Safe Speed Forums

OK - here's the balance - we lose the opportunity for positive influence if we scare away visitors who have made a mistake (however big or small). I'd say that 'voicing disapproval' is probably OK, and leaves the invitation open.



It's our 'core job' to put reality in the context of policy. More cameras does mean less policing. Less policing does mean more people taking a chance. That doesn't excuse the behaviour, but it is a statistical reality.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Yeah, I see your point. I just wonder where we would be if we didn't have the 'speed camera' policy distractor, i.e. how much unlawful behaviour on the roads is more attributable to other factors within society. I wouldn't like to see our argument undermined through the deployment of specious reasoning thats all.

No license, no insurance AND breaking the speed limit, I'd say that was pretty reckless!

Anyone tell me what the difference is here between this guy and the three guys in the picture on another thread "speed camera actually helping to solve a proper crime shock" ????

That was a stolen car.

In order to tell that our 'friend' here was committing an offence (other than speeding) the camera operators would have to 1) realise that he was only on a provisional licence when the NIP was returned, and 2)crosscheck that information back to the photo to see that no one else was in the car. If as he claims he DID have a passanger, the operator would then have to ID the passanger to check whether or not they met the criteria to supervise. That ain't gonna happen!!

In order for the police to get involved they would need to have a report of the crime being committed before they would be interested in looking at the photo. The difference as Zamzara states is that the escort was already reported stolen. When the NIP appeared, the owner would have been able to inform the police that there was a photograph of his car and the joyrider(s) at the local SCP headquarters.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Ok, my point is - if you were involved in an accident with either of those two examples, neither would have any insurance, mot, etc.

Same outcome for the innocent driver. Loss of NCB, car offroad, lost excess, higher premiums, etc

Why sympathise with him for getting a NIP and offer advise? Arent we all interested in promoting safety on the roads whether that is by responsible road planning, driver education or responsible use of speed??

By advising a driver known not to have a licence, insurance, mot, etc we are condoning his actions.

He shouldnt be driving unless with a responsible fully licenced person sat next to him (and not in the back) who can advise on driving skill, hazard avoidance, speed, road etiqette.

This chap has commited an offence and he will hopefully be held accountable for it. I was tempted to flame him for it at first too, but on reflection I agree with Anton. All is not lost and writing someone off as a major criminal for a first (reasonably minor) offence is not going to help him learn to be a safe and properly qualified driver, which should be our aim.

As for insurance, there are two camps with differing views on what invalidates insurance. 1) says that third party insurance cannot be invalidated by driver action, and 2) says any breach of rules invalidates insurance. I have seen a person taken to court for no insurance because an L-plate fell off. The person pleaded guiilty so this wasn't actually ruled on. I don't know who is right, but I at least think this person deserves a hearing before we accuse him of having no insurance.

I do have an insurance on my name and MOT and Road TAX, the only thing I dont have is a full driving license.

Anyway, I will be sending off the letter noting that I was driving the car and putting my provional license number on there and just see what happens next..
They didnt say how much Im supposed to pay on the letter so Im guessing they have to get back to me on that after they check the details on the letter?

Someone I know with a provisional licence (bike and car) got an NIP for 36 in a 30 on a (legally derestricted) moped. As this is in Lancashire he has been offered a Driver Improvement Course, which in his position could be regarded as a useful bit of extra driver training, at lower than commercial rates

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Hasta, it is good news that you were accompanied, I apologise if my initial attitude offened you but it is a reflection of someone who has suffered personal loss at the hands of a "L" driver who should not have been on the road.

I am troubled however by your comment that you believe you were accompanied "that time". This suggests to me that you have in the past been a habitual user of a car whilst not accompanied. If that is the case, please stop this behaviour now and do your test, which you clearly believe you can pass.

If you are driving a car, you must be accompanied, your insurance is dependent on this, if you should be unfortunate enough to have an accident you will be paying for it for the rest of your life for example a replacement plastic bumper on a Mazda 3 will cost you 1,600 retail if you have the slightest knock DAMHIKIJKOK.

I do wish you all the best with your test.

I still maintain that this forum is not the place to offer advice on how to avoid any form of prosecution, lets save that for those forums who have that as their aim.

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

Gents - THINK( in caps to make a point) --bloke has made a mistke, admitted it and come here for help.
Now we can do either of two things

1) flame him out and say to the world that this site does not talk to those that make mistakes.
2) talk to him, lecture him (gently) and try to get him to become a better trained driver.

if 1) - are we any better than the scams?


Now , - will those in here who have not broken the law when driving please stand up.

Those that are left --none , i would expect, ---you can pass judgement.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

You may well have an insurance certificate in your name relating to a particular vehicle. But it you drive that vehicle illegally, e.g. with no full licence or accompanying licence holder, that certificate isn't worth the paper its printed on. The issuing company will invalidate it; it may as well not exist.

RP -We've all taken Hasta to task -now is the time to reflect on the times that we've broken the law ( SPEEDED PASSING THAT OAP, PERHAPS, HAD A PHONE CALL )

To be called a safety site , we must above all be prepared to stop being like the SCP and start acting like a safety site. No one is above the law - we all make mistakes ( DON'T YOU) --lets help him to be a beter driver.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I am trying to be helpful you silly old dolt
An insurance certificate is meaningless if the conditions under which it is issued are not adhered to, whats wrong with pointing that out?
And Hasta, have a bash at the test soon mate, it'll save you a lot of hassle, and getting that licence is one of the best feelings in the world. Second perhaps to er, (ahem, cough).