junction, roundabouts or other road users and they are factors... Well you might as well argue that you're in outer space. The other factors can behave exactly as they should and the only thing that creates the accident is the excess speed of one vehicle.
@@ts757arse you can always argue other people a woman pulled into me on a roundabout as she was not looking to the right . I was doing 10mph so you example my speed is at fault because she didn't look fast enough . you should look to make sure direction of travel is clear then to the coming side traffic . speed is a variable but shouldn't be fixed to limit when there are so many other factors that are not . like people joining a motorway well under the limit causing dangerous situations. argument is there not speeding just joining traffic thats doing 70 and the car merging is doing 40 will cause one hell of a collision
@@fdgaming You didn't read what I wrote or you're intentionally twisting it. I said when all other factors are doing exactly what they should do and the only thing out of place is you approach a junction faster than observations will allow you to be seen in time. This means the root cause of the collision is excessive speed and nothing else. This kind of collision is common and usually very painful.
There's no point in trying to counter that by saying "well I had someone pull out into me without looking". Lol.
I agree that speed should be adapted to the conditions, which means, by definition, excess speed for the conditions is possible. What makes it excessive? The risk of it causing an accident. Otherwise it wouldn't be excessive speed as there'd be no consequences and so no limit.
The issue is that determination of appropriate speed for the conditions is a very difficult thing to do on the fly and very mentally taxing. If you don't believe that then you aren't doing it right. It's also only ever covered in advanced training as there are specific techniques for making that determination which DSA training does not cover.
If I'm driving normally, it's usually easier and safer to do the limit as it allows others to plan for you, meaning you don't have to think for them.
Personally, I can realistically keep up that kind of driving for around 45 minutes max before quality starts to suffer. You're also balancing risk and reward which again, just isn't in the remit of routine civilian driving. And it doesn't need to be.
@@ts757arse women drivers do that all the time, pull out , change lanes without even looking, women drivers should have more training
Dear Blackbelt Barrister, you’re correct that providing legal advice is not a reserved legal activity. There is good reason for this and there are in fact other professions that regularly provide legal advice within the realms of their professional experience and qualification and contrary to what you have indicated, can readily access Professional Indemnity insurance to cover the nature of the legal advice provided within the remit of their profession. Indeed these same people are often engaged by members of the legal profession to provide access to their specialist knowledge. An example would be say that of a chartered surveyor, who, dependant on discipline can provide some legal advice in respect of property and/ or construction related matters.
🤷 I couldn’t have been doing 88mph m’lud, otherwise I’d have gone back to the future.
👨🏻⚖️ Fair enough. Case dismissed.
You'd be seen by a Justice of the Peace, not a High Court Judge.
🙄
@@lindadoughty9252 Wow, I bet you’re a fricking laugh at parties.
@@pwensor More fun than you are Patrick 😏
Gatekeeper… after all he is part of the system.
If you find yourself speeding in an average speed camera zone, all you need to do is maintain the same speed on the other side of the road so on average you were going 0mph.
Thanks for the advice. I used it in court last week and had the case dismissed.
Lmao! Magnificent!
I’d be interested to know your take on this…
I know of somebody who received a form to identify the driver who was allegedly speeding.
Anyway, to keep a long story short they wrote to the police on 2 occasions. The first they explained they had narrowed it down to two people.
The police explained it was the owners responsibility to identify.
The owner said it was unreasonable to track on an hourly day by day basis which of the named drivers was driving, but they said back to the police “we have agreed that although we aren’t sure, person X will agree to be the driver and accepts the penalty”.
The owner of the vehicle then got a response saying they were going to cancel the prosecution on this occasion.
What are your thoughts on why this happened? Was it likely because if the police accepted the driver named, they’re also accepting that potentially somebody is going to be prosecuted who may be not guilty?
I did this years ago.... I filled it in but never signed it.
Police rang me and a heated argument ensued. He kept sending me them... I binned them all as I had filled one in previously
Police took me to court .... I filled in the court form and pleaded not guilty and then I got a letter of NFA
I got a speeding ticket when my car was on the back of a low loader following a crash. The picture was clear that my car was on the back of the truck but my cars reg was the only number that could be seen. Opted to fight the case in court and two days before the hearing thd case got dropped. I wonder why??
RTA 172 requires the registered keeper to provide the police with the information that they require to identify the driver. It does not stipulate how the information is to be conveyed or that there must be a signature.
RTA 172 goes on to say that this requirement to provide information may be made by serving or posting a written notice in accordance with Criminal Procedure Rules. This applies to the police requesting the information.
If the police decided that the written notice had been satisfied, then there was no wrong-doing.
However, this is not a loophole. The magistrate in another case may accept the evidence. Or the registered keeper may be summoned to court to establish the fact.
In some force areas, you can submit your s.172 response (and in fact see the photographic evidence gathered) online - that still provides evidence of who you are (via IP address, etc), in the same way as signing does. If the only means of response to a notice is to complete and return it by post (the declaration says "By signing this document, i am ..."), then it states very clearly that failure to do so is an offence punishable, etc, etc.
Your point about the police accepting the facts of the case is an interesting one, and i suspect that could be a defence ("loophole"???) to your subsequent prosecution for the s.172 offence: "The police told me i didn't need to send the notice back because i had informed them to their satisfaction by another means".
I wonder what @BlackBeltBarrister has to say about that?
@@iangraham871 no it is not an offence to fail to sign it. That is the whole point.
Registered keeper, not owner?
@@fortnitefred1351 registered keeper
@@fortnitefred1351 Correct. DVLA have no record who the owner is.
*Is there a right not to self incriminate?*
In America yes. In England and Wales no.
@@HerbertTowers .. The official Caution that is read out to a suspected offender is a warning against self incrimination, including the right not to answer questions. Or just do not sign it and if asked why, just say that it was an unintentional error and then state that you will not be answering any further questions. Unintentional error is a defence that the Police like to use in Court when they are caught lying.
Only if you are a motorist it seems
I've not read anywhere of the Welsh driver in question being hauled before the courts for failing to sign the document? As far as i can see, he didn't attend court, so couldn't be questioned, and sent the form back with the name of the driver at the time of the alleged speeding offence, as legally required. Now if 10,000 people all did the same, it WOULD clog up the court system, as none of those people would be admitting anything on the day because they don't need to attend, they would just simply send the form back.
Freemen of the Land and Sovereign Citizens give out legal advice on "loopholes" all the time... and we all know how reliable their advice can be 🤣
Freemen of the land and sovereign citizens are complete nutjobs. They think they can make themselves immune from any law they choose just by saying "I do not comply". 😂
Or they send 2 Constables to the door to ask the question verbally to the RK (showing them the secondary photo evidence) and then submit their statement of that admittance to the court bundle. Identification of the driver completed!
Don't speak to any one in fancy dress at YOUR door.
I received a 42mph in a 60mph road because the camera van was parked half on and half off a dual carriageway with cones infront and behind the van. This as I was told is a restricted speed area, 30mph was quoted, hence the 42mph speeding ticket. That's Cumbria for you.
So because it had cones round it, that somehow lowered the speed limit to 30, or am I missing understanding you?
It’s funny I should find this video. I’ve just received such a letter stating I was doing 46 in a 40 zone. I even remember having to speed up to over take the bus that usually pulls into the bus stop, but that morning it didn’t and proceeded to speed up to 40 mph and would have blocked my opportunity to get in front in preparation to turn left further down the road. Low and behold as we come over the blind hill the speed van was sat there. I accept I was doing 46mph in a 40 zone, but it’s the fact they sit in an affluent area on a blind hill, gives me that sense of entrapment, yet only 2 mile away in a less affluent area there are speeding & any number of traffic offences be committed, but never any police presence to speak of. I can’t help thinking the reason for this is it will cost the police and courts more money collecting the fines from those in the less affluent area than it would collecting from those in the more affluent area…?
Way back in 2011, I received a NIP from West Yorkshire Police for triggering a mobile camera (The 2nd time in a relatively short space of time. I'd already paid the fine and got the 3 points from the first time) I sent back the form declaring that I was the driver at the time. I can't remember if I signed the form or not but I never heard anything back.
Genuinely confused as, after a thorough reading of 172, I can see no mention of requirement to give your signature on any response.
I can relate to your section about getting advice from outside people.
I’m a mortgage advisor and get this all the time.
“I saw this TikTok video and they said…”
GET OUT MY OFFICE
@@SDrtheone I am too, and those that arrive in my office claiming to know it all are either taken in by a stupid family member or friend that hasn’t a clue, or is a Regulator plant sent to try to frame you, either way, show them the door and let them complain about some other less observant broker
You are living in a policy and legal Box ,
Is an offence an actual crime ? or is it just a breach of made up rules and legislation which we dont have to consent to
Thats why they need a signature , funny they never sign their own claim form isnt it
The legal box you are living in is crumbling trust and confidence has been undermined find a proper job because your profession is going out of business
I did exactly this a few years ago when I went to court they said I had failed to provide the information I argued that I had provided the information but simply had not signed the form I got fined 800 pound and 6 points I asked the judge under what law had I broken as the form does not say you are legally required to sign it however it does say you are required to give the information he would not answer my question simply saying if I did not be quiet they would have me removed the form does not say you are legally required to sign it
Did you appeal?
Even the law can't legally force you to sign anything, but they make sure there will be repercussions if you don't.
@@davidspear9790 you don’t HAVE to provide a blood sample for alcohol testing, but if you don’t, the assumption is you had a very high level
True. they do not like it when you quiz them about their decisions. I am involved in a matter in Australia at the moment where the Magistrate allowed two false documents to remain in evidence, and two prosecution witnesses ( one a Policeman) to state false verbal evidence in an excess speed matter. Odd how they will chase us to the grave in order to have us convicted but are quite protective of those with whom they have lunch.
@@johnvienta7622 are they false because they prove you were speeding 😂😂😂😂😂
Wrong ! No it’s doesn’t need to be signed ! I was convicted of this and under PACE it IS admissible as evidence. I appealed to crown court and they found that I didn’t need to be sign it and were satisfied that I complied with the s172 and was satisfactory as it contained my name , DOB and driving licence number . Case law I used is Jones v DPP and Yorke/mawdsley v chief Constable of Cheshire. I also had in my arsenal the modern slavery act as no one is compelled to do anything they don’t want to do without their consent. Didnt need to use this .
On 1 June, 1995, at about 6.40 p.m. Police Inspector Mackie counted 21 people on the roadside verge of the southern side of the A344, adjacent to the perimeter fence of the Monument at Stonehenge. Some were bearing banners with the legends, "Never Again," "Stonehenge Campaign 10 years of Criminal Injustice" and "Free Stonehenge." He concluded that they constituted a "trespassory assembly" and told them so. When asked to move off, many did, but some, including the Appellants, Mr. Lloyd and Dr. Jones, were determined to remain and put their rights to the test. They were arrested for taking part in a "trespassory assembly" and convicted by the Salisbury Justices on 3 October, 1995. Their appeals to the Salisbury Crown Court, however, succeeded. The court held that neither of the Appellants, nor any member of their group, was "being destructive, violent, disorderly, threatening a breach of the peace or, on the evidence, doing anything other than reasonably using the highway."
===========
Is that the jones case?
The appellants' convictions for speeding offences would be set aside where they had not signed their notice forms under s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988 but the first appellant's case would be remitted for rehearing.Appeals by way of case stated against the decision of the Warrington justices for the conviction of Mawdesley ('M') of a speeding offence and against the decision of Manchester Crown Court upholding Dwight Yorke's ('Y') conviction for speeding. The issues were closely related and it was therefore directed that they be heard together. Both appeals related to speeding offences after which a notice of intended prosecution under s.172 Road Traffic Act 1988 was sent to each of the appellants. The notice required the name, driver number, address, date of birth and occupation of the driver to be filled in and for the notice to be signed and dated. M's and Y's notices were both returned with all of the information (except Y's driver number) but they had not been signed or dated.
@@adenwellsmith6908 no it’s to do with the s172 not Stonehenge?
@@jaslavene1 The second one is very relevant. The first I couldn't see the relevance. Perhaps there's more than one case....
Wow P.A.C.E Is an act from Northern Ireland. It has now been HEAVILY implemented over in England. UK all 4 eng Northern Ireland sco and wales. GREAT BRITAIN England, Scotland, Wales. UNDER P.A.C.E We as a people have no rights. My door has been took off several times under the P.A.C.E act. But no charges have ever been brought against me. The ENGLISH GOVERNMENT CANT ENFORCE THESE ACTS If you know law (study your own case folks) or have a damn good brief. Not legal advice I'm merely an English citizen that has been through many, many processes. My brief very nearly ended up as my Co defendant during one of my many interactions with the so called law. P.S THEY were happy if necessary to sit beside me in that dock as a co accused and fight for our rights as English men. DONT BE FOOLED.
No comment mr barrister?
The ‘loophole’ that I am aware of, I.e. what I think a lot of my neighbours are doing. Is where they say I wasn’t driving the car it could’ve been anyone of my four adult sons and I can’t tell you which is because I don’t know. And then the government can decide if it wants to go and chase these four sons and try and figure out which it was because let’s be honest none of them are going to fess up.
Hmm... That's quite a detailed description of 'what I think a lot of my neighbours are doing'. Have 'a lot' of people told you this, or has it all just been concocted in your oddly suspicious mind?
The keeper gets a big fine though. It was exactly what "Manchester United" did with a car that was generally thought to have been used just by a certain Mister Ferguson
@@sebastianforbes1if the owner of the car can’t say who it was, the vehicle owner is liable
@@sebastianforbes1 why do you want to go to court and get fined ? Are you retarded ?? Actually don’t answer that, I’ve just seen your gay porn video
Judges magistrates solicitors barristers are all in the same gang . Don’t be fooled. A solicitor tried to charge me £1800 to £6000 to represent me in court and I said I can represent myself why do I need you? And he said I don’t know the law in detail and my reply was “ The magistrates know the law and I know “ reasonable doubt “ that’s all you need to know. You can’t comply with a speed sign if it’s not eligible,simple!
It used to be a "time out" device in Scotland, as they would send you the S172 back twice before issuing the CO, the trick was to draw it out passed 6 months from date of offence, but in Scotland they got wise and raised the court paperwork in week 25 just in case.
I know this has probably been discussed many many times over the years, but in what circumstances can you 'Invoke your right against self-incrimination'? whilst in court and in signing declarations where you are required to by legislation
I would have thought that doing anything at all ( or not doing something) that assists the Police in performing an investigation would be covered by the rights we have not to self incriminate, or that we have no legal obligation to assist them when performing such an investigation. If we can remain silent it cannot see how we can be forced to sign something.
If you are legally required to fill out a form, and that form asks you to sign it, then you're legally required to sign it, whether or not it says you must.
The easiest way to avoid paying a speeding fine is to avoid speeding.
Except they keep lowering the limits more and more to make it harder and harder for people to get anywhere and get anything done on time without speeding.
Install a high quality laser jammer, and update your gps devices with fixed positions, you will rarely get caught.
but where's the fun in that?
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 well said. Fcuk speed limits, I see way more near misses by people driving below or exactly on the limit caused by incompetence, stupidity, watching their fuel gauge or their speedo. Fast drivers are usually better drivers on the whole as they are able to make decisions faster and plan far further ahead than the average miss daisy
Its an 'offer to contract'. No one needs to accept the terms.
A notice of intended prosecution (NIP) form forces drivers to self confess with serious threats of punishment if refusing to do so. This is demanding money with menaces. Being coerced into a self confession is against every principle of justice. Those operating this scam belong in jail.
The way it was explained on a clip I saw, was that by returning the form with your details, you are complying with the legislation that says you must state who was driving. Their argument was that you can provide the information but you can not be compelled to sign the form. Hypothetically, could a driver not state that they did supply the required information(and so did comply with the law), but they did not sign the form because the law does not state that they have to sign it? It does also seem rather odd that the magistrate didnt just ask the person if they were the driver at the time? Surely an admission in court would have been valid?
"I CANNOT remember who was driving BUT I AM PREPARED TO ACCEPT IT WAS ME DRIVING and will accept responsibility for being the driver at the time..... Talk your way out of that one then!
The man never went to court.
An S172 offence (with fine and points) is WAY worse for subsequent insurance premiums than the usual worst case speeding offence punishment. 😉
The only certain loophole would be to be The King , who is immune from prosecution , since most prosecutions are brought in his name ; and he can hardly prosecute himself !
There is legal precedent for the king prosecuting himself
So if Charlie boy goes out and kills somebody by dangerous driving, he gets away with it..? That is wrong in so many ways.
@@LochyP He could prosecute himself, but if found guilty by the courts he could also pardon himself!
What about a Prince that has sex with an underage child multiple times, pays her to keep her mouth shut and gets away scot free.
What has happened to my Right to Remain Silent and to not Incriminate myself and my Right to not assist the Police in Incriminating me??
Driving is a licensed activity and that licence comes with some positive obligations such as, for another example, informing DVLA of change of address.
@@AlexSwanson-rw7cv But you get prosecuted under the Criminal Law as your action whilst driving can be considered a criminal offence, therefore as I am suspected of committing a criminal offence I should have the same rights as I would have with any other suspected criminal offence, yet the State makes it a further offence for me if I wish to invoke my RIGHT to silence and not complete and send them back their form and will prosecute and fine me and give me points if I fail to do so and not give them the information that they need to incriminate me.
Yeah, someone tried that argument and it didn't work (thank you very much ECHR!). The case of O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom.
@@thesmithersy One could argue then that everyone agrees to follow every Regulation relating to anything and therefore if he is deemed to have breached said regulation then he has no right to Silence on the matter but will face criminal conviction either way. Whats the expression "The Law is an Ass" Said Mr Bumble.
@@InvictusManeo. The judgement in that case basically said that when you qualified to hold a driving licence, you agreed to follow the law related to motoring when you drive, which included the requirement to give the name of the driver of a speeding car
What if you send the form back unsigned but you state someone else was driving? Presumably the courts would then approach the other driver who could then claim the form was illegal.
Personally I think false number plates are more effective
Daniel, you are fantastic, you have helped me, keep up the great work!
I've never signed these forms, because the courts regard it as your admission of guilt and I've never been found guilty of speeding, or been dragged into court.
A couple of points if I may - I believe in the Welsh case, the accused did not attend court, and therefore made no admission of being the registered keeper on which he could be cross-examined.
Also, I am old enough to remember when an Englishman had a 'right to silence' and could not be compelled to incriminate himself, a right which is clearly violated by this S172 notice.
I understand that the S172 notice is also a violation of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act and/or the ECHR.
As a point of interest, my vehicles are registered in my wife's name. If I were to get 'flashed' by a camera, the S172 notice would be sent to her. She, being an honest person, would nominate me as the driver. I would then deny all knowledge. If I were to be subsequently charged, my wife would then be the sole prosecution witness. And she, of course, cannot be compelled to testify against her spouse.
If we are going to let the government take away our historic rights, we should at least make them work for their prize.
And before anybody points out that some cameras take a pic of the driver, I might mention that I bought a Burkha on eBay for a few quid. Just in case. "For every higher wall, there is a taller ladder".
30 seconds in and I'm feeling good about my initial answer to the opening question of: "No."
Let's see how we do.
I had that and had to physically lie on the form. My car was caught speeding at 11am about 30 miles from where i live, Im a night worker and sleep between 6am and 2pm so i was actually asleep at the time the offence happened. I was asked to name the driver and Legally I could not name the driver as i had absolutely no knowledge of who was driving, i asked for legal guidance and i was told that i had to name the driver. So i explained that i had no knowledge of my vechicle being driven so I just said it might have been someone in my family, i was threatened with perverting the course of justice, so again i asked how i could i possibly know who was driving if i was asleep at the time of the offence. I was just told to name the person who i thought was driving, so i wrote a letter explaining my night worker status, which i could prove and listed my entire family and neighbours who had access to the car and told them to investigate. Never filled in the form and never heard anything back.
One size does not fit all, I think is a good summary of what you said. Every case is different and needs to be taken on merrit. ??? Correct.
THE LAW ALWAYS PROTECTS ITS SELF EVERYTHING IS GEARED FOR REVENUE AND CONTROL.
MINIMISE THE RISKS BY STICKING TO THE RULES BUT THAT COMES AT A COST, A RISK OF MORE AND MORE RULES BEING INTRODUCED BECAUSE NO ON CONTESTS THEM.
In japan they require seeing a clear view of the driver for these cameras to be able to prosecute
In Japan they accept their mistakes not act like lying scroungers
That is as it SHOULD be!
Is it a conviction if you got away with it?
Only in the minds of the Police. Up to the point where a decision is made by the judiciary the defendant holds the presumption of innocence, and so if they are not found guilty that is what they are, not guilty.
I always used to ask for the photographic evidence as a reference if they fail to have it they state case is dropped. I have heard this has happened to others and only once to me. 😊 And its great having a photo of you smiling if guilty. Most are digital now and they give you a link to the evidence 😂
You’re not legally required by law to sign that form just to fill it out to name the driver you’re not required by law to sign it
Diplomatic Plates is number one loop hole.
Only if genuine, one of the cop shows arrested and towed a vehicle with so called diplomatic plates and badges claiming it was a diplomatic vehicle.
A while back now but I think it was a fairly old car and they could easy check that it was not a diplomatic vehicle.
Something needs to be done about diplomatic vehicles breaking the law.
This so called "loophole" is years old and was finally put to bed in a case involving Dwight York the footballer and I believe someone named Maudesly. Cannot find anyhting on the web, and this is from years ago, but it went to the top court of the time and the Judge ruled that "If the chief officer of police requires a signature then a signature should be given". I followed all this at the time and may be able to turn something up. There was even an Internet email group at time, "Unsigned Forms" which I subscribed to. All this is from memory. If I can think of more details or turn something up I will get back on it.
Spelling correction. MICHAEL MAWDESLEY and DWIGHT YORKE. I can find a lot of stuff on the earlier hearings about July 2003 but nothing on the final one. It would have been before the UK Supreme Court came into existance in 2009, so Court of Appeal or Law Lords.
You say at the end in your opinion this loophole is wrong - after going through many other different and irrelevant scenarios - but it worked. It was reported as a working loophole, because it worked, not because it didn’t.
surely filling in the details of the driver is all that is required by a 172? no more no less? Why does the signature of possibly not the actual driver negate the entire document?
Well , the RK could be blind or illiterate ; there is no requirement to be able to drive or to hold a licence in order to become the registered keeper of a vehicle . Indeed the RK may not even be a person , many vehicles are registered to companies rather than people .
What happens is a S172 notice (or any similar notice) is genuinely lost in the post? Will they proceed assuming that you have received and failed to respond to it? Surely any kind of "official" document like this should be sent registered / signed for to remove that ambiguity? I never sign for any mail unless I am expecting something on a specific day. Surely it can't be fair that "they" can claim they posted it on a quoted date and that be sufficient to assume you are guilty of not responding.
Excellent point. I know that here in Australia all they have to show is that the correspondence was sent, there is no obligation to prove that it was received. I send everything directed to Government and Govt Departments by registered post and it saved me on one occasion as I mailed a notice to defend a parking ticket and they did receive it but ignored the content of the letter. That resulted in the Government debt recovery crowd getting involved and I was threatened with prison for non payment of a debt that had never existed. Fortunately I could prove that they had received it, and I had also photographed the contents at the Post Office before sealing the envelope.
The only.loophole i know only.works in Scotland. Essentially, you identify the driver voluntarily after the NIP has expired.
Because the law and in turn the police caution ia worded differently, in scotland you can submit evidence at a later time than when you are cautioned, so there is no "if you fail to mention..." And therefore the cards dont automatically settle in the same way.
Ive avoided over 10 speeding tickets
Thankfully where I live, after a few years of this type of extortion, the citizens banded together and got the cameras thrown out by a judge. Shockingly, speeding fatalities have not increased since the extortion ended. People power-it’s the only way to survive these days.
That's what I thought the law stated (IE if the driver cannot be identified ) then the registered keeper is then in the firing line
In England not actually being the malefactor who physically committed the offence is considered a "technicality"!
Good luck trying to sue a lawyer or other 'professional' for malprcatice, regardless of whether they have insurance or not.
The welsh case mentioned the driver did not turn up to the court
why did the magistrates not fine the chap?
Because he was not required to turn up to court, it was able to be heard in his absence. And he wasn't fined because the case was thrown out due to the Section 172 form not being signed, even though every other part was filled out properly.
I found a speeding loophole by accident. I’ll try to explain in the simplest terms I can.
Flashed in a work van,
They sent a N.I.P. Section 172 out to registered keeper (my work),
someone in work gave my details and sent it back.. but this is where it gets into the loophole…
Either my work had wrote the wrong address or the police had read it wrong, either way wasn’t my fault, so they sent letters to the wrong address and never got a response from me (obviously because they was going to a different address) I never heard from them until after 6 months when they got my correct address. But because it was after 6 months they could no longer do me for speeding… so then they then tried to do my for failing to provide driver details by saying I hadn’t responded in time. I got a friend who is a solicitor to go over it and he sent them a letter outlining the mistakes that had been made an non of it was my fault an it got dropped. There’s abit more too it but that’s the basics of what happened
Friend emailed them from his work email saying I’d missed out on the opportunity to do a speed awareness course because I never had the opportunity to respond in the first 3 months as I couldn’t possibly respond to letters that are going to the wrong address.
They only gave me 10 days to respond when they finally got my correct address when they should of legally given me the stipulated 28 days to respond, they started court proceedings after the 10days
Friend also noticed that the date they was using as the start date from when I should of responded to the section 172 was a date relating to one of the notices of intended prosecution that went to the wrong address.
Pointing out all the mistakes made and reinforcing the fact non of it was my fault via a solicitors email, I got a letter back stating they have “reviewed the evidence and in this case will be offering no evidence on the matter and, therefore, the case will be discontinued”
Not formal legal advice, but the best way of course to avoid being prosecuted for speeding is to not be caught speeding. 😉
Or not speed.
I think speed limits need to be variable. For example during school drop off and pick up times, 20 mph, when school is sitting or closed make it 30 mph.
If there is gaps ahead make it faster or slower.
I feel speed limits are sometimes too low.
@@Matty12333 awesome if between 1am and 6am they raised them to unlimited when few are out and about, it would be like going out during the lockdowns, now those days were awesome for speedy driving
A question occurred to me yesterday.
What if a vehicle is owned by an overseas company?
What can the UK state do to force that company to do anything?
It says, we have looked at our records for that day, and we find no entry for our vehicle being driven in the UK. We are under no legal requirement in country X to keep any records.
Sorry.
What's the court gong to do?
But Daniel, this particular case was ruled 'in absence' wasn't it? i.e. the accused wasn't in attendance. So how do we know which box he checked?
He may have indicated that he was NOT the driver at the time, and wrote that he did not know who the driver was in the next section.
Isn't this the case?
I wonder how things might go if, for example, you were on holiday, abroad, and a family member borrowed your car and was caught on camera commiting a driving offence?
IIRC, the Registered Keeper of a vehicle is considered responsible by default unless they're willing to implicate somebody else but if the RK could prove they weren't in the country at the time and, thus, might also be unable to say who else was driving at the time it would seem rather unfair to press ahead with a prosecution of the RK, either for the offence OR failing to comply with the S172 notice.
Your family member can't borrow your car if they aren't on on your car insurance. You would have to report a theft.
Borrowing implies the owner is aware of the fact that you are going to use his property, and he agrees to it.
PS: how would they acquire keys to the car?
@@puclopuclik4108 can you refuse to punish your relative for TWOC?
Ivan, this is a common occurrence.
If you allow someone to drive your car and they are not insured then if you don't claim they drove without your permission then you yourself become guilty of the offence of permitting someone to drive without insurance.
@@geordiewishart1683 Whether or not any 3rd-party is legally entitled to drive your car is beside the point.
The point is, if you're out of the country and somebody DID gain access to your car keys (a friend/neighbour/family member, perhaps?) then it's seems reasonable that you you shouldn't be guilty of the offence OR be guilty of failing to complete the S172 notice.
I don't mean to try and pick holes in the system.
I'd just hope that there's some flexibility in the way these laws are applied to account for situations where it is genuinely reasonable to assume the Registered Keepr CANNOT have commited the offence themselves OR be capable of providing the details of the person who did.
@@geordiewishart1683 Uh-oh! So if an elderly person who was no longer interested in driving a vehicle took responsability for a traffic offense that they did not actually commit, they'd have the book thrown at them for neither being insured for that specific vehicle that the offence was commited in, nor having insurance on their own vehicle?
(Assuming they wouldn't get caught and get into trouble for lying)
What would happen if 5 people went to court and each of them said they were driving ?
I'm Spartacus!
@@richards1163 I'm Brian!
When taking a photograph the way I understand the law is that the person who took the photo owns the copyright.
Does this therefore mean that as the speed of the car triggered the photo to be taken the driver owns the coyright as he/she took the photo and can then refuse it to be used as evidence or charge a copyright fee higher than the fine?
Yep, this wasn't a loophole, it was a slip-up. The police made an error in accepting the form and proceeding in the moving traffic offence when they should have proceeded on 172. The case cited isn't the only authority out there for an unsigned form amounting to an offence, I believe it was later resolved affirmatively that is the form requests a signature, that is part of the s172 request and failing to sign it could be an offence.
Incidentally, s172 is for endorsable moving traffic offences, and the case shown was for s112, which was the equivalent process for non-endorsable offences such as parking violations. Most parking violations are now decriminalised and handled by local authorities instead. I suspect 112 is only really used occasionally for parking so as to cause an obstruction, which IIRC wasn't included in decriminalisation.
We have no legal obligation to fill in the form as well. There is no legal cause of action for police, if we do not fill in the form.
@@maximumaxiom6823 You do in fact, have an obligation to the information asked for. The wording of s172 is explicit on that. You technically don't have to complete the form, but realistically to comply you either fill in the form or you write a letter and sign it. The 112 case in the video decided that both ways: the form being signed was a requirement for admission, and therefore it was reasonable for the police to "require" a signature for the purpose.
If you don’t notify them of the driver then you get 6 points for failing to notify.
But that's got nothing to do with the supposed loophole mentioned in the video. It's about not signing the form, not failing to identify the driver.
@@120FilmUser Not signing the form is failing to identify the driver. 🤷♂️
So how did you find the case which was heard in a magistrates court which is not a court of record?
The only time this makes sense is if you were speeding so much that the penalty for not identifying the driver is less than the penalty for your speed
Barmy! It would only, conceivably, be considered a loophole if it was done by a third party, and thus there was no way a defendant could influence it. As it is, if such a thing is allowable that would negate any pretence to legal binding, thus allowing a free-for-all.
What about giving details of different driver from a different country?
Interesting idea (assuming it was genuinely someone from a different country as I wouldn't want to give false evidence 😇). They often have photo evidence nowadays - would the burden be on them to prove that it isn't you even though it may look like you?
I’m not sure where this puts organisations lit the CAB who give advice. And various community law centres. Apart from having supervision by a legally qualified supervision. In this case the submitted documents are not complete so would not be valid. The responsibility falls on the Cecile keeper. But is it possible to be a keeper without a driving licence?
Great video and information
You know when it gets peddled by Vobes it is tital 🐂💩
👍
Question: what legal logic or sense of protecting other road users can a court apply when allowing multiple driving offenses that tot up way more than 12 points? A repeating offender whose livelihood relies on driving is clearly a case of not understanding the danger other people are put in.
It often feels best to take advice from your 5 year old, but in my experience they will just keep coming back and demanding more. Dont give in!
Section 172 says provide the details of driver, which they have done ……a court ruling is not what it says on the form I got one here just it’s a legal requirement to provide drivers details.
I was led to this video from another one talking about the same specific Welsh driver you mention in your video. In the other video it stated that the driver wasn't actually in court, unlike the scenario you give whereby a driver who turns up at court, admits to being the driver then tries to play the 'But I didn't sign it' card could end up getting done. In the case of the Welsh driver, the case was thrown out due to the form being unsigned, but in his/her absence. No loophole was actively tried to be played by the driver.
Also, you state that if it isn't signed you've failed to comply with the Section 172 notice, yet in the other video it said that there's no legal requirement to actually sign it, only to fill the form in naming the driver. I'm not disputing what you say, just showing how it can be confusing for the average man in the street.
What if you ask to see the calibration of device that’s recorded your speed would that help your speeding case ?? Like if it wasn’t timely calibrated????
I had to go to court for a speeding offence on tower bridge. (No fixed penalty was offered). I was 16 miles an hour over the twenty speed limit. I was one of many that day because the speed limit had recently been reduced to twenty from thirty. At the time I was between jobs. so I filled out the forms that required me to give my income. I was found guilty and paid a twenty six pound fine. and got three points. others on the same day for the same offence were recieving two hundred pound fines with three points. did I find a loophole to reduce speeding fines.
I did this years ago but we sent in all our info in the place witness form. I'd correspond with them every 5 weeks. Never went to court and prob got away with it 7 times in 15 years. Doesn't work now I tried
We have no legal obligation to fill in the form. There is no legal cause of action for police, if we do not fill in the form.
Might just bore the Magistrates into giving up. They may have pre-arranged Women's Institute meetings or Bridge games to attend. Anyone for lemon drizzle cake and Earl Gray?
That street video reviewer channel who has had a go at your channel before has allegedly being trying law stuff whilst not being a practising solicitor. Marti blagborough did a video. I call street video reviewer "blackbelt barister from wish"
I assume the form is for their benefit. I had always assumed that your legal obligation, as the registered keeper, is to notify them who the driver was. Presumably, if I ring up my local constabulary and give them the name of the driver, I have discharged that duty.
People were using this loophole 20 odd years ago,nothing new here.
wasnt the loophole closed back then?
never once paid a parking ticket ... not telling you how either :P :D
And that has what exactly to do with a speeding ticket?
@@120FilmUser people avoiding fines?
What if it's a company vehicle? Isn't it just a £1000 fine for the company for failing to identify the driver (i.e. no points, which is the main thing you want to avoid)
They’ll fine the secretary or director or if self employed the owner
@@jaslavene1 No they cannot fine an officer of a Limited Company just the Company which they'll sell to a private debt collector anyway if not paid.
@@jaslavene1 think it's the ltd company itself that gets the fine, but what I'm getting at is that I think the points aren't given to anyone
We are not the owners of any vehicle ,as it clearly states on the V5 you are a registered keeper,and this form is not proof of ownership- the DVLA own your vehicle
That's FOTL nonsense.
In that case, going on your advice, the DVLA should be paying my fuel, maintenance, MOT and annual insurance premium.
@@eskertooif the DVLA dont own your vehicle, and it is truly yours, then it can never be seized and taken by any government body right?
I got a speeding defendant acquitted, twice, each time in a separate county, AFTER putting on defense evidence. And I am assure you that is impossible. Particularly in my case is where the prosecutors both asked the right questions, which is all that is necessary when you’re facing a strict liability offense. In both cases I believe it was politics. Because when the judge looks at you very angrily and says, speaking to the prosecutor, “thank you for doing the prosecutor’s job for him,” well, at that point all you do is sit back, be polite, and wait to cash in your chips. My client thought I was some kind of miracle worker.
You in the USA?
@@andrewgilbertson5356 Yep
What happens when a business pool car is used and it has also been failed to be signed out for use. Being returned but no record of the driver.
There is clear responsibility for this situation as outlined in S172 (5) and S172 (6)
How i choose to use my signature is my business.
Well technically it is a loophole to get out of the speeding charge, like in the example here: "you can steal from a store and then burn the store down, there is no chance they will prove that you stole something".
It's a loophole to get out of shoplifting charge. Right?
Trust my advice, I'm a Attorney General in UK.
Exactly, a bit like the owner of the Ocean Gate submarine found a loophole to get out of being sued by also being imploded
Why Lord Hermer, a pleasure to meet you!
@@randommusic4567 perfect example of a loophole. I will put this one in my Top10 loopholes notebook to use when the time comes.
Care to weigh in on the Terrorism Act (2000), and give us your anslysis as to what power it gives the government, and some examples of what does or does not constitute an arrestable offence under that act?
In most European countries it is quite simple - as the registered keeper, you are the offender unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. No faffing around with pointless forms, just a simple conviction…
That means guilty until proven innocent. That is Napoleonic Law. In UK/US we use our own system where you are innocent until proven guilty.
Can I just register the keepership of my car to Katie Price?