....Parking companies got access to ANPR data..?
....Parking companies got access to ANPR data..?
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 11:55:35 +0000, jon wrote:
....Parking companies got access to ANPR data..?
Why not ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 14:06:14 +0000, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 04 Jun 2025 11:55:35 +0000, jon wrote:
....Parking companies got access to ANPR data..?
Why not ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
Just thought it was for the police and special jurisdictions only.
On 4 Jun 2025 at 15:35:43 BST, "jon" <jon@nospam.cn> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I presume the OP meant DVLA data. Anyone can set up their own ANPR
camera and need no outside database to do so. Many car parks have them.
Why not ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:06:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:
Why not ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument>
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free
speech because you have nothing to say."
Edward Snowden
I take it the irony was missed ?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:06:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:
Why not ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument>
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free
speech because you have nothing to say."
Edward Snowden
When it comes to cars, I am broadly on the side of those advocating transparancy. Using a motor vehicle in a public place is a privilege
which needs to be earned, not a right.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:29:07 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
When it comes to cars, I am broadly on the side of those advocating
transparancy. Using a motor vehicle in a public place is a privilege
which needs to be earned, not a right.
And as a result your *choosing* to use one involves a bit of a quid pro
quo around your "rights" such as they are.
Which is why the queasiness around random stops seems a bit odd. By >definition someone using a motor vehicle can be deemed to have accepted
they may be stopped in the furtherance of the social good.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 12:51:16 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Randomly stopping cars on the road raises much the same concern as
random use of "stop and search" on the streets. That is, a reasonable
and valid concern that it may be used to disproportionately target
certain demographics rather than used appropriately to detect and
prevent crime.
On 2025-06-05, s|b wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:06:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:
Why not ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument>
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have
nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free
speech because you have nothing to say."
Edward Snowden
The correct response to politicians who say "nothing to hide" is "Can
we put a camera in your bathroom? Why not? We'll respect your privacy
by encrypting the recordings but the someone will retain a backdoor
key in case you do offend."
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:02:51 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05, s|b wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:06:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:
Why not ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument>
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have >>> nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free
speech because you have nothing to say."
Edward Snowden
The correct response to politicians who say "nothing to hide" is "Can
we put a camera in your bathroom? Why not? We'll respect your privacy
by encrypting the recordings but the someone will retain a backdoor
key in case you do offend."
And the nuanced response to that statement is to raise the question of where we draw the line with respect to reasonable expectations of privacy as opposed to openness and transparancy.
When it comes to cars, I am broadly on the side of those advocating transparancy. Using a motor vehicle in a public place is a privilege which needs to be earned, not a right.
Allowing those whose resources you abuse to
make contact with you for the purpose of seeking recompense (or, if necessary, taking legal action against you) seems to me to be a perfectly valid level of transparency. There do, of course, need to be safeguards to prevent that transparancy being abused (stalkers and other ne'er-do-wells would find driver contact data valuable, too). But the basic principle that the driver or keeper of a car is responsible for the unlawful or prohibited uses of that car is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute.
Mark
On 2025-06-10, Mark Goodge wrote:
When it comes to cars, I am broadly on the side of those advocating
transparancy. Using a motor vehicle in a public place is a privilege which >> needs to be earned, not a right.
I agree totally with that with regard to dangerous or antisocial
driving or any kind of "moving" misbehaviour, but I do not think it is
in the public interest for the DVLA to cooperate in every private
parking situation.
For example, I know of a medical centre (GPs etc.) with an attached
pharmacy and signs on all the doors that say something like "IF YOU
COME HERE WHILE USING THE COSTA CAR PARK, EVEN FOR A MINUTE, THEY WILL
FINE YOU!" The fine print on the car park's signs specify, in
addition to the usual "customers only" and a time limit, that the
driver must not leave the site while the car is parked there, and
apparently they monitor CCTV to sting people for this.
So even if you buy something there, you're expected to move your car
and clog up the nearby residential streets rather than just nip in to
pick up a prescription. It is not in the public interest to make
people move their cars around unnecessarily and annoy the residents,
so IMO the DVLA ought to tell this car park operator where they can
stick their data access.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:29:07 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
When it comes to cars, I am broadly on the side of those advocating
transparancy. Using a motor vehicle in a public place is a privilege
which needs to be earned, not a right.
And as a result your *choosing* to use one involves a bit of a quid pro
quo around your "rights" such as they are.
Which is why the queasiness around random stops seems a bit odd. By definition someone using a motor vehicle can be deemed to have accepted
they may be stopped in the furtherance of the social good.
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:02:51 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-05, s|b wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:06:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:
Why not ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument>
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have >>> nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free
speech because you have nothing to say."
Edward Snowden
The correct response to politicians who say "nothing to hide" is "Can
we put a camera in your bathroom? Why not? We'll respect your privacy
by encrypting the recordings but the someone will retain a backdoor
key in case you do offend."
And the nuanced response to that statement is to raise the question of where we draw the line with respect to reasonable expectations of privacy as opposed to openness and transparancy.
When it comes to cars, I am broadly on the side of those advocating transparancy. Using a motor vehicle in a public place is a privilege which needs to be earned, not a right.
Allowing those whose resources you abuse to
make contact with you for the purpose of seeking recompense (or, if necessary, taking legal action against you) seems to me to be a perfectly valid level of transparency. There do, of course, need to be safeguards to prevent that transparancy being abused (stalkers and other ne'er-do-wells would find driver contact data valuable, too). But the basic principle that the driver or keeper of a car is responsible for the unlawful or prohibited uses of that car is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute.
On 2025-06-10, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 10:02:51 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
On 2025-06-05, s|b wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 14:06:14 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:
Why not ? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument>
"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have >>>> nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free
speech because you have nothing to say."
Edward Snowden
The correct response to politicians who say "nothing to hide" is "Can
we put a camera in your bathroom? Why not? We'll respect your privacy
by encrypting the recordings but the someone will retain a backdoor
key in case you do offend."
(Sorry, I was addressing the general principle; I forgot this thread
was specifically about motor vehicle use.)
And the nuanced response to that statement is to raise the question of where >> we draw the line with respect to reasonable expectations of privacy as
opposed to openness and transparancy.
When it comes to cars, I am broadly on the side of those advocating
transparancy. Using a motor vehicle in a public place is a privilege which >> needs to be earned, not a right.
I agree totally with that with regard to dangerous or antisocial
driving or any kind of "moving" misbehaviour, but I do not think it is
in the public interest for the DVLA to cooperate in every private
parking situation.
For example, I know of a medical centre (GPs etc.) with an attached
pharmacy and signs on all the doors that say something like "IF YOU
COME HERE WHILE USING THE COSTA CAR PARK, EVEN FOR A MINUTE, THEY WILL
FINE YOU!" The fine print on the car park's signs specify, in
addition to the usual "customers only" and a time limit, that the
driver must not leave the site while the car is parked there, and
apparently they monitor CCTV to sting people for this.
So even if you buy something there, you're expected to move your car
and clog up the nearby residential streets rather than just nip in to
pick up a prescription. It is not in the public interest to make
people move their cars around unnecessarily and annoy the residents,
so IMO the DVLA ought to tell this car park operator where they can
stick their data access.
(FTAOD, I never drive there so I have never been a victim of this. I
just think it's unreasonable. If you buy something, you should be able
to wander around in the area for a bit.)
On 10/06/2025 01:51 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Which is why the queasiness around random stops seems a bit odd. By
definition someone using a motor vehicle can be deemed to have accepted
they may be stopped in the furtherance of the social good.
Where is that "definition"?
I don't recall ever having seen it, much less signed or acceded to it.
On 10/06/2025 01:29 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Allowing those whose resources you abuse to
make contact with you for the purpose of seeking recompense (or, if
necessary, taking legal action against you) seems to me to be a perfectly
valid level of transparency. There do, of course, need to be safeguards to >> prevent that transparancy being abused (stalkers and other ne'er-do-wells
would find driver contact data valuable, too). But the basic principle that >> the driver or keeper of a car is responsible for the unlawful or prohibited >> uses of that car is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute.
Only to the extent that he is in a position to do so and cannot be
expected to control that of which he has no knowledge, surely?
Or if I were to commit a speeding offence in a rental car, would the CEO
of the company get a fine and penalty points too?
Based on what you said above, if not, why not?
If I lent you my car, would I be liable for any offences you were to commit?
I can see that I would have to identify you to the police if they asked me.
But if I lent the car to you and three mates, with the insurance
covering all of you, would I be "responsible for the unlawful or
prohibited uses of that car"?
I wouldn't even know which of you had committed any offence, unless you
told me, would I?
....Parking companies got access to ANPR data..?
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:29 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Allowing those whose resources you abuse to
make contact with you for the purpose of seeking recompense (or, if
necessary, taking legal action against you) seems to me to be a perfectly >>> valid level of transparency. There do, of course, need to be safeguards to >>> prevent that transparancy being abused (stalkers and other ne'er-do-wells >>> would find driver contact data valuable, too). But the basic principle that >>> the driver or keeper of a car is responsible for the unlawful or prohibited >>> uses of that car is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute.
Only to the extent that he is in a position to do so and cannot be
expected to control that of which he has no knowledge, surely?
Or if I were to commit a speeding offence in a rental car, would the CEO
of the company get a fine and penalty points too?
The company would be fined if it failed to identify the driver, yes.
Based on what you said above, if not, why not?
If I lent you my car, would I be liable for any offences you were to commit?
Some offences, yes, if you failed to identify me as the driver.
I can see that I would have to identify you to the police if they asked me.
But if I lent the car to you and three mates, with the insurance
covering all of you, would I be "responsible for the unlawful or
prohibited uses of that car"?
Some offences, yes, if you failed to identify the driver.
I wouldn't even know which of you had committed any offence, unless you
told me, would I?
That's a risk you, as the registered keeper of the car, and being fully
aware of the law on keeper liability, would knowingly be taking.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:51 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Which is why the queasiness around random stops seems a bit odd. By
definition someone using a motor vehicle can be deemed to have accepted
they may be stopped in the furtherance of the social good.
Where is that "definition"?
I don't recall ever having seen it, much less signed or acceded to it.
quote:
Road Traffic Act 1988
163 Power of police to stop vehicles.
(1)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the
vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer].
(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do
so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer].
(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.
(4)F4. . . . . . .
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163 . . . . . . .
On 10/06/2025 07:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:51 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Which is why the queasiness around random stops seems a bit odd. By
definition someone using a motor vehicle can be deemed to have accepted >>>> they may be stopped in the furtherance of the social good.
Where is that "definition"?
I don't recall ever having seen it, much less signed or acceded to it.
quote:
Road Traffic Act 1988
163 Power of police to stop vehicles.
(1)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the
vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer].
(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do
so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer].
(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence. >>
(4)F4. . . . . . .
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163 . . . . . . .
Thank you so much for snipping my last sentence or two in which all of that was
covered, though rather more succinctly.
The legality of the situation has to be brought about by legislation for the powers of
a police officer, rather than the owner or driver.
To repeat: The "acceptance" mentioned by the PP does not exist.
On 10/06/2025 08:22 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:29 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Allowing those whose resources you abuse to
make contact with you for the purpose of seeking recompense (or, if
necessary, taking legal action against you) seems to me to be a perfectly >>>> valid level of transparency. There do, of course, need to be safeguards to >>>> prevent that transparancy being abused (stalkers and other ne'er-do-wells >>>> would find driver contact data valuable, too). But the basic principle that
the driver or keeper of a car is responsible for the unlawful or prohibited
uses of that car is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute.
Only to the extent that he is in a position to do so and cannot be
expected to control that of which he has no knowledge, surely?
No response.
Or if I were to commit a speeding offence in a rental car, would the CEO >>> of the company get a fine and penalty points too?
The company would be fined if it failed to identify the driver, yes.
That's not what I asked, is it?
Based on what you said above, if not, why not?
If I lent you my car, would I be liable for any offences you were to commit?
Some offences, yes, if you failed to identify me as the driver.
I'd already covered that (below), but you inserted that inappropriately.
But again...
"Some offences"? :-)
Dangerous driving?
CDBDD?
Really?
Or just parking and similar?
I can see that I would have to identify you to the police if they asked me.
See? That had been covered.
But if I lent the car to you and three mates, with the insurance
covering all of you, would I be "responsible for the unlawful or
prohibited uses of that car"?
Some offences, yes, if you failed to identify the driver.
Oh, please... that's been dealt with.
And because...
I wouldn't even know which of you had committed any offence, unless you
told me, would I?
That's a risk you, as the registered keeper of the car, and being fully
aware of the law on keeper liability, would knowingly be taking.
What risk?
Risk is covered by insurance.
If more than one person might legitimately be the driver, am I obliged
to ask the borrower to keep a schedule of who drives and when? Is it an >offence on my part not to know that they changed drivers at Hilton Park >Services?
If so, why and how?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 14:39:23 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-10, Mark Goodge wrote:
When it comes to cars, I am broadly on the side of those advocating
transparancy. Using a motor vehicle in a public place is a privilege which >>> needs to be earned, not a right.
I agree totally with that with regard to dangerous or antisocial
driving or any kind of "moving" misbehaviour, but I do not think it is
in the public interest for the DVLA to cooperate in every private
parking situation.
The DVLA doesn't automatically cooperate in *every* private parking situation. Members of recognised trade associations are granted general access (which may be withdrawn if abused), but in all other cases it's up to the data requestor to provide sufficient justification.
For example, I know of a medical centre (GPs etc.) with an attached >>pharmacy and signs on all the doors that say something like "IF YOU
COME HERE WHILE USING THE COSTA CAR PARK, EVEN FOR A MINUTE, THEY WILL
FINE YOU!" The fine print on the car park's signs specify, in
addition to the usual "customers only" and a time limit, that the
driver must not leave the site while the car is parked there, and >>apparently they monitor CCTV to sting people for this.
Given that that's not the norm for customer parking (most places with timed customer-only parking are generally happy for people to use it up to the
time limit, even if not all that time is spent on the premises), I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that they've made that decision as a result of a shortage of available parking.
So even if you buy something there, you're expected to move your car
and clog up the nearby residential streets rather than just nip in to
pick up a prescription. It is not in the public interest to make
people move their cars around unnecessarily and annoy the residents,
so IMO the DVLA ought to tell this car park operator where they can
stick their data access.
Doesn't the medical centre have a car park?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:06:13 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 08:22 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
That's a risk you, as the registered keeper of the car, and being fully
aware of the law on keeper liability, would knowingly be taking.
What risk?
The risk is that the RK could be prosecuted as a consequence of actions by a user of their vehicle if they are unable to identify the user. If they are unable to identify the user, and are not willing to accept that risk, then they should not permit that use.
Risk is covered by insurance.
You can't insure against being prosecuted.
Mark Goodge wrote:
Risk is covered by insurance.
You can't insure against being prosecuted.
Because no-one wants to offer such insurance, or is it actually
illegal to offer it?
On 10/06/2025 01:29 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But once it has *been* "earned", and as long as the ongoing vehicular requirements of roadworthiness, insurance, etc and the sobriety and capabilities of the driver are met, it is a right.
On 10/06/2025 07:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:51 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Which is why the queasiness around random stops seems a bit odd. By
definition someone using a motor vehicle can be deemed to have
accepted they may be stopped in the furtherance of the social good.
Where is that "definition"?
I don't recall ever having seen it, much less signed or acceded to it.
quote:
Road Traffic Act 1988
163 Power of police to stop vehicles.
(1)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must
stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform
[F2or a traffic officer].
(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being
required to do so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer].
(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an
offence.
(4)F4. . . . . . .
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163 . . . . . . .
Thank you so much for snipping my last sentence or two in which all of
that was covered, though rather more succinctly.
To repeat: The "acceptance" mentioned by the PP does not exist. The
whole scenario comes about from the powers of the police, and not from anything to which the driver has acceded or which he has signed.
Adam Funk wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Risk is covered by insurance.
You can't insure against being prosecuted.
Because no-one wants to offer such insurance, or is it actually illegal
to offer it?
Policies which funded a chauffeur in the event of losing your licence
used to be offered in the late '80s ...
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mars9kFqrhjU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/06/2025 07:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:51 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Which is why the queasiness around random stops seems a bit odd. By
definition someone using a motor vehicle can be deemed to have accepted >>>>> they may be stopped in the furtherance of the social good.
Where is that "definition"?
I don't recall ever having seen it, much less signed or acceded to it.
quote:
Road Traffic Act 1988
163 Power of police to stop vehicles.
(1)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the
vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer].
(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do
so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer].
(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.
(4)F4. . . . . . .
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163 . . . . . . .
Thank you so much for snipping my last sentence or two in which all of that was
covered, though rather more succinctly.
This sentence ?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:maqu0cFlvl4U2@mid.individual.net...
The legality of the situation has to be brought about by legislation for the powers of
a police officer, rather than the owner or driver.
So what exactly is Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act of 1988,
if not legislation for [regarding] the powers of a police officer /
To repeat: The "acceptance" mentioned by the PP does not exist.
So the PP, just like everyone else it would seem, never has, does
not now, and never will "accept" that the Laws of the Land actually
apply to them ? More especially in this case section 163 of the Road
Traffic Act of 1988.
Plod: You just failed to stop Sir when asked to by the uniformed PC
here. You are guilty of an offence.
Nugent: Oh no I'm not officer. That law only applies to "you". "I" don't accept that I had to stop at all !
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:06:13 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 08:22 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:29 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
Allowing those whose resources you abuse to
make contact with you for the purpose of seeking recompense (or, if
necessary, taking legal action against you) seems to me to be a perfectly >>>>> valid level of transparency. There do, of course, need to be safeguards to
prevent that transparancy being abused (stalkers and other ne'er-do-wells >>>>> would find driver contact data valuable, too). But the basic principle that
the driver or keeper of a car is responsible for the unlawful or prohibited
uses of that car is, I think, beyond reasonable dispute.
Only to the extent that he is in a position to do so and cannot be
expected to control that of which he has no knowledge, surely?
No response.
Sorry, I missed that one. Yes, the basic principle is that the registered keeper of a vehicle is expected to be aware of, and control, its use. That
is a key part of the responsibility of being a registered keeper. Obviously, this does not extend to unauthorised use (eg, theft or TWOCcing), but the RK is responsible for any and all authorised use. If the RK does not know the identity of a user, or have a mechanism in place to identify the user should there be any issue, then the RK should not permit that use.
Or if I were to commit a speeding offence in a rental car, would the CEO >>>> of the company get a fine and penalty points too?
The company would be fined if it failed to identify the driver, yes.
That's not what I asked, is it?
It's an answer to the question. The CEO wouldn't be personally responsible, because the company is a legal person in its own right. But the company
would be responsible.
Based on what you said above, if not, why not?
If I lent you my car, would I be liable for any offences you were to commit?
Some offences, yes, if you failed to identify me as the driver.
I'd already covered that (below), but you inserted that inappropriately.
But again...
"Some offences"? :-)
Dangerous driving?
CDBDD?
Really?
Or just parking and similar?
I don't have a full list handy. I expect it's online somewhere.
I can see that I would have to identify you to the police if they asked me.
See? That had been covered.
But if I lent the car to you and three mates, with the insurance
covering all of you, would I be "responsible for the unlawful or
prohibited uses of that car"?
Some offences, yes, if you failed to identify the driver.
Oh, please... that's been dealt with.
And because...
I wouldn't even know which of you had committed any offence, unless you >>>> told me, would I?
That's a risk you, as the registered keeper of the car, and being fully
aware of the law on keeper liability, would knowingly be taking.
What risk?
The risk is that the RK could be prosecuted as a consequence of actions by a user of their vehicle if they are unable to identify the user. If they are unable to identify the user, and are not willing to accept that risk, then they should not permit that use.
Risk is covered by insurance.
You can't insure against being prosecuted.
If more than one person might legitimately be the driver, am I obliged
to ask the borrower to keep a schedule of who drives and when? Is it an
offence on my part not to know that they changed drivers at Hilton Park
Services?
If so, why and how?
If one of the drivers commits an offence to which keeper liability applies, then the keeper will be expected to identify the driver at that point in time. How they do that is up to them.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:09:40 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2025 07:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:51 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
Which is why the queasiness around random stops seems a bit odd. By
definition someone using a motor vehicle can be deemed to have
accepted they may be stopped in the furtherance of the social good.
Where is that "definition"?
I don't recall ever having seen it, much less signed or acceded to it.
quote:
Road Traffic Act 1988
163 Power of police to stop vehicles.
(1)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must
stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform
[F2or a traffic officer].
(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being
required to do so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer].
(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an
offence.
(4)F4. . . . . . .
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163 . . . . . . .
Thank you so much for snipping my last sentence or two in which all of
that was covered, though rather more succinctly.
To repeat: The "acceptance" mentioned by the PP does not exist. The
whole scenario comes about from the powers of the police, and not from
anything to which the driver has acceded or which he has signed.
You "accept" the situation by living in the jurisdiction. If you are
unhappy with the way things work the you are (of course) free to leave.
Or are you advancing a Freeman of the Land approach to your dealings with
the state ?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 15:30:56 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:29 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
But once it has *been* "earned", and as long as the ongoing vehicular
requirements of roadworthiness, insurance, etc and the sobriety and
capabilities of the driver are met, it is a right.
All rights are qualified. And this right is qualified by the powers given
to the state to oversee their use and abuse.
Try driving through a police roadblock telling them it's your right. I'm
sure they wouldn't shoot you when you tell them.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:22:49 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Risk is covered by insurance.
You can't insure against being prosecuted.
Because no-one wants to offer such insurance, or is it actually illegal
to offer it?
Policies which funded a chauffeur in the event of losing your licence
used to be offered in the late '80s ...
I can't see how they would be economically viable.
On 11/06/2025 12:59 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:22:49 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Risk is covered by insurance.
You can't insure against being prosecuted.
Because no-one wants to offer such insurance, or is it actually
illegal to offer it?
Policies which funded a chauffeur in the event of losing your licence
used to be offered in the late '80s ...
I can't see how they would be economically viable.
Only a very wealthy person could afford it.
On 2025-06-10, Mark Goodge wrote:
Given that that's not the norm for customer parking (most places with timed >> customer-only parking are generally happy for people to use it up to the
time limit, even if not all that time is spent on the premises), I don't
think it's unreasonable to presume that they've made that decision as a
result of a shortage of available parking.
IMO it's unreasonable people to read all the crap on parking signs and
the conditions for free customer parking should be limited by statute >(customers only, park in the lines, blue badge required for the
disabled spaces) and the only permitted variation should be the time
limit.
So even if you buy something there, you're expected to move your car
and clog up the nearby residential streets rather than just nip in to >>>pick up a prescription. It is not in the public interest to make
people move their cars around unnecessarily and annoy the residents,
so IMO the DVLA ought to tell this car park operator where they can
stick their data access.
Doesn't the medical centre have a car park?
"Staff and Disabled Parking Only"
On 11/06/2025 10:44 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:06:13 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
If more than one person might legitimately be the driver, am I obliged
to ask the borrower to keep a schedule of who drives and when? Is it an
offence on my part not to know that they changed drivers at Hilton Park
Services?
If so, why and how?
If one of the drivers commits an offence to which keeper liability applies, >> then the keeper will be expected to identify the driver at that point in
time. How they do that is up to them.
Ridiculous.
Case:
A vehicle is rented out by Hertz at the airport.
The hiring names several drivers authorised to drive the vehicle. Let's
say two of them.
How on earth can Hertz know which driver is or was driving, if at all,
at any particular moment during the hiring?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:54:32 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-10, Mark Goodge wrote:
Given that that's not the norm for customer parking (most places with timed >>> customer-only parking are generally happy for people to use it up to the >>> time limit, even if not all that time is spent on the premises), I don't >>> think it's unreasonable to presume that they've made that decision as a
result of a shortage of available parking.
IMO it's unreasonable people to read all the crap on parking signs and
the conditions for free customer parking should be limited by statute
(customers only, park in the lines, blue badge required for the
disabled spaces) and the only permitted variation should be the time
limit.
Costa's policy would comply with that, though. They're simply being picky about "customers only", by restricting use to as long as you are a customer and not after you cease to be a customer.
On 11/06/2025 09:02 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mars9kFqrhjU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/06/2025 07:58 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 10/06/2025 01:51 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:quote:
Which is why the queasiness around random stops seems a bit odd. By >>>>>> definition someone using a motor vehicle can be deemed to have accepted >>>>>> they may be stopped in the furtherance of the social good.
Where is that "definition"?
I don't recall ever having seen it, much less signed or acceded to it. >>>>
Road Traffic Act 1988
163 Power of police to stop vehicles.
(1)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the
vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic
officer].
(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do
so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer].
(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.
(4)F4. . . . . . .
:unquote
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/163 . . . . . . .
Thank you so much for snipping my last sentence or two in which all of that was
covered, though rather more succinctly.
This sentence ?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:maqu0cFlvl4U2@mid.individual.net...
The legality of the situation has to be brought about by legislation for the powers
of
a police officer, rather than the owner or driver.
So what exactly is Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act of 1988,
if not legislation for [regarding] the powers of a police officer /
You brought it up.
You do the research.
Nonsense.
To repeat: The "acceptance" mentioned by the PP does not exist.
So the PP, just like everyone else it would seem, never has, does
not now, and never will "accept" that the Laws of the Land actually
apply to them ? More especially in this case section 163 of the Road
Traffic Act of 1988.
It is simply that one's onbligation to stop the vehicle when required to
do so by a uniformed police officer does not arise out of any undertaking made by a driver when > acquiring his licence.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:28:27 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2025 12:59 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:22:49 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Risk is covered by insurance.
You can't insure against being prosecuted.
Because no-one wants to offer such insurance, or is it actually
illegal to offer it?
Policies which funded a chauffeur in the event of losing your licence
used to be offered in the late '80s ...
I can't see how they would be economically viable.
Only a very wealthy person could afford it.
So why don't they just hire a chauffer anyway ?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:09:35 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/06/2025 10:44 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 00:06:13 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
If more than one person might legitimately be the driver, am I obliged >>>> to ask the borrower to keep a schedule of who drives and when? Is it an >>>> offence on my part not to know that they changed drivers at Hilton Park >>>> Services?
If so, why and how?
If one of the drivers commits an offence to which keeper liability applies, >>> then the keeper will be expected to identify the driver at that point in >>> time. How they do that is up to them.
Ridiculous.
Case:
A vehicle is rented out by Hertz at the airport.
The hiring names several drivers authorised to drive the vehicle. Let's
say two of them.
How on earth can Hertz know which driver is or was driving, if at all,
at any particular moment during the hiring?
Hertz doesn't need to, because Hertz will have a contract with the hirer allowing Hertz to charge the hirer the cost of any fines incurred during the time that the hirer is in possession of the car.
And, irrespective of the
number of drivers, the contract will be with a single, named person (either legal or natural) who accepts responsibility for the vehicle during the rental period, including any obligation to identify the driver to law enforcement if necessary.
On 11/06/2025 18:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:54:32 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
IMO it's unreasonable people to read all the crap on parking signs and
the conditions for free customer parking should be limited by statute
(customers only, park in the lines, blue badge required for the
disabled spaces) and the only permitted variation should be the time
limit.
Costa's policy would comply with that, though. They're simply being picky
about "customers only", by restricting use to as long as you are a customer >> and not after you cease to be a customer.
That raises more questions than answers.
At what point do you cease to be 'a customer'?
When they hand over the coffee (or whatever) and you hand over payment?
Your transaction is complete at that point.
On 11/06/2025 06:27 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
And, irrespective of the
number of drivers, the contract will be with a single, named person (either >> legal or natural) who accepts responsibility for the vehicle during the
rental period, including any obligation to identify the driver to law
enforcement if necessary.
And who knows, they *might* know the answer to that.
But the provider of the rental car, as with the owner of a loaned car,
cannot know it.
He is as reliant on what the occupants say as anyone else would be.
Isn't he?
Adam Funk wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Risk is covered by insurance.
You can't insure against being prosecuted.
Because no-one wants to offer such insurance, or is it actually
illegal to offer it?
Policies which funded a chauffeur in the event of losing your licence used
to be offered in the late '80s ...
Was that the St. Christopher's Association?
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 22:44:54 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/06/2025 06:27 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
And, irrespective of the
number of drivers, the contract will be with a single, named person (either >>> legal or natural) who accepts responsibility for the vehicle during the
rental period, including any obligation to identify the driver to law
enforcement if necessary.
And who knows, they *might* know the answer to that.
But the provider of the rental car, as with the owner of a loaned car,
cannot know it.
He is as reliant on what the occupants say as anyone else would be.
Isn't he?
The difference is that the provider of a rental vehicle has a contract with the customer which explicitly makes the customer responsible for any and all legal transgressions committed by a driver of the vehicle during the rental period. The owner of a loaned car does not.
Therefore, the owner of a loaned car retains a risk which the provider of a rental car does not.
How the owner of a loaned car mitigates that risk is up to them. The law
does not specify how they must do so.
On 12/06/2025 09:57 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
How the owner of a loaned car mitigates that risk is up to them. The law
does not specify how they must do so.
Actually, the method of elimination* (not mitigation) of that "risk" is >provided for in law: provide the police with the name(s) as mentioned above.
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to be
in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access except via
the vehicle's occupants. Are we still on Planet Earth here?
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 12:35:40 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 09:57 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
How the owner of a loaned car mitigates that risk is up to them. The law >>> does not specify how they must do so.
Actually, the method of elimination* (not mitigation) of that "risk" is
provided for in law: provide the police with the name(s) as mentioned above.
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to be
in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access except via
the vehicle's occupants. Are we still on Planet Earth here?
He can ask the vehicle's occupants. That's the most obvious way of knowing.
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to be
in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access except via
the vehicle's occupants.
Are we still on Planet Earth here?
That is about as straightforward as it could be and no legislation can magically make anybody aware of what happens/happened in a vehicle
which is miles away.
[* Obviously, the vehicle has to have been roadworthy when loaned, as well as being
Road Taxed and insured for the driver or drivers using it.]
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to be
in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access except via
the vehicle's occupants.
Are we still on Planet Earth here?
So if the vehicle is caught speeding, the police won't issue a
summons detailing the precise time and location of the offence ?
If the vehicle is involved in an accident there cannot possibly
be any witnesses ?
While in both cases, there clearly might be an incentive for "the
occupants" to attempt to lie through their teeth.
But apart from that...
That is about as straightforward as it could be and no legislation can
magically make anybody aware of what happens/happened in a vehicle
which is miles away.
At least except if the vehicle is involved in an accident of some kind
or the occupant commits an offence.
But then what owner would need to know about those ?
[* Obviously, the vehicle has to have been roadworthy when loaned, as well as being
Road Taxed and insured for the driver or drivers using it.]
Obviously
On 12/06/2025 02:59 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 12:35:40 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 09:57 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
How the owner of a loaned car mitigates that risk is up to them. The law >>>> does not specify how they must do so.
Actually, the method of elimination* (not mitigation) of that "risk" is
provided for in law: provide the police with the name(s) as mentioned above.
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to be >>> in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access except via >>> the vehicle's occupants. Are we still on Planet Earth here?
He can ask the vehicle's occupants. That's the most obvious way of knowing.
Gerraway!
I wonder why I didn't point that out more than ten times previously?
And I wonder why you ignored exactly that point made in the post to
which you are responding? It's still there above. :-)
But... but... that's not even the end of it... the *police* can do the
same thing - ask the vehicle's occupants - and with rather more authority.
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 15:37:11 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 02:59 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2025 12:35:40 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 12/06/2025 09:57 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
How the owner of a loaned car mitigates that risk is up to them. The >>>>> law does not specify how they must do so.
Actually, the method of elimination* (not mitigation) of that "risk"
is provided for in law: provide the police with the name(s) as
mentioned above.
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to
be in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access
except via the vehicle's occupants. Are we still on Planet Earth
here?
He can ask the vehicle's occupants. That's the most obvious way of
knowing.
Gerraway!
I wonder why I didn't point that out more than ten times previously?
And I wonder why you ignored exactly that point made in the post to
which you are responding? It's still there above. :-)
But... but... that's not even the end of it... the *police* can do the
same thing - ask the vehicle's occupants - and with rather more
authority.
The police can't ask the occupants if all the police have is a speed
camera image. That's where the keeper comes in.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
How the owner of a loaned car mitigates that risk is up to them. The law >>>>> does not specify how they must do so.
Actually, the method of elimination* (not mitigation) of that "risk" is >>>> provided for in law: provide the police with the name(s) as mentioned above.
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to be >>>> in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access except via >>>> the vehicle's occupants. Are we still on Planet Earth here?
He can ask the vehicle's occupants. That's the most obvious way of knowing.
Gerraway!
I wonder why I didn't point that out more than ten times previously?
And I wonder why you ignored exactly that point made in the post to
which you are responding? It's still there above. :-)
But... but... that's not even the end of it... the *police* can do the
same thing - ask the vehicle's occupants - and with rather more authority.
The police can't ask the occupants if all the police have is a speed camera image. That's where the keeper comes in.
Insisting that he is "responsible" for the actions of a third party who
may be a hundred miles away at the time of an incident is ... well ...
you tell *me* what it is. It certainly isn't correct.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:28:27 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2025 12:59 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:22:49 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Risk is covered by insurance.
You can't insure against being prosecuted.
Because no-one wants to offer such insurance, or is it actually
illegal to offer it?
Policies which funded a chauffeur in the event of losing your licence
used to be offered in the late '80s ...
I can't see how they would be economically viable.
Only a very wealthy person could afford it.
So why don't they just hire a chauffer anyway ?
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:56:48 +0100, JNugent wrote:
Insisting that he is "responsible" for the actions of a third party who
may be a hundred miles away at the time of an incident is ... well ...
you tell *me* what it is. It certainly isn't correct.
There is no reason for the law to intersect with reality. That's why some laws are simply bald definitions.
In the absence of being able to reliably provide the identity of someone committing an offence driving a vehicle, the registered keeper is "by definition" liable. A state of affairs that if passed before a court
could lead to a penalty.
Once again, it's hard to avoid the feeling there is a FMotL line of
debate being advanced.
Insisting that he is "responsible" for the actions of a third party who may be a
hundred miles away at the time of an incident is ... well ... you tell *me* what it is.
It certainly isn't correct.
Is it?
On 12/06/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to be >>> in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access except via >>> the vehicle's occupants.
Are we still on Planet Earth here?
So if the vehicle is caught speeding, the police won't issue a
summons detailing the precise time and location of the offence ?
Not immediately, no. That's because they do not have a name to whom such a document
needs to be addressed.
They write to the registered keeper and ask for details of the driver at the moment the
offence is alleged to have been committed.
If the vehicle is involved in an accident there cannot possibly
be any witnesses ?
Very possibly. But unless the driver stops and waits for the police, there are all
sorts of ramifications to that, which might need to start with communication with th
registered keeper 9and see above) for why).
While in both cases, there clearly might be an incentive for "the
occupants" to attempt to lie through their teeth.
But apart from that...
That isn't an issue.
That is about as straightforward as it could be and no legislation can
magically make anybody aware of what happens/happened in a vehicle
which is miles away.
At least except if the vehicle is involved in an accident of some kind
or the occupant commits an offence.
Not even then. Not without some sort of telepathic powers.
The only way a rental company or a private owner can know about those things is if he
is told, post-hoc, by the driver or other occupant.
On 2025-06-11, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 16:28:27 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 11/06/2025 12:59 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jun 2025 11:22:49 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
Risk is covered by insurance.
You can't insure against being prosecuted.
Because no-one wants to offer such insurance, or is it actually
illegal to offer it?
Policies which funded a chauffeur in the event of losing your
licence used to be offered in the late '80s ...
I can't see how they would be economically viable.
Only a very wealthy person could afford it.
So why don't they just hire a chauffer anyway ?
That's what I was thinking.
Insurance works on the principle that even though you're insured for X,
you still really don't want X to happen. Why wouldn't you rather be chauffeured than have to waste time driving yourself?
Totally apropos of nothing, how will the soon to be deployed driverless
taxis be policed ? Of is part of their usage an acceptance by the state
that "they don't make mistakes" ?
Obviously the logical thing to do is to make the operator liable and let
them fight it out with the manufacturer. But what would the penalty be ?
Taxi XY 71 ABC has to spend a day in the garage ?
On 13/06/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
The police can't ask the occupants if all the police have is a speed camera >> image. That's where the keeper comes in.
But all the rental company - or keeper (owner) of the vehicle can tell
the police is the name(s) of the person(s) having charge of the vehicle
at the relevant time. He has no more information.
He cannot, by any stretch of the wildest imagination, tell the police
that this or that person was actually driving (because he cannot know
what happened once the vehicle left his possession) and still less can
he answer questions about the behaviour of the personwho was driving >because... he (the owner) wasn't there.
Insisting that he is "responsible" for the actions of a third party who
may be a hundred miles away at the time of an incident is ... well ...
you tell *me* what it is. It certainly isn't correct.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to be >>>> in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access except via >>>> the vehicle's occupants.
Are we still on Planet Earth here?
So if the vehicle is caught speeding, the police won't issue a
summons detailing the precise time and location of the offence ?
Not immediately, no. That's because they do not have a name to whom such a document
needs to be addressed.
They write to the registered keeper and ask for details of the driver at the moment the
offence is alleged to have been committed.
If the vehicle is involved in an accident there cannot possibly
be any witnesses ?
Very possibly. But unless the driver stops and waits for the police, there are all
sorts of ramifications to that, which might need to start with communication with th
registered keeper (and see above) for why).
While in both cases, there clearly might be an incentive for "the
occupants" to attempt to lie through their teeth.
But apart from that...
That isn't an issue.
It most certainly would be, if as you're claiming above, the hirer's
only source of information was the occupants of the car.
In that case, there is nothing prevent them from lying in order
to deflect any blame away from themselves and deny any liability.
That is about as straightforward as it could be and no legislation can >>>> magically make anybody aware of what happens/happened in a vehicle
which is miles away.
At least except if the vehicle is involved in an accident of some kind
or the occupant commits an offence.
Not even then. Not without some sort of telepathic powers.
The only way a rental company or a private owner can know about those things is if he
is told, post-hoc, by the driver or other occupant.
Except that you just admitted above, that
" They write to the registered keeper and ask for details of the driver at the moment the offence is alleged to have been committed.
While the driver/occupant might not even be aware that an offence had
been committed; certainly in the case of speeding on totally unfamiliar roads.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Insisting that he is "responsible" for the actions of a third party who may be a
hundred miles away at the time of an incident is ... well ... you tell *me* what it is.
It certainly isn't correct.
Is it?
How is the hirer's "respnsibility" any different to that of insurance companies who indemnify drivers "driving hundreds of miles away" based
solely on information provided by those drivers ?
Why is the hirer any different ?
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 10:56:48 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/06/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
The police can't ask the occupants if all the police have is a speed camera >>> image. That's where the keeper comes in.
But all the rental company - or keeper (owner) of the vehicle can tell
the police is the name(s) of the person(s) having charge of the vehicle
at the relevant time. He has no more information.
But he can ask them. And the law requires him to ask. If the keeper is asked by the police to identify the driver of his vehicle, he is expected to carry out "reasonable diligence" to ascertain the identity of the driver.
If he asks, and the people in the car refuse to tell him, that may be a defence to the charge of failing to identify the driver. But he does have to make an effort to find out. Specifically:
(2) Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to
which this section applies—
(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the
identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf
of a chief officer of police
(3) Subject to the following provisions, a person who fails to comply with
a requirement under subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an
offence.
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a)
of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not
with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the
vehicle was.
Road Traffic Act 1988 section 172 (some tangential clauses omitted).
Paragraph 4 is the defence to a charge of failing to identify the driver.
But there are two key points to note here. The first is that the burden of proof is on the keeper to show that he did not know. The second is that he also has to show that, even with reasonable diligence, he could not find
out. Asking the people he lent the car to would fall within the definition
of "reasonable diligence".
He cannot, by any stretch of the wildest imagination, tell the police
that this or that person was actually driving (because he cannot know
what happened once the vehicle left his possession) and still less can
he answer questions about the behaviour of the personwho was driving
because... he (the owner) wasn't there.
He can't know without doing some investigation, no. But he has to do some investigation.
Here's a quote from a firm of solicitors[1] who specialise in defending people accused of motoring offences:
The most common defence for individuals is that they exercised reasonable
diligence in trying to identify the driver but were unable to do so. For
this defence to succeed, the registered keeper must demonstrate that they
made every reasonable effort to determine who was driving the vehicle at
the time of the alleged offence. This might include:
* Checking diaries, work schedules, or other records,
* Asking other potential drivers of the vehicle,
* Looking for evidence such as CCTV or mobile phone records.
If it can be shown that, despite taking reasonable steps, it was
impossible to identify the driver, the court may accept this as a valid
defence.
This is obviously the opinion of a lawyer rather than a quote from the law, but it's from a firm which is experienced in this field. Note that they,
too, state that asking the occupants of the vehicle would be reasonable diligence. And note, too, that they say it needs to be "impossible" (not merely difficult) to identify the driver. And, finally, note that, in their experience, all it means is that a court "may" accept this as a defence. There's no guarantee that you'll get off if the court thinks you haven't tried hard enough to identify the driver.
Insisting that he is "responsible" for the actions of a third party who
may be a hundred miles away at the time of an incident is ... well ...
you tell *me* what it is. It certainly isn't correct.
It's the law. That's what it is.
[1] https://tinyurl.com/4vzze43s as shortened from https://www.allenhoole.co.uk/services/road-traffic-offences/failing-to-provide-driver-details-under-section-172-of-the-road-traffic-act-1988-the-law-and-available-defences/
Mark
Making the operator liable is the most likely outcome. It's most likely
that the penalty will be purely financial. For serious offences, where a human driver would be at risk of imprisonment, a principle similar to
that applied to corporate manslaughter where the fine is based on
turnover would be a logical solution.
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 22:40:18 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
Making the operator liable is the most likely outcome. It's most likely
that the penalty will be purely financial. For serious offences, where a
human driver would be at risk of imprisonment, a principle similar to
that applied to corporate manslaughter where the fine is based on
turnover would be a logical solution.
And ensuring that the operator is *directly* liable too. I wouldn't want
to see a situation where the family of Joe Bloggs, having lost him to an autonomous car are told by the operators "FlyByNight rentals" that they
have to take it up with SchenzhuTan Corp in Bejing. Aping the corporate
SOP of Currys (among others) which no one has seen fit to sort out.
The alternative is a Thalidomide style of fund, where there is a payout irrespective of negligence. But that doesn't cover the criminal side
that would be a far higher bar to proving guilt.
After all, how many people did gaol time for the Toyota Unintended Acceleration debacle.
Totally apropos of nothing, how will the soon to be deployed driverless taxis be policed ? Of is part of their usage an acceptance by the state
that "they don't make mistakes" ?
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:14:06 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
The alternative is a Thalidomide style of fund, where there is a
payout irrespective of negligence. But that doesn't cover the
criminal side that would be a far higher bar to proving guilt.
Is a machine capable of a crime ? (I imagine a lot of people will
assume my sensation that eventually the "
After all, how many people did gaol time for the Toyota Unintended Acceleration debacle.
Wasn't that eventually determined by the US DoD to be "pedal
misapplication" ?
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:51:04 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:14:06 +0100, Fredxx wrote:I believe so. But why did it happen on so many of the same model of car?
The alternative is a Thalidomide style of fund, where there is a
payout irrespective of negligence. But that doesn't cover the
criminal side that would be a far higher bar to proving guilt.
Is a machine capable of a crime ? (I imagine a lot of people will
assume my sensation that eventually the "
After all, how many people did gaol time for the Toyota Unintended
Acceleration debacle.
Wasn't that eventually determined by the US DoD to be "pedal
misapplication" ?
It suggests a design flaw, at the very least.
On 13/06/2025 10:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
Totally apropos of nothing, how will the soon to be deployed
driverless taxis be policed ? Of is part of their usage an acceptance
by the state that "they don't make mistakes" ?
The operators will want to get rid of those pesky pedestrians for a
start.
Our Right to Jaywalk will go (as it's not allowed in the US); then our
right to cross against a red pedestrian light (banned in some
countries). Then pavements will be fenced in, with electronic barriers
at crossings.
The they'll start on the cyclists. "They came for the pedestrians, but I
did nothing as I ride a bike..."
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:14:06 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
The alternative is a Thalidomide style of fund, where there is a payout
irrespective of negligence. But that doesn't cover the criminal side
that would be a far higher bar to proving guilt.
Is a machine capable of a crime ? (I imagine a lot of people will assume
my sensation that eventually the "
After all, how many people did gaol time for the Toyota Unintended
Acceleration debacle.
Wasn't that eventually determined by the US DoD to be "pedal
misapplication" ?
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:51:04 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:14:06 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
The alternative is a Thalidomide style of fund, where there is a
payout irrespective of negligence. But that doesn't cover the
criminal side that would be a far higher bar to proving guilt.
Is a machine capable of a crime ? (I imagine a lot of people will
assume my sensation that eventually the "
After all, how many people did gaol time for the Toyota Unintended
Acceleration debacle.
Wasn't that eventually determined by the US DoD to be "pedal
misapplication" ?
I believe so. But why did it happen on so many of the same model of
car? It suggests a design flaw, at the very least.
On 13/06/2025 01:04 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Insisting that he is "responsible" for the actions of a third party who may be a
hundred miles away at the time of an incident is ... well ... you tell *me* what it
is.
It certainly isn't correct.
Is it?
How is the hirer's "respnsibility" any different to that of insurance
companies who indemnify drivers "driving hundreds of miles away" based
solely on information provided by those drivers ?
Eh?
The owner of a loaned-out car has not entered into a binding contract to compensate
innocent third parties for losses or injury.
The insurance company *has*.
Why is the hirer any different ?
Different from what?
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 16:58:24 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 13/06/2025 10:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Totally apropos of nothing, how will the soon to be deployed
> driverless taxis be policed ? Of is part of their usage an acceptance
> by the state that "they don't make mistakes" ?
The operators will want to get rid of those pesky pedestrians for a
start.
I've already stated that you'll need to ensure the environment is curated.
Our Right to Jaywalk will go (as it's not allowed in the US); then our
right to cross against a red pedestrian light (banned in some
countries). Then pavements will be fenced in, with electronic barriers
at crossings.
Can you "jaywalk" on a railway line ?
Or indeed in front of a tram ?
The they'll start on the cyclists. "They came for the pedestrians, but I
did nothing as I ride a bike..."
One thing that will need to be remembered is autonomous cars will be able
to provide 360-degree motion camera footage of all and any incidents when
in operation. I am guessing these will be very useful in any dispute.
On 13/06/2025 11:04 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) >> of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not
with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the
vehicle was.
Road Traffic Act 1988 section 172 (some tangential clauses omitted).
(4) agrees with what I have been saying.
The most common defence for individuals is that they exercised reasonable >> diligence in trying to identify the driver but were unable to do so. For >> this defence to succeed, the registered keeper must demonstrate that they >> made every reasonable effort to determine who was driving the vehicle at >> the time of the alleged offence. This might include:
* Checking diaries, work schedules, or other records,
Not relevant in the cases under discussion.
* Asking other potential drivers of the vehicle,
Yes, if they can be contacted.
* Looking for evidence such as CCTV or mobile phone records.
?????
Which CCTV images would be relevant?
On 13/06/2025 01:04 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Insisting that he is "responsible" for the actions of a third party who may be a
hundred miles away at the time of an incident is ... well ... you tell *me* what it
is.
It certainly isn't correct.
Is it?
How is the hirer's "respnsibility" any different to that of insurance
companies who indemnify drivers "driving hundreds of miles away" based
solely on information provided by those drivers ?
Eh?
The owner of a loaned-out car has not entered into a binding contract to compensate
innocent third parties for losses or injury.
On 14/06/2025 17:22, Davey wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:51:04 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:14:06 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
The alternative is a Thalidomide style of fund, where there is a
payout irrespective of negligence. But that doesn't cover the
criminal side that would be a far higher bar to proving guilt.
Is a machine capable of a crime ? (I imagine a lot of people will
assume my sensation that eventually the "
After all, how many people did gaol time for the Toyota Unintended
Acceleration debacle.
Wasn't that eventually determined by the US DoD to be "pedal
misapplication" ?
I believe so. But why did it happen on so many of the same model of
car? It suggests a design flaw, at the very least.
One argument was the design flaw was a lack of training in using the
car. You had to depress the STOP button for several seconds to stop the engine. The accidents were generally associated with hire cars where the driver was not familiar with the keyless engine start and stop.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mb2qv9F2ftlU2@mid.individual.net...
On 13/06/2025 01:04 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Insisting that he is "responsible" for the actions of a third party who may be a
hundred miles away at the time of an incident is ... well ... you tell *me* what it
is.
It certainly isn't correct.
Is it?
How is the hirer's "respnsibility" any different to that of insurance
companies who indemnify drivers "driving hundreds of miles away" based
solely on information provided by those drivers ?
Eh?
The owner of a loaned-out car has not entered into a binding contract to compensate
innocent third parties for losses or injury.
So what exactly *are* the hirer's resposibilities ?
You've been at pains to point out what you claim are *not* the hirers responsibilities.
So are you saying the hirer, has no respnsibilities at all ?
On 13/06/2025 01:13 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to be >>>>> in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access except via >>>>> the vehicle's occupants.
Are we still on Planet Earth here?
So if the vehicle is caught speeding, the police won't issue a
summons detailing the precise time and location of the offence ?
Not immediately, no. That's because they do not have a name to whom such a document
needs to be addressed.
They write to the registered keeper and ask for details of the driver at the moment
the
offence is alleged to have been committed.
If the vehicle is involved in an accident there cannot possibly
be any witnesses ?
Very possibly. But unless the driver stops and waits for the police, there are all
sorts of ramifications to that, which might need to start with communication with th
registered keeper (and see above) for why).
While in both cases, there clearly might be an incentive for "the
occupants" to attempt to lie through their teeth.
But apart from that...
That isn't an issue.
It most certainly would be, if as you're claiming above, the hirer's
only source of information was the occupants of the car.
No, lots of people lie when they're trying to wriggle out of something.
It goes with that sort of territory.
In that case, there is nothing prevent them from lying in order
to deflect any blame away from themselves and deny any liability.
I don't disagree. But it's a "problem" in every part of law enforcment and in civil
cases.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 13/06/2025 11:04 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
(4) A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a)
of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not
with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the >>> vehicle was.
Road Traffic Act 1988 section 172 (some tangential clauses omitted).
(4) agrees with what I have been saying.
No, it doesn't. You've been saying that the keeper can simply say he doesn't know.
The law says he needs to make a reasonable effort to find out, before
he can say he doesn't know.
The most common defence for individuals is that they exercised reasonable
diligence in trying to identify the driver but were unable to do so. For
this defence to succeed, the registered keeper must demonstrate that they
made every reasonable effort to determine who was driving the vehicle at
the time of the alleged offence. This might include:
* Checking diaries, work schedules, or other records,
Not relevant in the cases under discussion.
* Asking other potential drivers of the vehicle,
Yes, if they can be contacted.
If you've allowed someone to drive your car that you can't contact, then, frankly, you're an idiot, and I'm not convinced that the courts would accept the Arnold Rimmer defence as valid.
* Looking for evidence such as CCTV or mobile phone records.
?????
Which CCTV images would be relevant?
This obviously applies mainly to company vehicles.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 00:28:16 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No, it doesn't. You've been saying that the keeper can simply say he
doesn't know. The law says he needs to make a reasonable effort to find
out, before he can say he doesn't know.
On 14/06/2025 06:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 17:22, Davey wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:51:04 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:14:06 +0100, Fredxx wrote:I believe so. But why did it happen on so many of the same model of
The alternative is a Thalidomide style of fund, where there is a
payout irrespective of negligence. But that doesn't cover the
criminal side that would be a far higher bar to proving guilt.
Is a machine capable of a crime ? (I imagine a lot of people will
assume my sensation that eventually the "
After all, how many people did gaol time for the Toyota Unintended
Acceleration debacle.
Wasn't that eventually determined by the US DoD to be "pedal
misapplication" ?
car? It suggests a design flaw, at the very least.
One argument was the design flaw was a lack of training in using the
car. You had to depress the STOP button for several seconds to stop the
engine. The accidents were generally associated with hire cars where
the driver was not familiar with the keyless engine start and stop.
I've only ever driven an electric car on one round trip of about 440
miles (mainly on freeway). I just could not get used to the fact that
the "accelerator" didn't work as gradually as it does on an ICE car. Or
that a car which is essentially in "engine off" mode isn't really
"engine off". Getting into and out of parking spaces was a trial.
It would all take a bit of getting used to.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mb2qv9F2ftlU2@mid.individual.net...
On 13/06/2025 01:04 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Insisting that he is "responsible" for the actions of a third party who may be a
hundred miles away at the time of an incident is ... well ... you tell *me* what it
is.
It certainly isn't correct.
Is it?
How is the hirer's "respnsibility" any different to that of insurance
companies who indemnify drivers "driving hundreds of miles away" based
solely on information provided by those drivers ?
Eh?
The owner of a loaned-out car has not entered into a binding contract to compensate
innocent third parties for losses or injury.
Before an insurance company will insure a driver, they will want to
satisfy themselves, by reference to the appropriate documentation,
that that person is a responsible person who can be trusted to
drive cars, possibly hundreds of miles away, with a high probability
of their not suffering or causing accidents
Before a hire company will loan a car to a driver, they will want to
satisfy themselves, by reference to the appropriate documentation,
that that person is a responsible person who can be trusted to
drive that car, possibly hundreds of miles away, with a high
probability of their not suffering or causing accidents
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mb2qqiF2ftlU1@mid.individual.net...
On 13/06/2025 01:13 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/06/2025 08:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote...
No legislation can *possibly* burden a vehicle's owner with having to be >>>>>> in possession of facts to which he plainly cannot have access except via >>>>>> the vehicle's occupants.
Are we still on Planet Earth here?
So if the vehicle is caught speeding, the police won't issue a
summons detailing the precise time and location of the offence ?
Not immediately, no. That's because they do not have a name to whom such a document
needs to be addressed.
They write to the registered keeper and ask for details of the driver at the moment
the
offence is alleged to have been committed.
If the vehicle is involved in an accident there cannot possibly
be any witnesses ?
Very possibly. But unless the driver stops and waits for the police, there are all
sorts of ramifications to that, which might need to start with communication with th
registered keeper (and see above) for why).
While in both cases, there clearly might be an incentive for "the
occupants" to attempt to lie through their teeth.
But apart from that...
That isn't an issue.
It most certainly would be, if as you're claiming above, the hirer's
only source of information was the occupants of the car.
No, lots of people lie when they're trying to wriggle out of something.
It goes with that sort of territory.
But as, "on your own insistence there are no other witnesses" that makes
it all the easier for them to lie ?
Non ?
In that case, there is nothing prevent them from lying in order
to deflect any blame away from themselves and deny any liability.
I don't disagree. But it's a "problem" in every part of law enforcment and in civil
cases.
Except this in this case *you are insisting* that the only available
evidence can be from the occupants themselves.
So how then can there be a "problem" if their evidence cannot conflict
with anyone else's ?
Furthermore if the only evidence of an offence having been committed
is the word of the occupants themselves, then the principle of "corpus delecti" applies. There can be no offence unless there is independant evidence of an offence actually having been committed. Which a
confession alone cannot establish.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 22:33:24 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 06:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 17:22, Davey wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:51:04 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:14:06 +0100, Fredxx wrote:I believe so. But why did it happen on so many of the same model of
The alternative is a Thalidomide style of fund, where there is a
payout irrespective of negligence. But that doesn't cover the
criminal side that would be a far higher bar to proving guilt.
Is a machine capable of a crime ? (I imagine a lot of people will
assume my sensation that eventually the "
After all, how many people did gaol time for the Toyota Unintended >>>>>> Acceleration debacle.
Wasn't that eventually determined by the US DoD to be "pedal
misapplication" ?
car? It suggests a design flaw, at the very least.
One argument was the design flaw was a lack of training in using the
car. You had to depress the STOP button for several seconds to stop the
engine. The accidents were generally associated with hire cars where
the driver was not familiar with the keyless engine start and stop.
I've only ever driven an electric car on one round trip of about 440
miles (mainly on freeway). I just could not get used to the fact that
the "accelerator" didn't work as gradually as it does on an ICE car. Or
that a car which is essentially in "engine off" mode isn't really
"engine off". Getting into and out of parking spaces was a trial.
It would all take a bit of getting used to.
Odd. I've never heard anyone else mention that. Or noticed it myself.
On 15/06/2025 10:17 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 22:33:24 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 06:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 17:22, Davey wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:51:04 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:14:06 +0100, Fredxx wrote:I believe so. But why did it happen on so many of the same model of
The alternative is a Thalidomide style of fund, where there is a >>>>>>> payout irrespective of negligence. But that doesn't cover the
criminal side that would be a far higher bar to proving guilt.
Is a machine capable of a crime ? (I imagine a lot of people will
assume my sensation that eventually the "
After all, how many people did gaol time for the Toyota Unintended >>>>>>> Acceleration debacle.
Wasn't that eventually determined by the US DoD to be "pedal
misapplication" ?
car? It suggests a design flaw, at the very least.
One argument was the design flaw was a lack of training in using the
car. You had to depress the STOP button for several seconds to stop
the engine. The accidents were generally associated with hire cars
where the driver was not familiar with the keyless engine start and
stop.
I've only ever driven an electric car on one round trip of about 440
miles (mainly on freeway). I just could not get used to the fact that
the "accelerator" didn't work as gradually as it does on an ICE car.
Or that a car which is essentially in "engine off" mode isn't really
"engine off". Getting into and out of parking spaces was a trial.
It would all take a bit of getting used to.
Odd. I've never heard anyone else mention that. Or noticed it myself.
In over fifty years since passing my one and only driving test, I have
driven over a million miles. I am acutely attuned to the feel of a
clutch, a "stick shift" and an ICE engine.
That one experience of driving my son's electric (hybrid) car from city
to city in the USA (he sitting alongside me on conference call after conference call) unnerved me at the low-speed beginnings and ends of the journey. I realised that there was a whole new skill to learn. It ought
to have started with reading the manual, I suppose. But who ever does
that?
A few years ago, the only cars available in the class I had booked at an American airport were a low-slung thing and a Tesla. I declined the
Tesla immediately because I intended to do an eight hundred mile journey (plus return) through three states. So my only previous chance to get to grips with electric never happened.
On 14/06/2025 10:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mb2qv9F2ftlU2@mid.individual.net...
The owner of a loaned-out car has not entered into a binding contract
to compensate
innocent third parties for losses or injury.
Before an insurance company will insure a driver, they will want to
satisfy themselves, by reference to the appropriate documentation,
that that person is a responsible person who can be trusted to
drive cars, possibly hundreds of miles away, with a high probability
of their not suffering or causing accidents
Insurance companies do not always assess the risk for every particular
driver who may be given access to a given vehicle.
Many people have "any driver" policies on private cars. Rental car
insurance is on that very basis. It is usual for company vehicles (cars, vans, trucks, even HGVs) to be insured "any driver", though limited to authorised employees with a full licence and (where necessary) the appropriate vocational licence (taxi, HGV and any others).
I rent cars two or three times a year - often for three weeks at a time
- and I have never once been asked by the rental company for anything
more than sight (and a photocopy) of my UK driving licence. Someone ran
into the back of me once in the USA. When I took the car back to the
rental depot (for an exchange), they didn't even want to know a single
detail of the evidence. Not a word. All covered by maximum insurance, no questions asked (literally).
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 11:32:03 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 10:17 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 22:33:24 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 06:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 17:22, Davey wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 15:51:04 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 13:14:06 +0100, Fredxx wrote:I believe so. But why did it happen on so many of the same model of >>>>>> car? It suggests a design flaw, at the very least.
The alternative is a Thalidomide style of fund, where there is a >>>>>>>> payout irrespective of negligence. But that doesn't cover the
criminal side that would be a far higher bar to proving guilt.
Is a machine capable of a crime ? (I imagine a lot of people will >>>>>>> assume my sensation that eventually the "
After all, how many people did gaol time for the Toyota Unintended >>>>>>>> Acceleration debacle.
Wasn't that eventually determined by the US DoD to be "pedal
misapplication" ?
One argument was the design flaw was a lack of training in using the >>>>> car. You had to depress the STOP button for several seconds to stop
the engine. The accidents were generally associated with hire cars
where the driver was not familiar with the keyless engine start and
stop.
I've only ever driven an electric car on one round trip of about 440
miles (mainly on freeway). I just could not get used to the fact that
the "accelerator" didn't work as gradually as it does on an ICE car.
Or that a car which is essentially in "engine off" mode isn't really
"engine off". Getting into and out of parking spaces was a trial.
It would all take a bit of getting used to.
Odd. I've never heard anyone else mention that. Or noticed it myself.
In over fifty years since passing my one and only driving test, I have
driven over a million miles. I am acutely attuned to the feel of a
clutch, a "stick shift" and an ICE engine.
That one experience of driving my son's electric (hybrid) car from city
to city in the USA (he sitting alongside me on conference call after
conference call) unnerved me at the low-speed beginnings and ends of the
journey. I realised that there was a whole new skill to learn. It ought
to have started with reading the manual, I suppose. But who ever does
that?
A few years ago, the only cars available in the class I had booked at an
American airport were a low-slung thing and a Tesla. I declined the
Tesla immediately because I intended to do an eight hundred mile journey
(plus return) through three states. So my only previous chance to get to
grips with electric never happened.
As I suggested, have you considered it's only you ?
It's hard to avoid electric and hybrid cars these days, and none of those
I have driven needed much adjustment.
It's a fair proposition that the regulatory authorities whilst deciding
that there were distinct enough differences between manual and automatic
cars to warrant a separate class of licence also decided there was no
such need for EVs.
Are you suggesting they made a mistake and that drivers should be
required to undertake additional/different training in order to drive and
EV ?
I know my former boss felt that not everyone should be allowed to drive a Tesla. However I suspect he was being slightly tongue in cheek about what society should allow the riff-raff.
On 15/06/2025 11:22, JNugent wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mb2qv9F2ftlU2@mid.individual.net...
The owner of a loaned-out car has not entered into a binding
contract to compensate
innocent third parties for losses or injury.
Before an insurance company will insure a driver, they will want to
satisfy themselves, by reference to the appropriate documentation,
that that person is a responsible person who can be trusted to
drive cars, possibly hundreds of miles away, with a high probability
of their not suffering or causing accidents
Insurance companies do not always assess the risk for every particular
driver who may be given access to a given vehicle.
Many people have "any driver" policies on private cars. Rental car
insurance is on that very basis. It is usual for company vehicles
(cars, vans, trucks, even HGVs) to be insured "any driver", though
limited to authorised employees with a full licence and (where
necessary) the appropriate vocational licence (taxi, HGV and any others).
I rent cars two or three times a year - often for three weeks at a
time - and I have never once been asked by the rental company for
anything more than sight (and a photocopy) of my UK driving licence.
Someone ran into the back of me once in the USA. When I took the car
back to the rental depot (for an exchange), they didn't even want to
know a single detail of the evidence. Not a word. All covered by
maximum insurance, no questions asked (literally).
In the UK at least, I believe most car hire companies only have
insurance (sensu stricto) for the legal minimum (injury to third
parties). For the vehicle, there is a "damage waver" whereby they don't charge you for any damage to the vehicle, subject to an "excess" which
you can reduce by paying extra. This does not, legally, count as
insurance, as it is provided by the hire company, which isn't registered
as an insurer.
And they don't have to repair any damage until enough scratches have accumulated, saving them money.
On 15/06/2025 12:09 PM, Max Demian wrote:
In the UK at least, I believe most car hire companies only have
insurance (sensu stricto) for the legal minimum (injury to third
parties). For the vehicle, there is a "damage waver" whereby they don't
charge you for any damage to the vehicle, subject to an "excess" which
you can reduce by paying extra. This does not, legally, count as
insurance, as it is provided by the hire company, which isn't registered
as an insurer.
In the US, I always opt for the maximum insurance including damage
waiver. Certainly not just 3rd party only. That could be costly for the
hirer in the event of serious damage to the rental car.
And they don't have to repair any damage until enough scratches have
accumulated, saving them money.
Yes - very noticeable!
The moral, for me, was never to accept a courtesy car without checking precisely what the excess might be. I'm still annoyed!
On 15/06/2025 12:24, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:09 PM, Max Demian wrote:
In the UK at least, I believe most car hire companies only have
insurance (sensu stricto) for the legal minimum (injury to third
parties). For the vehicle, there is a "damage waver" whereby they don't
charge you for any damage to the vehicle, subject to an "excess" which
you can reduce by paying extra. This does not, legally, count as
insurance, as it is provided by the hire company, which isn't registered >>> as an insurer.
In the US, I always opt for the maximum insurance including damage
waiver. Certainly not just 3rd party only. That could be costly for
the hirer in the event of serious damage to the rental car.
And they don't have to repair any damage until enough scratches have
accumulated, saving them money.
Yes - very noticeable!
To digress slightly, about 15 years ago my son's car was negligently
damaged in a garage (in England) that was carrying out a routine service
and the garage's insurers provided him with a free courtesy car, which delighted him because it was superior in size and quality to his own car.
When he parked it in a street a long way from home, vandals broke the
windows and damaged some of the paintwork. He duly reported this to the
hire company and they required him to pay a hefty excess which was
something like 500 pounds. He couldn't afford to pay it so, of course, I
had to stump up. I demanded to know why he wasn't offered a collision
damage waiver or other option that would reduce the excess to zero. I
was told that this wasn't an option so he wasn't offered it.
The moral, for me, was never to accept a courtesy car without checking precisely what the excess might be. I'm still annoyed!
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 20:25:37 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 00:28:16 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
No, it doesn't. You've been saying that the keeper can simply say he
doesn't know. The law says he needs to make a reasonable effort to find
out, before he can say he doesn't know.
With the delicious twist that it's "the law" which decides what is >reasonable. Not the defendant. Many intelligent people have been tricked
by this hidden rule.
I've only ever driven an electric car on one round trip of about 440
miles (mainly on freeway). I just could not get used to the fact that
the "accelerator" didn't work as gradually as it does on an ICE car. Or
that a car which is essentially in "engine off" mode isn't really
"engine off". Getting into and out of parking spaces was a trial.
It would all take a bit of getting used to.
On 14/06/2025 08:25 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
If you've allowed someone to drive your car that you can't contact, then,
frankly, you're an idiot, and I'm not convinced that the courts would accept >> the Arnold Rimmer defence as valid.
No-one has argued that, so your attack on it is a strawman. A potential >driver is anyone with the ability and skill to drive. Not necessarily
even a licence (it happens, no matter how unauthorised it is).
What if the borrower has allowed another driver to take over for a
spell? It happens...
Which CCTV images would be relevant?
This obviously applies mainly to company vehicles.
Does it?
Perhaps you can say how. It isn't obvious.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 22:33:24 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I've only ever driven an electric car on one round trip of about 440
miles (mainly on freeway). I just could not get used to the fact that
the "accelerator" didn't work as gradually as it does on an ICE car. Or
that a car which is essentially in "engine off" mode isn't really
"engine off". Getting into and out of parking spaces was a trial.
It would all take a bit of getting used to.
Electric (including hybrid) cars "creep" when the selector is in Drive (or Reverse) and you don't have any pressure on the accelerator at all. You have to either go into Neutral or Park, or apply the brake, in order to hold the car still.
Now, they don't need to do that. They could just remain stationary if there is no power being applied via the accelerator. But the reason they do it, is because the controls of an electric car are exactly the same as the controls of an automatic ICE car (in particular, the "gear" shift has the same PRND sequence, and of course it's a two-pedal system on the floor). And automatic ICE cars creep in exactly the same way - except that in their case, it was once an unavoidable consequence of the technology, and is perpetuated now because any automatic driver will be used to it.
So electric cars are deliberately programmed to behave like an automatic ICE car, so that anyone who's already familiar with the control system from driving an automatic won't feel anything different in an EV.
It is a little counterintuitive to anyone who's only ever previously driven
a manual ICE car. But anyone in that situation would find exactly the same unfamiliar scenario the first time they drive an automatic.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 22:41:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 08:25 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
If you've allowed someone to drive your car that you can't contact, then, >>> frankly, you're an idiot, and I'm not convinced that the courts would accept
the Arnold Rimmer defence as valid.
No-one has argued that, so your attack on it is a strawman. A potential
driver is anyone with the ability and skill to drive. Not necessarily
even a licence (it happens, no matter how unauthorised it is).
If the car is being driven withput permission (eg, theft or TWOC, then obviously the keeper can't know who was driving and cannot easily find out either. But they should be able to say who they've given permission to.
What if the borrower has allowed another driver to take over for a
spell? It happens...
It's worth bearing in mind here that the borrower has the same legal obligation to identify the driver.
Which CCTV images would be relevant?
This obviously applies mainly to company vehicles.
Does it?
Perhaps you can say how. It isn't obvious.
A lot of company vehicles (particularly vans) have CCTV.
On 15/06/2025 08:55 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 22:41:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 08:25 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
If you've allowed someone to drive your car that you can't contact, then, >>>> frankly, you're an idiot, and I'm not convinced that the courts would accept
the Arnold Rimmer defence as valid.
No-one has argued that, so your attack on it is a strawman. A potential
driver is anyone with the ability and skill to drive. Not necessarily
even a licence (it happens, no matter how unauthorised it is).
If the car is being driven withput permission (eg, theft or TWOC, then
obviously the keeper can't know who was driving and cannot easily find out >> either. But they should be able to say who they've given permission to.
Well, you finally got there!
What if the borrower has allowed another driver to take over for a
spell? It happens...
It's worth bearing in mind here that the borrower has the same legal
obligation to identify the driver.
That's HIS problem. But he may well want not to disclose his own
misdeeds in allowing an unauthorised person to drive.
Which CCTV images would be relevant?
This obviously applies mainly to company vehicles.
Does it?
Perhaps you can say how. It isn't obvious.
A lot of company vehicles (particularly vans) have CCTV.
In the vehicle, you mean?
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:45:44 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 08:55 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 22:41:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2025 08:25 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
If you've allowed someone to drive your car that you can't contact, then, >>>>> frankly, you're an idiot, and I'm not convinced that the courts would accept
the Arnold Rimmer defence as valid.
No-one has argued that, so your attack on it is a strawman. A potential >>>> driver is anyone with the ability and skill to drive. Not necessarily
even a licence (it happens, no matter how unauthorised it is).
If the car is being driven withput permission (eg, theft or TWOC, then
obviously the keeper can't know who was driving and cannot easily find out >>> either. But they should be able to say who they've given permission to.
Well, you finally got there!
I pointed out right at the beginning that the keeper is not expected to
know, or be able to easily find out, who is driving his car in contravention of any part of the Theft Act. But the keeper is expected to know, or be able to find out, who is driving with his permission, or with the permission of someone he has delegated authority to give permission.
What if the borrower has allowed another driver to take over for a
spell? It happens...
It's worth bearing in mind here that the borrower has the same legal
obligation to identify the driver.
That's HIS problem. But he may well want not to disclose his own
misdeeds in allowing an unauthorised person to drive.
Well, he can always take the rap for the speeding offence if he prefers.
Which CCTV images would be relevant?
This obviously applies mainly to company vehicles.
Does it?
Perhaps you can say how. It isn't obvious.
A lot of company vehicles (particularly vans) have CCTV.
In the vehicle, you mean?
Yes.
On 16/06/2025 09:58 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
I pointed out right at the beginning that the keeper is not expected to
know, or be able to easily find out, who is driving his car in contravention >> of any part of the Theft Act. But the keeper is expected to know, or be able >> to find out, who is driving with his permission, or with the permission of >> someone he has delegated authority to give permission.
No, not even that.
Any information he can glean as to which of more than one *authorised*
(and of course, insured) driver was driving is available only as
evidence from the persons who were preent in the vehicle or who had
reason to observe and remember the driver from a third party position.
Which CCTV images would be relevant?
This obviously applies mainly to company vehicles.
Does it?
Perhaps you can say how. It isn't obvious.
A lot of company vehicles (particularly vans) have CCTV.
In the vehicle, you mean?
Yes.
OK.
Taking a video record of people IN the vehicle?
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:27:08 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:58 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
I pointed out right at the beginning that the keeper is not expected to
know, or be able to easily find out, who is driving his car in contravention
of any part of the Theft Act. But the keeper is expected to know, or be able
to find out, who is driving with his permission, or with the permission of >>> someone he has delegated authority to give permission.
No, not even that.
Any information he can glean as to which of more than one *authorised*
(and of course, insured) driver was driving is available only as
evidence from the persons who were preent in the vehicle or who had
reason to observe and remember the driver from a third party position.
Yes, and he is obliged to ask them.
Which CCTV images would be relevant?
This obviously applies mainly to company vehicles.
Does it?
Perhaps you can say how. It isn't obvious.
A lot of company vehicles (particularly vans) have CCTV.
In the vehicle, you mean?
Yes.
OK.
Taking a video record of people IN the vehicle?
Yes, of course.
On 17/06/2025 09:48 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:27:08 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:58 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
I pointed out right at the beginning that the keeper is not expected to >>>> know, or be able to easily find out, who is driving his car in contravention
of any part of the Theft Act. But the keeper is expected to know, or be able
to find out, who is driving with his permission, or with the permission of >>>> someone he has delegated authority to give permission.
No, not even that.
Any information he can glean as to which of more than one *authorised*
(and of course, insured) driver was driving is available only as
evidence from the persons who were preent in the vehicle or who had
reason to observe and remember the driver from a third party position.
Yes, and he is obliged to ask them.
...if he can find them.
Can you not see that flaw in what you keep insisting?
Yes, he'll know (or should know) the ID of the person borrowing the
vehicle. But anyone else who happened to be travelling in that vehicle
whilst it was loaned out?
Which CCTV images would be relevant?
This obviously applies mainly to company vehicles.
Does it?
Perhaps you can say how. It isn't obvious.
A lot of company vehicles (particularly vans) have CCTV.
In the vehicle, you mean?
Yes.
OK.
Taking a video record of people IN the vehicle?
Yes, of course.
Out of pure interest, why?
Surely the camera would be better trained on the road ahead (and perhaps >behind)?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:20:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 09:48 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:27:08 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:58 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
I pointed out right at the beginning that the keeper is not expected to >>>>> know, or be able to easily find out, who is driving his car in contravention
of any part of the Theft Act. But the keeper is expected to know, or be able
to find out, who is driving with his permission, or with the permission of
someone he has delegated authority to give permission.
No, not even that.
Any information he can glean as to which of more than one *authorised* >>>> (and of course, insured) driver was driving is available only as
evidence from the persons who were preent in the vehicle or who had
reason to observe and remember the driver from a third party position.
Yes, and he is obliged to ask them.
...if he can find them.
I refer you to my previous statement. If you allow someone to drive your car who you are unable to contact, then you are an absolute blithering idiot,
and that is entirely your problem.
Can you not see that flaw in what you keep insisting?
Yes, he'll know (or should know) the ID of the person borrowing the
vehicle. But anyone else who happened to be travelling in that vehicle
whilst it was loaned out?
If you lend your car to someone, you need to make it clear to them that they are not permitted to allow anyone else to drive it who is unknown to you. Otherwise, you are, as previously stated, a blithering idiot.
Which CCTV images would be relevant?
This obviously applies mainly to company vehicles.
Does it?
Perhaps you can say how. It isn't obvious.
A lot of company vehicles (particularly vans) have CCTV.
In the vehicle, you mean?
Yes.
OK.
Taking a video record of people IN the vehicle?
Yes, of course.
Out of pure interest, why?
Partly in order to provide evidence, if necessary, to fulfil a request from law enforcement or an insurance company to identify the driver, and partly
to enforce any company rules about use of the vehicle (eg, no smoking, no carrying unauthorised passengers, etc). And, to make users of the vehicle aware that their use can, if necessary, be monitored, and thus encourage considerate use.
Surely the camera would be better trained on the road ahead (and perhaps
behind)?
What on earth makes you think there's only one camera? Even external camera systems now routinely cover multiple views. Adding an internal camera as
well is trivial.
Mark
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:20:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 09:48 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 23:27:08 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:58 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
I pointed out right at the beginning that the keeper is not expected to >>>>> know, or be able to easily find out, who is driving his car in contravention
of any part of the Theft Act. But the keeper is expected to know, or be able
to find out, who is driving with his permission, or with the permission of
someone he has delegated authority to give permission.
No, not even that.
Any information he can glean as to which of more than one *authorised* >>>> (and of course, insured) driver was driving is available only as
evidence from the persons who were preent in the vehicle or who had
reason to observe and remember the driver from a third party position.
Yes, and he is obliged to ask them.
...if he can find them.
I refer you to my previous statement. If you allow someone to drive your car who you are unable to contact, then you are an absolute blithering idiot,
and that is entirely your problem.
Can you not see that flaw in what you keep insisting?
Yes, he'll know (or should know) the ID of the person borrowing the
vehicle. But anyone else who happened to be travelling in that vehicle
whilst it was loaned out?
If you lend your car to someone, you need to make it clear to them that they are not permitted to allow anyone else to drive it who is unknown to you. Otherwise, you are, as previously stated, a blithering idiot.
I *think* (but can't be sure) that the PP is suggesting that unless
someone explicitly signs some sort of official undertaking, then they are immune from the various laws that are in place around the keeping and operating of motor vehicles.
Having seen such beliefs in others before, you get to a stage where they
will have their view and any number of scenarios that underpin it.
At that point - much like the "expert" on my speed awareness course, the
best thing is to invite them to argue it out with the magistrate. Which
was a very black and white moment.
On 18/06/2025 10:49 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:20:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
...if he can find them.
I refer you to my previous statement. If you allow someone to drive your car >> who you are unable to contact, then you are an absolute blithering idiot,
and that is entirely your problem.
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of
a vehicle has *no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported
in it *or* who *drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
If you lend your car to someone, you need to make it clear to them that they >> are not permitted to allow anyone else to drive it who is unknown to you.
Otherwise, you are, as previously stated, a blithering idiot.
The borrower knows that. People aren't stupid. But people are people.
And to make an obvious point, the borrower might feel obliged to let a
friend drive if he (the borrower) is over the alcohol limit, or
otherwise unfit to drive (that's only an *example* - the reasons why he
lets someone else drive may be less benign than that.]
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of
a vehicle has*no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported
in it*or* who*drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
On 18 Jun 2025 at 20:12:31 BST, "Mike Scott" <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 15:47, Mark Goodge wrote:
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of >>> a vehicle has*no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported
in it*or* who*drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
ISTM the basic issue has been clouded over.
Suppose I lend my offspring and their other half the car for the weekend
for a jaunt away. "OK, Andy and Betty, you're each insured for the
weekend. Keep out of trouble!".
Then days later, comes the request: who was driving Saturday night when
the car was clocked speeding? I can ask them, but that's as far as it
goes. Unless one 'fesses up I can only say it was one of the two,
nothing more. So who gets the points? Me? Seems unfair.
That's all you can do. And you would probably not be charged. Another poster seems to feel he shouldn't even have to ask them.
On 18/06/2025 15:47, Mark Goodge wrote:
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of
a vehicle has*no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported
in it*or* who*drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
ISTM the basic issue has been clouded over.
Suppose I lend my offspring and their other half the car for the weekend
for a jaunt away. "OK, Andy and Betty, you're each insured for the
weekend. Keep out of trouble!".
Then days later, comes the request: who was driving Saturday night when
the car was clocked speeding? I can ask them, but that's as far as it
goes. Unless one 'fesses up I can only say it was one of the two,
nothing more. So who gets the points? Me? Seems unfair.
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's driver was
to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to something. I pointed out in response that the law does not work on the basis of an agreement having
been made, that no agreement is necessary and that the powers of the police in these matters (stopping vehicles on the highway)
are all that matters.
On 18/06/2025 15:47, Mark Goodge wrote:
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of
a vehicle has*no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported
in it*or* who*drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
ISTM the basic issue has been clouded over.
Suppose I lend my offspring and their other half the car for the weekend
for a jaunt away. "OK, Andy and Betty, you're each insured for the
weekend. Keep out of trouble!".
Then days later, comes the request: who was driving Saturday night when
the car was clocked speeding? I can ask them, but that's as far as it
goes. Unless one 'fesses up I can only say it was one of the two,
nothing more. So who gets the points? Me? Seems unfair.
On 2025-06-18, Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid>
wrote:
On 18/06/2025 15:47, Mark Goodge wrote:
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the
owner of a vehicle has*no* control over the vehicle or over who is
transported in it*or* who*drives* it once it has gone out of his
sight?
ISTM the basic issue has been clouded over.
Suppose I lend my offspring and their other half the car for the
weekend for a jaunt away. "OK, Andy and Betty, you're each insured
for the weekend. Keep out of trouble!".
Then days later, comes the request: who was driving Saturday night
when the car was clocked speeding? I can ask them, but that's as far
as it goes. Unless one 'fesses up I can only say it was one of the
two, nothing more. So who gets the points? Me? Seems unfair.
Presumably the registered keeper nominates one of Andy and Betty,
and that person then gets asked the same question. If it's Andy,
and they say it was Betty, who then says it was Andy, then who
knows what happens but I imagine the system would try quite hard
to get one of them done for it but might not necessarily succeed.
"Mike Scott" <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 15:47, Mark Goodge wrote:
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of >>> a vehicle has*no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported
in it*or* who*drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
ISTM the basic issue has been clouded over.
Suppose I lend my offspring and their other half the car for the weekend
for a jaunt away. "OK, Andy and Betty, you're each insured for the
weekend. Keep out of trouble!".
Then days later, comes the request: who was driving Saturday night when
the car was clocked speeding? I can ask them, but that's as far as it
goes. Unless one 'fesses up I can only say it was one of the two,
nothing more. So who gets the points? Me? Seems unfair.
That's all you can do. And you would probably not be charged. Another poster seems to feel he shouldn't even have to ask them.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mbfl4fF6vp0U1@mid.individual.net...
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's driver was
to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to something. I pointed out in
response that the law does not work on the basis of an agreement having
been made, that no agreement is necessary and that the powers of the police >> in these matters (stopping vehicles on the highway)
are all that matters.
But supposing you refuse acknowledge the powers of the police to act
in that manner ?
If in short, you don't agree ?
On 2025-06-18, Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
ISTM the basic issue has been clouded over.
Suppose I lend my offspring and their other half the car for the weekend
for a jaunt away. "OK, Andy and Betty, you're each insured for the
weekend. Keep out of trouble!".
Then days later, comes the request: who was driving Saturday night when
the car was clocked speeding? I can ask them, but that's as far as it
goes. Unless one 'fesses up I can only say it was one of the two,
nothing more. So who gets the points? Me? Seems unfair.
Presumably the registered keeper nominates one of Andy and Betty,
and that person then gets asked the same question. If it's Andy,
and they say it was Betty, who then says it was Andy, then who
knows what happens but I imagine the system would try quite hard
to get one of them done for it but might not necessarily succeed.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:05:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:49 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:20:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
...if he can find them.
I refer you to my previous statement. If you allow someone to drive your car
who you are unable to contact, then you are an absolute blithering idiot, >>> and that is entirely your problem.
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of
a vehicle has *no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported
in it *or* who *drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
They do have control over what is done *with their permission*
Again, we're
not talking about theft or TWOC here. But any loan of a vehicle that does
not come with attached conditions as to what it may be used for and who may drive it is a loan which would only ever be made by someone who is
completely and utterly stupid.
If you lend your car to someone, you need to make it clear to them that they
are not permitted to allow anyone else to drive it who is unknown to you. >>> Otherwise, you are, as previously stated, a blithering idiot.
The borrower knows that. People aren't stupid. But people are people.
And to make an obvious point, the borrower might feel obliged to let a
friend drive if he (the borrower) is over the alcohol limit, or
otherwise unfit to drive (that's only an *example* - the reasons why he
lets someone else drive may be less benign than that.]
If he does, then he's a party to TWOC, and the driver is committing TWOC.
The only lawful thing to do, if the person who borrowed the vehicle is for some reason unable to drive it, is to contact the owner and ask permission for someone else to drive.
On 18/06/2025 08:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mbfl4fF6vp0U1@mid.individual.net...
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's driver was >>> to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to something. I pointed out in
response that the law does not work on the basis of an agreement having
been made, that no agreement is necessary and that the powers of the police >>> in these matters (stopping vehicles on the highway)
are all that matters.
But supposing you refuse acknowledge the powers of the police to act
in that manner ?
If in short, you don't agree ?
The question does not arise.
I am well aware of the lawful powers of the police in such matters and accept and
support the lawful use of those powers.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mbiafaFl6okU2@mid.individual.net...
On 18/06/2025 08:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mbfl4fF6vp0U1@mid.individual.net...
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's driver was >>>> to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to something. I pointed out in >>>> response that the law does not work on the basis of an agreement having >>>> been made, that no agreement is necessary and that the powers of the police
in these matters (stopping vehicles on the highway)
are all that matters.
But supposing you refuse acknowledge the powers of the police to act
in that manner ?
If in short, you don't agree ?
The question does not arise.
I am well aware of the lawful powers of the police in such matters and accept and
support the lawful use of those powers.
So you *do* agree to them, then ?
I thought you said above, that "no agreement is necessary ?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 13:07:08 +0000, billy bookcase wrote:
"jon" <jon@nospam.cn> wrote in message
news:101pc7n$q9vf$1@dont-email.me...
....Parking companies got access to ANPR data..?
Reasonable cause.
At least for members of the British Parking Association*
quote:
Using the vehicle's registration number, the operator will access the
DVLA's Vehicle
Keepers' details database (with the Reasonable Cause of pursuing a
broken contract
for parking on private land) and send a charge certificate to the keeper
of the vehicle.
unquote
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/anpr
bb
rather than the British Parking Provision Association.
can anyone put a sign up on their land saying something like "Private
land,
if you park here you will be fined £100",
and then if someone
does, can i give the number to the dvla and get their name and address
and demand £100?
Becos clearly companies like Parking Eye exist purely
to earn money by sending charge notices to 000s of people a month.
On 18/06/2025 15:47, Mark Goodge wrote:
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of
a vehicle has*no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported
in it*or* who*drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
ISTM the basic issue has been clouded over.
Suppose I lend my offspring and their other half the car for the weekend
for a jaunt away. "OK, Andy and Betty, you're each insured for the
weekend. Keep out of trouble!".
Then days later, comes the request: who was driving Saturday night when
the car was clocked speeding? I can ask them, but that's as far as it
goes. Unless one 'fesses up I can only say it was one of the two,
nothing more. So who gets the points? Me? Seems unfair.
On 18/06/2025 03:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:05:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:49 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:20:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
...if he can find them.
I refer you to my previous statement. If you allow someone to drive your car
who you are unable to contact, then you are an absolute blithering idiot, >>>> and that is entirely your problem.
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of >>> a vehicle has *no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported
in it *or* who *drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
They do have control over what is done *with their permission*
We *know* that. It has never been in dispute.
But why do you keep swerving around the very obvious possibility that
things may have happened which the owner will never know about and that
his enquiries with the hirer or the borrower are going to be limited in
value because of reluctance on the part of the person questioned to
reveal the whole truth?
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 20:12:31 +0100, Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 15:47, Mark Goodge wrote:
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of >>> a vehicle has*no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported
in it*or* who*drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
ISTM the basic issue has been clouded over.
Suppose I lend my offspring and their other half the car for the weekend
for a jaunt away. "OK, Andy and Betty, you're each insured for the
weekend. Keep out of trouble!".
Then days later, comes the request: who was driving Saturday night when
the car was clocked speeding? I can ask them, but that's as far as it
goes. Unless one 'fesses up I can only say it was one of the two,
nothing more. So who gets the points? Me? Seems unfair.
You identify both of them, and the law then chases both of them. Because they, too, are under a legal obligation to identify the driver.
On 19/06/2025 09:43 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mbiafaFl6okU2@mid.individual.net...
On 18/06/2025 08:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mbfl4fF6vp0U1@mid.individual.net...
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's driver was >>>>> to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to something. I pointed out in >>>>> response that the law does not work on the basis of an agreement having >>>>> been made, that no agreement is necessary and that the powers of the police
in these matters (stopping vehicles on the highway)
are all that matters.
But supposing you refuse acknowledge the powers of the police to act
in that manner ?
If in short, you don't agree ?
The question does not arise.
I am well aware of the lawful powers of the police in such matters and accept and
support the lawful use of those powers.
So you *do* agree to them, then ?
I thought you said above, that "no agreement is necessary ?
You are twisting the use of the very ordinary word "agree" as though it had significance beyond its every day meaning, but...
...I didn't use the word "agree" - that was your offereng - and I said that I accept
and support the lawful use of police powers with which the police are entrusted by law.
And I'll repeat for anyone who has difficulty with plain English and the most fundamental logic: it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not any citizen
"agrees" with those powers of the police or in any way has a not personally accepted
that he is bound by this or that piece of legislation. Such acceptance and agreement is
a fiction raised by a group of people who want to wriggle out of criminal and civil
liabilities.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:20:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 03:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:05:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:49 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:20:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
...if he can find them.
I refer you to my previous statement. If you allow someone to drive your car
who you are unable to contact, then you are an absolute blithering idiot, >>>>> and that is entirely your problem.
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of >>>> a vehicle has *no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported >>>> in it *or* who *drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
They do have control over what is done *with their permission*
We *know* that. It has never been in dispute.
But why do you keep swerving around the very obvious possibility that
things may have happened which the owner will never know about and that
his enquiries with the hirer or the borrower are going to be limited in
value because of reluctance on the part of the person questioned to
reveal the whole truth?
I have never swerved around the fact that an authorised borrower may be
party to unauthorised use (eg, TWOC) by a third party who is not authorised by the owner. If so, then the keeper cannot reasonably be expected to be aware of that.>
All the keeper can do is to identify the authorised borrower,
and let the law take it from there.
My point is simply that the law does expect the keeper to be able to
identify an *authorised* user, if necessary by pursuing reasonable
enquiries.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/06/2025 09:43 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
On 18/06/2025 08:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's driver was >>>>>> to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to something. I pointed out in >>>>>> response that the law does not work on the basis of an agreement having >>>>>> been made, that no agreement is necessary and that the powers of the police
in these matters (stopping vehicles on the highway)
are all that matters.
But supposing you refuse acknowledge the powers of the police to act >>>>> in that manner ?
If in short, you don't agree ?
The question does not arise.
I am well aware of the lawful powers of the police in such matters and accept and
support the lawful use of those powers.
So you *do* agree to them, then ?
I thought you said above, that "no agreement is necessary ?
You are twisting the use of the very ordinary word "agree" as though it had >> significance beyond its every day meaning, but...
...I didn't use the word "agree" - that was your offereng - and I said that I accept
and support the lawful use of police powers with which the police are entrusted by law.
So just to be clear about this.
While you "accept" the lawful use of police powers, you're saying that
this is entirely different from your "agreeing to" the lawful use of
police powers.
So that according to you "accepting" something and "agreeing to it" are entirely different things, are they ?
And I'll repeat for anyone who has difficulty with plain English and the most
fundamental logic: it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not any citizen
"agrees" with those powers of the police or in any way has a not personally accepted
that he is bound by this or that piece of legislation. Such acceptance and agreement is
a fiction raised by a group of people who want to wriggle out of criminal and civil
liabilities.
But surely if it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not
any citizen "agrees" with those powers of the police, then why should he
obey the law at all, if it's more profitable not to do so ?
On 20/06/2025 01:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/06/2025 09:43 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
On 18/06/2025 08:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's driver was
to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to something. I pointed out in >>>>>>> response that the law does not work on the basis of an agreement having >>>>>>> been made, that no agreement is necessary and that the powers of the police
in these matters (stopping vehicles on the highway)
are all that matters.
But supposing you refuse acknowledge the powers of the police to act >>>>>> in that manner ?
If in short, you don't agree ?
The question does not arise.
I am well aware of the lawful powers of the police in such matters and accept and
support the lawful use of those powers.
So you *do* agree to them, then ?
I thought you said above, that "no agreement is necessary ?
You are twisting the use of the very ordinary word "agree" as though it had >>> significance beyond its every day meaning, but...
...I didn't use the word "agree" - that was your offereng - and I said that I accept
and support the lawful use of police powers with which the police are entrusted by
law.
So just to be clear about this.
While you "accept" the lawful use of police powers, you're saying that
this is entirely different from your "agreeing to" the lawful use of
police powers.
They are quite different in that one of them is the truth (there is no requirement to
agree to the law or its enforcment) and one of them is utter garbage (that the driver
needs to have agreed in some way that the law applies to him in order for the law to...
er... apply to him).
So that according to you "accepting" something and "agreeing to it" are
entirely different things, are they ?
In the sense that the non-existent distinction is retailed by the Freemen on the Land
nutters, YES! No agreement or acquiescence is necessary and what's more there is no
facility for such "agreement" to even exist.
And I'll repeat for anyone who has difficulty with plain English and the most
fundamental logic: it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not any
citizen
"agrees" with those powers of the police or in any way has a not personally accepted
that he is bound by this or that piece of legislation. Such acceptance and agreement
is
a fiction raised by a group of people who want to wriggle out of criminal and civil
liabilities.
But surely if it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not
any citizen "agrees" with those powers of the police, then why should he
obey the law at all, if it's more profitable not to do so ?
There are some people who try that defence for size (criminal and civil matters).
On 20/06/2025 11:20 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:20:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 03:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:05:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 18/06/2025 10:49 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:20:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
...if he can find them.
I refer you to my previous statement. If you allow someone to drive your car
who you are unable to contact, then you are an absolute blithering idiot,
and that is entirely your problem.
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of >>>>> a vehicle has *no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported >>>>> in it *or* who *drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
They do have control over what is done *with their permission*
We *know* that. It has never been in dispute.
But why do you keep swerving around the very obvious possibility that
things may have happened which the owner will never know about and that
his enquiries with the hirer or the borrower are going to be limited in
value because of reluctance on the part of the person questioned to
reveal the whole truth?
I have never swerved around the fact that an authorised borrower may be
party to unauthorised use (eg, TWOC) by a third party who is not authorised >> by the owner. If so, then the keeper cannot reasonably be expected to be
aware of that.>
That's all you had to agree with in the first place. It's all I was saying.
All the keeper can do is to identify the authorised borrower,
and let the law take it from there.
Again, that's all you had to agree with. But for reasons never made
clear, you weren't inclined to.
My point is simply that the law does expect the keeper to be able to
identify an *authorised* user, if necessary by pursuing reasonable
enquiries.
It really shouldn't be necessary to conduct such reasonable enquiries.
The car hire company has full details on the hire agreement and even a photocopy of the driving licence. The private owner knows the identity
of the person(s) to whom he lent the vehicle.
But it will be for you to get recovery of the amount you demand, and
that, in the likely event that they decline or refuse to pay up, means
you would have to sue them through the courts. Not only would that cost
you (which you may be able to get back if successful) but will involve
time and effort, so it may not be worthwhile.
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the borrower who was driving. If you don't do that minimum you could be convicted of failing to
supply the name of the driver.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mbjevsFsecsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 19/06/2025 09:43 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mbiafaFl6okU2@mid.individual.net...
On 18/06/2025 08:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mbfl4fF6vp0U1@mid.individual.net...
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's
driver was to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to
something. I pointed out in response that the law does not work
on the basis of an agreement having been made, that no agreement
is necessary and that the powers of the police in these matters
(stopping vehicles on the highway) are all that matters.
But supposing you refuse acknowledge the powers of the police to
act in that manner ?
If in short, you don't agree ?
The question does not arise.
I am well aware of the lawful powers of the police in such matters
and accept and support the lawful use of those powers.
So you *do* agree to them, then ?
I thought you said above, that "no agreement is necessary ?
You are twisting the use of the very ordinary word "agree" as though
it had significance beyond its every day meaning, but...
...I didn't use the word "agree" - that was your offereng - and I
said that I accept and support the lawful use of police powers with
which the police are entrusted by law.
So just to be clear about this.
While you "accept" the lawful use of police powers, you're saying
that this is entirely different from your "agreeing to" the lawful
use of police powers.
So that according to you "accepting" something and "agreeing to it"
are entirely different things, are they ?
And I'll repeat for anyone who has difficulty with plain English and
the most fundamental logic: it doesn't make the slightest difference
whether or not any citizen "agrees" with those powers of the police
or in any way has a not personally accepted that he is bound by this
or that piece of legislation. Such acceptance and agreement is a
fiction raised by a group of people who want to wriggle out of
criminal and civil liabilities.
But surely if it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not
any citizen "agrees" with those powers of the police, then why should
he obey the law at all, if it's more profitable not to do so ?
bb
On 20 Jun 2025 at 16:58:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/06/2025 11:20 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:20:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 03:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:05:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 18/06/2025 10:49 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:20:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
...if he can find them.
I refer you to my previous statement. If you allow someone to drive your car
who you are unable to contact, then you are an absolute blithering idiot,
and that is entirely your problem.
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of >>>>>> a vehicle has *no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported >>>>>> in it *or* who *drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
They do have control over what is done *with their permission*
We *know* that. It has never been in dispute.
But why do you keep swerving around the very obvious possibility that
things may have happened which the owner will never know about and that >>>> his enquiries with the hirer or the borrower are going to be limited in >>>> value because of reluctance on the part of the person questioned to
reveal the whole truth?
I have never swerved around the fact that an authorised borrower may be
party to unauthorised use (eg, TWOC) by a third party who is not authorised >>> by the owner. If so, then the keeper cannot reasonably be expected to be >>> aware of that.>
That's all you had to agree with in the first place. It's all I was saying. >>
All the keeper can do is to identify the authorised borrower,
and let the law take it from there.
Again, that's all you had to agree with. But for reasons never made
clear, you weren't inclined to.
My point is simply that the law does expect the keeper to be able to
identify an *authorised* user, if necessary by pursuing reasonable
enquiries.
It really shouldn't be necessary to conduct such reasonable enquiries.
The car hire company has full details on the hire agreement and even a
photocopy of the driving licence. The private owner knows the identity
of the person(s) to whom he lent the vehicle.
You clearly haven't thought this through. You have to inform the authorities who you know was driving the car or justify not knowing.
You cannot put down
that you know who was driving the car when you don't, so you can't just put down that the borrower was driving because you don't know that.
And you can't
put down that you lent it to the named borrower and don't know who was driving
because then you haven't fulfilled your obligation to make reasonable efforts to find out who was driving. So at a minimum you have to ask the borrower who was driving. If he says yes, then put his name down. If he says no or don't know then you have to put down that you lent the car but do not know who was driving.
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the borrower who was driving.
If you don't do that minimum you could be convicted of failing to
supply the name of the driver.
This all follows from the law someone quoted higher up the thread.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mblf5jF84s0U1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/06/2025 01:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/06/2025 09:43 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
On 18/06/2025 08:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's driver was
to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to something. I pointed out in
response that the law does not work on the basis of an agreement having
been made, that no agreement is necessary and that the powers of the police
in these matters (stopping vehicles on the highway)
are all that matters.
But supposing you refuse acknowledge the powers of the police to act >>>>>>> in that manner ?
If in short, you don't agree ?
The question does not arise.
I am well aware of the lawful powers of the police in such matters and accept and
support the lawful use of those powers.
So you *do* agree to them, then ?
I thought you said above, that "no agreement is necessary ?
You are twisting the use of the very ordinary word "agree" as though it had
significance beyond its every day meaning, but...
...I didn't use the word "agree" - that was your offereng - and I said that I accept
and support the lawful use of police powers with which the police are entrusted by
law.
So just to be clear about this.
While you "accept" the lawful use of police powers, you're saying that
this is entirely different from your "agreeing to" the lawful use of
police powers.
They are quite different in that one of them is the truth (there is no requirement to
agree to the law or its enforcment) and one of them is utter garbage (that the driver
needs to have agreed in some way that the law applies to him in order for the law to...
er... apply to him).
But isn't that *exactly* what "acceptance" means ?
Accepting/agreeing that the law applies to him ?
So that according to you "accepting" something and "agreeing to it" are
entirely different things, are they ?
In the sense that the non-existent distinction is retailed by the Freemen on the Land
nutters, YES! No agreement or acquiescence is necessary and what's more there is no
facility for such "agreement" to even exist.
You appear to be somewhat confused. If, as you claim, the distinction is "non-existent", then surely "accepting" something and "agreeing to it"
are exactly the same thing ? So shouldn't you have answered "NO !"
to my question ?
And I'll repeat for anyone who has difficulty with plain English and the most
fundamental logic: it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not any
citizen
"agrees" with those powers of the police or in any way has a not personally accepted
that he is bound by this or that piece of legislation. Such acceptance and agreement
is a fiction raised by a group of people who want to wriggle out of criminal and civil
liabilities.
But surely if it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not
any citizen "agrees" with those powers of the police, then why should he >>> obey the law at all, if it's more profitable not to do so ?
There are some people who try that defence for size (criminal and civil matters).
Well no. I'm asking you.
Because it is you, and nobody else, who is suggesting that it doesn't make the slightest difference, whether or not any citizen "agrees" with those powers of the police, or not.
I'm simply asking you, what you believe might be the possible consequences, were someone to actively pursue such a course.
Not of course that it would actually apply to you. Because as you have
been at pains to point out, you yourself "accept" that the police
have such powers.
On 20/06/2025 18:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the borrower who >> was driving. If you don't do that minimum you could be convicted of failing to
supply the name of the driver.
But it can be that no-one actually knows. Hypothetically (thank
goodness) imagine a group of people setting off for a long drive on unfamiliar roads, swapping driving as they need and not to any
particular schedule. If they are required to identify who was driving at
a particular time or on a particular stretch of road, they may simply
not know. Why would they remember exactly when and where every swap was
made?
So the RK can only honestly answer, when the ticket lands, "I don't
know. It was X or Y or myself, but we have no record of who was driving when". Somehow I can't quite see that being enough though.
On 13:51 20 Jun 2025, billy bookcase said:
[quoted text muted]
You have got lost in poorly chosen terms and multiple meanings.
Surely the concept is simple enough. A law-abiding person will follow a particular law even if he doesn't approve of it.
On 20/06/2025 18:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the
borrower who was driving. If you don't do that minimum you could be
convicted of failing to supply the name of the driver.
But it can be that no-one actually knows. Hypothetically (thank
goodness) imagine a group of people setting off for a long drive on unfamiliar roads, swapping driving as they need and not to any
particular schedule. If they are required to identify who was driving at
a particular time or on a particular stretch of road, they may simply
not know. Why would they remember exactly when and where every swap was
made?
On 20/06/2025 06:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the borrower who >> was driving.
No, you don't need to do that. All you eed to do is tell the police who
was authorised to drive (ie, who was renting or had borrowed the
vehicle). Unless you have reason to believe that someone different was >driving (and how would you know that?), that's the top and bottom of it.
On 20/06/2025 07:35, Norman Wells wrote:
But it will be for you to get recovery of the amount you demand, and
that, in the likely event that they decline or refuse to pay up, means
you would have to sue them through the courts. Not only would that
cost you (which you may be able to get back if successful) but will
involve time and effort, so it may not be worthwhile.
Small claims track perhaps? I'd have thought an open and shut case:
photo of signage, photo of offending vehicle, all time-stamped. Sworn statement.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:19:56 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/06/2025 06:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the borrower who
was driving.
No, you don't need to do that. All you eed to do is tell the police who
was authorised to drive (ie, who was renting or had borrowed the
vehicle). Unless you have reason to believe that someone different was
driving (and how would you know that?), that's the top and bottom of it.
The law explicitly says that you have to make reasonable enquiries. Statute doesn't define what reasonable enquiries are, but legal professionals quoted earlier in the thread have stated that, in their experience of dealing with these cases in court, it includes asking the person you lent the car to. Unless you can come up with an authoritative source (case law, maybe) which contradicts them, then I fear you are merely going down the Normanesque rabbit hole of presuming the law to be what you think it is.
On 20/06/2025 06:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025 at 16:58:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/06/2025 11:20 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:20:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 18/06/2025 03:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:05:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 18/06/2025 10:49 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:20:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
...if he can find them.
I refer you to my previous statement. If you allow someone to drive your car
who you are unable to contact, then you are an absolute blithering idiot,
and that is entirely your problem.
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of
a vehicle has *no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported >>>>>>> in it *or* who *drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
They do have control over what is done *with their permission*
We *know* that. It has never been in dispute.
But why do you keep swerving around the very obvious possibility that >>>>> things may have happened which the owner will never know about and that >>>>> his enquiries with the hirer or the borrower are going to be limited in >>>>> value because of reluctance on the part of the person questioned to
reveal the whole truth?
I have never swerved around the fact that an authorised borrower may be >>>> party to unauthorised use (eg, TWOC) by a third party who is not authorised
by the owner. If so, then the keeper cannot reasonably be expected to be >>>> aware of that.>
That's all you had to agree with in the first place. It's all I was saying. >>>
All the keeper can do is to identify the authorised borrower,
and let the law take it from there.
Again, that's all you had to agree with. But for reasons never made
clear, you weren't inclined to.
My point is simply that the law does expect the keeper to be able to
identify an *authorised* user, if necessary by pursuing reasonable
enquiries.
It really shouldn't be necessary to conduct such reasonable enquiries.
The car hire company has full details on the hire agreement and even a
photocopy of the driving licence. The private owner knows the identity
of the person(s) to whom he lent the vehicle.
You clearly haven't thought this through. You have to inform the authorities >> who you know was driving the car or justify not knowing.
Not a single word of the above contradicts that. Not a word of it.
You haven't read it properly, have you?
You cannot put down
that you know who was driving the car when you don't, so you can't just put >> down that the borrower was driving because you don't know that.
And that's why you would not say that you know who was driving. All you
can say is who was AUTHORISED to drive (which may be more than one person).
You are making exceptionally heavy weather of this. Again, not a word of
the above contradicts that.
You haven't read it properly.
And you can't
put down that you lent it to the named borrower and don't know who was driving
because then you haven't fulfilled your obligation to make reasonable efforts
to find out who was driving. So at a minimum you have to ask the borrower who
was driving. If he says yes, then put his name down. If he says no or don't >> know then you have to put down that you lent the car but do not know who was >> driving.
Exactly so.
Try to find any contradiction of that above.
I shan't hold my breath.
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the borrower who >> was driving.
No, you don't need to do that. All you eed to do is tell the police who
was authorised to drive (ie, who was renting or had borrowed the
vehicle). Unless you have reason to believe that someone different was driving (and how would you know that?), that's the top and bottom of it.
If you don't do that minimum you could be convicted of failing to
supply the name of the driver.
You HAVE done that: given th name of the only person (or only persons) authorised to drive.
It's up tho him/them after that, when approached or otherwise contacted
by the police.
This all follows from the law someone quoted higher up the thread.
He has already accepted different.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:31:51 +0100, Mike Scott wrote:
On 20/06/2025 18:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the
borrower who was driving. If you don't do that minimum you could be
convicted of failing to supply the name of the driver.
But it can be that no-one actually knows. Hypothetically (thank
goodness) imagine a group of people setting off for a long drive on
unfamiliar roads, swapping driving as they need and not to any
particular schedule. If they are required to identify who was driving at
a particular time or on a particular stretch of road, they may simply
not know. Why would they remember exactly when and where every swap was
made?
Of course some cameras capture the car, the reg *and* the driver. Whether these pictures are provided to the RK initially I have no idea.
Also there is a world of difference between "it wasn't me" and "I don't know". Which the police have been known on occasion to use to their advantage.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:58:14 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 13:51 20 Jun 2025, billy bookcase said:
[quoted text muted]
You have got lost in poorly chosen terms and multiple meanings.
Surely the concept is simple enough. A law-abiding person will follow a
particular law even if he doesn't approve of it.
And totalitarianism is thataway -->
I've always been wary of those people who think blindly "obeying the law"
is somehow to their credit. Basically they have substituted religious
faith for secular faith.
Myself ? I hope I'd have the courage to refuse to obey a bad law.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:19:56 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/06/2025 06:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the borrower who
was driving.
No, you don't need to do that. All you eed to do is tell the police who
was authorised to drive (ie, who was renting or had borrowed the
vehicle). Unless you have reason to believe that someone different was
driving (and how would you know that?), that's the top and bottom of it.
The law explicitly says that you have to make reasonable enquiries.
Statute
doesn't define what reasonable enquiries are, but legal professionals quoted earlier in the thread have stated that, in their experience of dealing with these cases in court, it includes asking the person you lent the car to.
Unless you can come up with an authoritative source (case law, maybe) which contradicts them, then I fear you are merely going down the Normanesque rabbit hole of presuming the law to be what you think it is.
On 21/06/2025 04:38 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:19:56 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/06/2025 06:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the borrower who
was driving.
No, you don't need to do that. All you eed to do is tell the police who
was authorised to drive (ie, who was renting or had borrowed the
vehicle). Unless you have reason to believe that someone different was
driving (and how would you know that?), that's the top and bottom of it.
The law explicitly says that you have to make reasonable enquiries.
Oh, you're off on that one again, after it had been put to bed.
What is a "reasonable enquiry" in the context of a situation about which
you know nothing and have no reason to suspect anything untoward?
How do you go about searching for the identity of a person who, as far
as you are and can be aware, doesn't exist and didn't drive your car?
The duty is satisfied by providing the name of the person to whom the
vehicle was entrusted.
Statute
doesn't define what reasonable enquiries are, but legal professionals quoted >> earlier in the thread have stated that, in their experience of dealing with >> these cases in court, it includes asking the person you lent the car to.
No problem! Who has denied that? Certainly not I.
Are you now claiming that I *have*?
But if you lent a car to your son (something I've done at various times
- and he to me) would you accuse him (out of some misplaced and
misunderstood sense of legal duty) of allowing someone else to drive
behind your back even though it was understood that only he would drive?
If so, why?
Unless you can come up with an authoritative source (case law, maybe) which >> contradicts them, then I fear you are merely going down the Normanesque
rabbit hole of presuming the law to be what you think it is.
Have you ever encountered a case wherein the owner of a vehicle
(including a rental company) has named the hirer or borrower of a
vehicle and been prosecuted for not knowing or suspecting that the hirer
or borrower let someone unauthorised person drive without telling the owner?
On 20 Jun 2025 at 23:19:56 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/06/2025 06:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025 at 16:58:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/06/2025 11:20 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 12:20:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 18/06/2025 03:47 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 12:05:15 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 18/06/2025 10:49 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 23:20:06 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
...if he can find them.
I refer you to my previous statement. If you allow someone to drive your car
who you are unable to contact, then you are an absolute blithering idiot,
and that is entirely your problem.
WHY do you keep studiously avoiding the very real fact that the owner of
a vehicle has *no* control over the vehicle or over who is transported >>>>>>>> in it *or* who *drives* it once it has gone out of his sight?
They do have control over what is done *with their permission*
We *know* that. It has never been in dispute.
But why do you keep swerving around the very obvious possibility that >>>>>> things may have happened which the owner will never know about and that >>>>>> his enquiries with the hirer or the borrower are going to be limited in >>>>>> value because of reluctance on the part of the person questioned to >>>>>> reveal the whole truth?
I have never swerved around the fact that an authorised borrower may be >>>>> party to unauthorised use (eg, TWOC) by a third party who is not authorised
by the owner. If so, then the keeper cannot reasonably be expected to be >>>>> aware of that.>
That's all you had to agree with in the first place. It's all I was saying.
All the keeper can do is to identify the authorised borrower,
and let the law take it from there.
Again, that's all you had to agree with. But for reasons never made
clear, you weren't inclined to.
My point is simply that the law does expect the keeper to be able to >>>>> identify an *authorised* user, if necessary by pursuing reasonable
enquiries.
It really shouldn't be necessary to conduct such reasonable enquiries. >>>> The car hire company has full details on the hire agreement and even a >>>> photocopy of the driving licence. The private owner knows the identity >>>> of the person(s) to whom he lent the vehicle.
You clearly haven't thought this through. You have to inform the authorities
who you know was driving the car or justify not knowing.
Not a single word of the above contradicts that. Not a word of it.
You haven't read it properly, have you?
You cannot put down
that you know who was driving the car when you don't, so you can't just put >>> down that the borrower was driving because you don't know that.
And that's why you would not say that you know who was driving. All you
can say is who was AUTHORISED to drive (which may be more than one person). >>
You are making exceptionally heavy weather of this. Again, not a word of
the above contradicts that.
You haven't read it properly.
And you can't
put down that you lent it to the named borrower and don't know who was driving
because then you haven't fulfilled your obligation to make reasonable efforts
to find out who was driving. So at a minimum you have to ask the borrower who
was driving. If he says yes, then put his name down. If he says no or don't >>> know then you have to put down that you lent the car but do not know who was
driving.
Exactly so.
Try to find any contradiction of that above.
I shan't hold my breath.
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the borrower who
was driving.
No, you don't need to do that. All you eed to do is tell the police who
was authorised to drive (ie, who was renting or had borrowed the
vehicle). Unless you have reason to believe that someone different was
driving (and how would you know that?), that's the top and bottom of it.
If you don't do that minimum you could be convicted of failing to
supply the name of the driver.
You HAVE done that: given th name of the only person (or only persons)
authorised to drive.
It's up tho him/them after that, when approached or otherwise contacted
by the police.
This all follows from the law someone quoted higher up the thread.
He has already accepted different.
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirer who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 17:27:48 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/06/2025 04:38 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:19:56 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/06/2025 06:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:The law explicitly says that you have to make reasonable enquiries.
So the very minimum of enquiries you have to make is to ask the borrower who
was driving.
No, you don't need to do that. All you eed to do is tell the police who >>>> was authorised to drive (ie, who was renting or had borrowed the
vehicle). Unless you have reason to believe that someone different was >>>> driving (and how would you know that?), that's the top and bottom of it. >>>
Oh, you're off on that one again, after it had been put to bed.
What is a "reasonable enquiry" in the context of a situation about which
you know nothing and have no reason to suspect anything untoward?
You ask the people who are most likely to know. That is, the people who were in the vehicle at the time.
How do you go about searching for the identity of a person who, as far
as you are and can be aware, doesn't exist and didn't drive your car?
You start by asking the person you do know, that is, the person you lent the car to.
The duty is satisfied by providing the name of the person to whom the
vehicle was entrusted.
No. it is not. That is precisely where your knowledge of the law is lacking. As I have repeatedly stated, and provided a cite to the actual legislation, you are expected to make reasonable enquiries before responding to a NIP
that asks you to identify the driver.
Statute
doesn't define what reasonable enquiries are, but legal professionals quoted
earlier in the thread have stated that, in their experience of dealing with >>> these cases in court, it includes asking the person you lent the car to.
No problem! Who has denied that? Certainly not I.
Are you now claiming that I *have*?
You appear to have been denying it just a couple of paragraphs earlier in
the post I'm quoting!
But if you lent a car to your son (something I've done at various times
- and he to me) would you accuse him (out of some misplaced and
misunderstood sense of legal duty) of allowing someone else to drive
behind your back even though it was understood that only he would drive?
If so, why?
Only if he denied driving it when I asked him if he was driving it at the time stated on the NIP.
Unless you can come up with an authoritative source (case law, maybe) which >>> contradicts them, then I fear you are merely going down the Normanesque
rabbit hole of presuming the law to be what you think it is.
Have you ever encountered a case wherein the owner of a vehicle
(including a rental company) has named the hirer or borrower of a
vehicle and been prosecuted for not knowing or suspecting that the hirer
or borrower let someone unauthorised person drive without telling the owner?
Nobody would be prosecuted for not knowing. Someone could be prosecuted for failing to take reasonable steps to find out, when requested to do so.
On 20/06/2025 06:03 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mblf5jF84s0U1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/06/2025 01:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/06/2025 09:43 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
On 18/06/2025 08:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's driver was
to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to something. I pointed out in
response that the law does not work on the basis of an agreement having
been made, that no agreement is necessary and that the powers of the police
in these matters (stopping vehicles on the highway)
are all that matters.
But supposing you refuse acknowledge the powers of the police to act >>>>>>>> in that manner ?
If in short, you don't agree ?
The question does not arise.
I am well aware of the lawful powers of the police in such matters and accept and
support the lawful use of those powers.
So you *do* agree to them, then ?
I thought you said above, that "no agreement is necessary ?
You are twisting the use of the very ordinary word "agree" as though it had
significance beyond its every day meaning, but...
...I didn't use the word "agree" - that was your offereng - and I said that I
accept
and support the lawful use of police powers with which the police are entrusted by
law.
So just to be clear about this.
While you "accept" the lawful use of police powers, you're saying that >>>> this is entirely different from your "agreeing to" the lawful use of
police powers.
They are quite different in that one of them is the truth (there is no requirement to
agree to the law or its enforcment) and one of them is utter garbage (that the driver
needs to have agreed in some way that the law applies to him in order for the law
to...
er... apply to him).
But isn't that *exactly* what "acceptance" means ?
Accepting/agreeing that the law applies to him ?
Is this a legal point or an exceoptuionally irrelevant semantic quibble?
So that according to you "accepting" something and "agreeing to it" are >>>> entirely different things, are they ?
In the sense that the non-existent distinction is retailed by the Freemen on the Land
nutters, YES! No agreement or acquiescence is necessary and what's more there is no
facility for such "agreement" to even exist.
You appear to be somewhat confused. If, as you claim, the distinction is
"non-existent", then surely "accepting" something and "agreeing to it"
are exactly the same thing ? So shouldn't you have answered "NO !"
to my question ?
Check the dictionary. I have tired of pointing out the same thing over and over again
to you.
And I'll repeat for anyone who has difficulty with plain English and the most
fundamental logic: it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not any
citizen
"agrees" with those powers of the police or in any way has a not personally
accepted
that he is bound by this or that piece of legislation. Such acceptance and
agreement
is a fiction raised by a group of people who want to wriggle out of criminal and
civil
liabilities.
But surely if it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not
any citizen "agrees" with those powers of the police, then why should he >>>> obey the law at all, if it's more profitable not to do so ?
There are some people who try that defence for size (criminal and civil matters).
Well no. I'm asking you.
And you have been given the answer, several times.
Because it is you, and nobody else, who is suggesting that it doesn't make >> the slightest difference, whether or not any citizen "agrees" with those
powers of the police, or not.
Oh, you would, if you had occasion to do so, soon find out that the police agree with
my version. And not the FotL version.
I'm simply asking you, what you believe might be the possible consequences, >> were someone to actively pursue such a course.
The person pursuing a defence based on FotL arguments will LOSE.
Is that clear enough? It'll have to be because I'm not going to repeat it yet another
time.
Not of course that it would actually apply to you. Because as you have
been at pains to point out, you yourself "accept" that the police
have such powers.
Quite so. The law is the law for everyone, whether they like it, or agree with it, or
not.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:31:51 +0100, Mike Scott wrote:
Of course some cameras capture the car, the reg *and* the driver.
On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirer
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course.
Why would they be different?
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other
has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s).
But what difference would that make?
Is there anything about it in the Road Traffic Acts?
On 21/06/2025 10:00 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
You ask the people who are most likely to know. That is, the people who were >> in the vehicle at the time.
And if there was only one person in the car and authorised to drive?
No. it is not. That is precisely where your knowledge of the law is lacking. >> As I have repeatedly stated, and provided a cite to the actual legislation, >> you are expected to make reasonable enquiries before responding to a NIP
that asks you to identify the driver.
The reasonable enquiry has been executed pror to the vehicle leaving
your possession.
Only if he denied driving it when I asked him if he was driving it at the
time stated on the NIP.
And what then?
No, it isn't. The reasonable enquiry comes *after* you receive the NIP.
If you weren't driving yourself, and you don't already know (or, at
least, have good reason to believe) who was driving at the time, then
you have to make some effort to find out before returning the NIP.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirer
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course.
Why would they be different?
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other
has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s).
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the case of an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is no contract.
Is there anything about it in the Road Traffic Acts?
No.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/06/2025 10:00 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
You ask the people who are most likely to know. That is, the people who were
in the vehicle at the time.
And if there was only one person in the car and authorised to drive?
Then, given that you have no reason to believe otherwise, you respond to the NIP naming that person as the driver.
No. it is not. That is precisely where your knowledge of the law is lacking.
As I have repeatedly stated, and provided a cite to the actual legislation, >>> you are expected to make reasonable enquiries before responding to a NIP >>> that asks you to identify the driver.
The reasonable enquiry has been executed pror to the vehicle leaving
your possession.
No, it isn't. The reasonable enquiry comes *after* you receive the NIP. If you weren't driving yourself, and you don't already know (or, at least, have good reason to believe) who was driving at the time, then you have to make some effort to find out before returning the NIP.
Only if he denied driving it when I asked him if he was driving it at the >>> time stated on the NIP.
And what then?
You would then be in a situation where you need to make some difficult
family decisions.
On 22/06/2025 01:24 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirer
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course.
Why would they be different?
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other
has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s).
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the case of >> an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is no contract.
Yes, there is (and especially within family members): connection and
mutual support.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:56:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 01:24 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the
case of an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is
no contract.
Yes, there is (and especially within family members): connection and
mutual support.
I think you'd struggle to find a court which would agree.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:56:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 01:24 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>> On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirer
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course.
Why would they be different?
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other >>>> has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s).
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the case of >>> an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is no contract.
Yes, there is (and especially within family members): connection and
mutual support.
I think you'd struggle to find a court which would agree.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with
the hirer who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an
individual informally lending their car are quite different. I
could be wrong of course.
Why would they be different?
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the
other has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the
driver(s).
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the
case of an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is
no contract.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:58:14 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 13:51 20 Jun 2025, billy bookcase said:
[quoted text muted]
You have got lost in poorly chosen terms and multiple meanings.
Surely the concept is simple enough. A law-abiding person will
follow a particular law even if he doesn't approve of it.
And totalitarianism is thataway -->
I've always been wary of those people who think blindly "obeying the
law" is somehow to their credit. Basically they have substituted
religious faith for secular faith.
Myself ? I hope I'd have the courage to refuse to obey a bad law.
On 22/06/2025 08:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:56:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 01:24 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:Yes, there is (and especially within family members): connection and
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirer
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course.
Why would they be different?
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other >>>>> has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s).
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the case of
an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is no contract. >>>
mutual support.
I think you'd struggle to find a court which would agree.
They might or might not. But the "consideration" is still there, albeit
in a form that you don't want to acknowledge.
Not everything is about money.
On 12:08 21 Jun 2025, Jethro_uk said:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:58:14 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 13:51 20 Jun 2025, billy bookcase said:
[quoted text muted]
You have got lost in poorly chosen terms and multiple meanings.
Surely the concept is simple enough. A law-abiding person will follow
a particular law even if he doesn't approve of it.
And totalitarianism is thataway -->
I've always been wary of those people who think blindly "obeying the
law" is somehow to their credit. Basically they have substituted
religious faith for secular faith.
Myself ? I hope I'd have the courage to refuse to obey a bad law.
Surely it's not so terrible that some people will follow a law even if
they disagree with it.
If one picks and chooses which laws to abide by, then there's not much
point in having laws.
People like Freemen On The Land assert they are bound by laws they
haven't explicity consent to .... but it doesn't usually end well for
them.
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 23:37:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 08:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:56:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 01:24 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:Yes, there is (and especially within family members): connection and
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirerWhy would they be different?
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course. >>>>>
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other >>>>>> has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s).
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the case of
an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is no contract. >>>>
mutual support.
I think you'd struggle to find a court which would agree.
They might or might not. But the "consideration" is still there, albeit
in a form that you don't want to acknowledge.
Not everything is about money.
In legal terms, a consideration is always about money. Or, at least, about monetary value. And it's the legal terms which matter here, since we're discussing a legal situation.
On 12:08 21 Jun 2025, Jethro_uk said:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:58:14 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 13:51 20 Jun 2025, billy bookcase said:
[quoted text muted]
You have got lost in poorly chosen terms and multiple meanings.
Surely the concept is simple enough. A law-abiding person will
follow a particular law even if he doesn't approve of it.
And totalitarianism is thataway -->
I've always been wary of those people who think blindly "obeying the
law" is somehow to their credit. Basically they have substituted
religious faith for secular faith.
Myself ? I hope I'd have the courage to refuse to obey a bad law.
Surely it's not so terrible that some people will follow a law even if
they disagree with it.
If one picks and chooses which laws to abide by, then there's not much
point in having laws.
People like Freemen On The Land assert they are bound by laws they
haven't explicity consent to .... but it doesn't usually end well for
them.
On 23/06/2025 10:20 AM, Pamela wrote:
On 12:08 21 Jun 2025, Jethro_uk said:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:58:14 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 13:51 20 Jun 2025, billy bookcase said:
You have got lost in poorly chosen terms and multiple meanings.
[quoted text muted]
Surely the concept is simple enough. A law-abiding person will
follow a particular law even if he doesn't approve of it.
And totalitarianism is thataway -->
I've always been wary of those people who think blindly "obeying
the law" is somehow to their credit. Basically they have
substituted religious faith for secular faith.
Myself ? I hope I'd have the courage to refuse to obey a bad law.
Surely it's not so terrible that some people will follow a law even
if they disagree with it.
Just think back to 1967 and the introduction of the breathalyser.
If one picks and chooses which laws to abide by, then there's not
much point in having laws.
People like Freemen On The Land assert they are bound by laws they
haven't explicity consent to .... but it doesn't usually end well
for them.
I think there's a "not" missed out in that final para. But with that
proviso, you're absolutely right.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mblf5jF84s0U1@mid.individual.net...
On 20/06/2025 01:51 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/06/2025 09:43 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:...
On 18/06/2025 08:22 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It was something in the *OP* which suggested that a vehicle's
driver was to be taken (ie, deemed) to have agreed to
something. I pointed out in response that the law does not
work on the basis of an agreement having been made, that no
agreement is necessary and that the powers of the police
in these matters (stopping vehicles on the highway)
are all that matters.
But supposing you refuse acknowledge the powers of the police
to act in that manner ?
If in short, you don't agree ?
The question does not arise.
I am well aware of the lawful powers of the police in such
matters and accept and support the lawful use of those powers.
So you *do* agree to them, then ?
I thought you said above, that "no agreement is necessary ?
You are twisting the use of the very ordinary word "agree" as
though it had significance beyond its every day meaning, but...
...I didn't use the word "agree" - that was your offereng - and I
said that I accept and support the lawful use of police powers
with which the police are entrusted by law.
So just to be clear about this.
While you "accept" the lawful use of police powers, you're saying
that this is entirely different from your "agreeing to" the lawful
use of police powers.
They are quite different in that one of them is the truth (there is
no requirement to agree to the law or its enforcment) and one of
them is utter garbage (that the driver needs to have agreed in some
way that the law applies to him in order for the law to... er...
apply to him).
But isn't that *exactly* what "acceptance" means ?
Accepting/agreeing that the law applies to him ?
So that according to you "accepting" something and "agreeing to it"
are entirely different things, are they ?
In the sense that the non-existent distinction is retailed by the
Freemen on the Land nutters, YES! No agreement or acquiescence is
necessary and what's more there is no facility for such "agreement"
to even exist.
You appear to be somewhat confused. If, as you claim, the distinction
is "non-existent", then surely "accepting" something and "agreeing to
it" are exactly the same thing ? So shouldn't you have answered "NO
!" to my question ?
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 10:20:22 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 12:08 21 Jun 2025, Jethro_uk said:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:58:14 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 13:51 20 Jun 2025, billy bookcase said:
[quoted text muted]
You have got lost in poorly chosen terms and multiple meanings.
Surely the concept is simple enough. A law-abiding person will follow
a particular law even if he doesn't approve of it.
And totalitarianism is thataway -->
I've always been wary of those people who think blindly "obeying the
law" is somehow to their credit. Basically they have substituted
religious faith for secular faith.
Myself ? I hope I'd have the courage to refuse to obey a bad law.
Surely it's not so terrible that some people will follow a law even if
they disagree with it.
If one picks and chooses which laws to abide by, then there's not much
point in having laws.
People like Freemen On The Land assert they are bound by laws they
haven't explicity consent to .... but it doesn't usually end well for
them.
You appear to be assuming this is a black and white case.
It's totally possible to agree with the principle of obeying laws with
which you do not intellectually agree for the good of society whilst at
the same time being prepared to disobey a law that you do not agree with morally.
As a bumper sticker once said:
"The people who hid Anne Frank were breaking the law, and the people who killed her were obeying the law."
I've no time for the performative idiocy of the freeman of the land
cobblers.
On 23/06/2025 12:05, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 23:37:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 08:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:56:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 22/06/2025 01:24 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:Yes, there is (and especially within family members): connection and >>>>> mutual support.
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirerWhy would they be different?
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course. >>>>>>
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other >>>>>>> has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s).
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the case of
an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is no contract. >>>>>
I think you'd struggle to find a court which would agree.
They might or might not. But the "consideration" is still there, albeit
in a form that you don't want to acknowledge.
Not everything is about money.
In legal terms, a consideration is always about money. Or, at least, about >> monetary value. And it's the legal terms which matter here, since we're
discussing a legal situation.
In that case, you should have looked it up.
"Consideration can be anything of value (such as any goods, money,
services, or promises of any of these), which each party gives as a quid
pro quo to support their side of the bargain"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 12:19:23 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 12:05, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 23:37:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 08:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:56:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 22/06/2025 01:24 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirerWhy would they be different?
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course. >>>>>>>
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other >>>>>>>> has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s). >>>>>>>
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the case of
an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is no contract.
Yes, there is (and especially within family members): connection and >>>>>> mutual support.
I think you'd struggle to find a court which would agree.
They might or might not. But the "consideration" is still there, albeit >>>> in a form that you don't want to acknowledge.
Not everything is about money.
In legal terms, a consideration is always about money. Or, at least, about >>> monetary value. And it's the legal terms which matter here, since we're
discussing a legal situation.
In that case, you should have looked it up.
"Consideration can be anything of value (such as any goods, money,
services, or promises of any of these), which each party gives as a quid
pro quo to support their side of the bargain"
Like I said, of *value*. In legal terms, that is defined as monetary value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law
It might have heled if you'd read all the way to the bottom of that page:
Consideration must have some value, even if it is only slight value, in
order to be good consideration.
On 23/06/2025 18:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 12:19:23 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
On 23/06/2025 12:05, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 23:37:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 22/06/2025 08:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:56:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 22/06/2025 01:24 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirerWhy would they be different?
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course. >>>>>>>>
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other
has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s). >>>>>>>>
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the case of
an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is no contract.
Yes, there is (and especially within family members): connection and >>>>>>> mutual support.
I think you'd struggle to find a court which would agree.
They might or might not. But the "consideration" is still there, albeit >>>>> in a form that you don't want to acknowledge.
Not everything is about money.
In legal terms, a consideration is always about money. Or, at least, about >>>> monetary value. And it's the legal terms which matter here, since we're >>>> discussing a legal situation.
In that case, you should have looked it up.
"Consideration can be anything of value (such as any goods, money,
services, or promises of any of these), which each party gives as a quid >>> pro quo to support their side of the bargain"
Like I said, of *value*. In legal terms, that is defined as monetary value.
Where do you get that from?
There are many examples even in that article of valid considerations of
no monetary value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law
It might have heled if you'd read all the way to the bottom of that page:
Consideration must have some value, even if it is only slight value, in >> order to be good consideration.
As Mr Nugent pointed out, not everything is about money.
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 12:19:23 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 12:05, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 23:37:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/06/2025 08:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:56:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 22/06/2025 01:24 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirerWhy would they be different?
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course. >>>>>>>
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other >>>>>>>> has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s). >>>>>>>
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the case of
an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is no contract.
Yes, there is (and especially within family members): connection and >>>>>> mutual support.
I think you'd struggle to find a court which would agree.
They might or might not. But the "consideration" is still there, albeit >>>> in a form that you don't want to acknowledge.
Not everything is about money.
In legal terms, a consideration is always about money. Or, at least, about >>> monetary value. And it's the legal terms which matter here, since we're
discussing a legal situation.
In that case, you should have looked it up.
"Consideration can be anything of value (such as any goods, money,
services, or promises of any of these), which each party gives as a quid
pro quo to support their side of the bargain"
Like I said, of *value*. In legal terms, that is defined as monetary value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law
It might have heled if you'd read all the way to the bottom of that page:
Consideration must have some value, even if it is only slight value, in
order to be good consideration.
On 23 Jun 2025 at 18:46:33 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/06/2025 18:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 12:19:23 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>Where do you get that from?
On 23/06/2025 12:05, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 23:37:20 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 22/06/2025 08:51 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2025 16:56:42 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 22/06/2025 01:24 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 23:33:25 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/06/2025 11:59 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think the case of a care hire company with a signed contract with the hirerWhy would they be different?
who takes responsibility for the car and the case of an individual informally
lending their car are quite different. I could be wrong of course. >>>>>>>>>
One has a written commercial contract with the driver(s) and the other
has an informal oral non-commercial contract with the driver(s). >>>>>>>>>
But what difference would that make?
A contract requires consideration. There is no consideration in the case of
an informal loan between acquaintances. Therefore, there is no contract.
Yes, there is (and especially within family members): connection and >>>>>>>> mutual support.
I think you'd struggle to find a court which would agree.
They might or might not. But the "consideration" is still there, albeit >>>>>> in a form that you don't want to acknowledge.
Not everything is about money.
In legal terms, a consideration is always about money. Or, at least, about
monetary value. And it's the legal terms which matter here, since we're >>>>> discussing a legal situation.
In that case, you should have looked it up.
"Consideration can be anything of value (such as any goods, money,
services, or promises of any of these), which each party gives as a quid >>>> pro quo to support their side of the bargain"
Like I said, of *value*. In legal terms, that is defined as monetary value. >>
There are many examples even in that article of valid considerations of
no monetary value.
I see no mention of any valid consideration not of monetary value in that article. The value can be low, but must not be nil.
Would you like to mention such a consideration, in the article or not?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:45:45 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |