Would You Take Driving Points For Someone Else?

He is (was!) a lawmaker. He should expect to be held to the highest standards of probity.

Pillock.

Rolfe.

Why don't we direct our outrage more productively? After all, we went to war in Iraq after being told a pack of lies, we even knew or at least suspected we were being lied to, we contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the destruction of infra structure and prolonged destabilisation, in breach of international law and what did we do? Re-elected Bliar. So I don't understand your probity schtick. They lie all the time. This one only hurt himself and his wife fortunately.
 
We can't be outraged about both this and the Iraq war, dodgy dossier and all that?

Rolfe.
 
We can't be outraged about both this and the Iraq war, dodgy dossier and all that?

Rolfe.

I certainly have enough outrage to go around and plenty left over to get all bent out of shape over PFI as well.

The bit I find most breathtaking was the audacity to proclaim his innocence when he absolutely knew he was guilty (but hoping that procedural points would allow him to wriggle off the hook). I'm not sure whether it's childlike behaviour or more like Lance Armstrong/Tiger Woods where the person believes they've done nothing wrong and/or believes that they are above censure.
 
I certainly have enough outrage to go around and plenty left over to get all bent out of shape over PFI as well.

The bit I find most breathtaking was the audacity to proclaim his innocence when he absolutely knew he was guilty (but hoping that procedural points would allow him to wriggle off the hook). I'm not sure whether it's childlike behaviour or more like Lance Armstrong/Tiger Woods where the person believes they've done nothing wrong and/or believes that they are above censure.

It's called chutzpah I think. And Huhne has it in spades. Even his little statement to the press was self-serving 'I have taken responsibility ... for something that happened 10 years ago'. LOL
 
Who says he is more important? Why would outrage' over one preclude 'outrage' over another?
 
I understand that, but I'd be shocked if the practice of taking points for others isn't widespread.

What's the point (no pun intended) of assigning points for speed camera violations? Just take the money, that's the purpose of the cameras anyway.
Because taking points for another person is classed as Perverting the Course of Justice (PCoJ), it's not very widespread. To take points for another person, you'd have to be fully insured to drive the car that was caught speeding, so that knocks out almost all potentials but partners/parents/adult children. Remember also that every speeding camera penalty is backed up with a photograph - if there is any doubt about who was behind the wheel, the police force concerned can check that. In practice, photographs aren't always looked at, but a driver can never be sure that the police force won't check.

PCoJ is seen here as a really serious offence, on a par with perjury in court, and the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Jeffrey Archer, ex-politician and author, was jailed for PCoJ for four years in connection with the provision of a false alibi in a libel case he brought against a newspaper.

The Don has explained the issue of insurance in a UK context. For example, both I and my daughter are insured to drive my car, but my policy contains an exclusion that nobody else, even if they have third party cover for driving other vehicles, can drive it. I had to get a special dispensation to allow my 19yo daughter to drive it as I have a Motability car (a car leased for me by the government using my disability benefits as well as my own money), and generally they won't insure under 25s on higher value cars (I have a Mercedes B class). So if either of us were to be caught speeding, we could only take points for the other, and the insurance issue would be the same in the end.

Whilst I think most UK residents would entirely agree with you that speed cameras are simply revenue generators, their supposed function is to deter speeding. If the only consequence was £60, nobody would much care about being caught as the fine is relatively small as long as you are within fixed penalty guidelines. To act as a deterrent, there has to be proper consequences, and the points are that deterrent. Everybody starts off with no points, and points are given for various motoring offences. Points last for three years; any points older than that are disregarded. In the first two years of a person holding a driving licence, 6 points will lead to a loss of licence, after that, 12 points means a six month automatic ban. Most run-of-the-mill speeding offences are 3 points, having no insurance is 6 points. All points have to be declared to your insurer and they may load the premium accordingly.

The highest limit on UK roads is currently 70mph, though there are plans to raise the limit on motorways to 80mph. Built up areas are generally 30mph, sometimes 20mph. Other roads are 40, 50 or 60, depending on the type of road. They are generally all well signposted and cameras have to be painted bright yellow so they stand out.
 
Because if you only take money you are just taxing speeding. Rich people will just pay the fines and keep speeding.

At the moment the fine is £60 not a huge amount in the scheme of things and is as much to cover costs as it is a punishment. Points on your license are the punishment and disincentive.
Rich people could also figure out a way to make it a company car and avoid points entirely.

Is there any evidence at all that speed cameras make the roads safer?
 
Rich people could also figure out a way to make it a company car and avoid points entirely.

Is there any evidence at all that speed cameras make the roads safer?

Some:

Link to an abstract:

http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7487/331

Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties. The level of evidence is relatively poor, however, as most studies did not have satisfactory comparison groups or adequate control for potential confounders. Controlled introduction of speed cameras with careful data collection may offer improved evidence of their effectiveness in the future.

Speed cameras are used on motorways to enforce variable speed limits (which may or may not improve safety but have reduced congestion) and in roadworks.
 
Rich people could also figure out a way to make it a company car and avoid points entirely.

You'd think that, but the authorities do tend to be quite persistent at finding out who was driving the "company" car (as the number of entertainment and sports
personalities caught for speeding shows).

If the speeding offence is severe (speed limit +30 mph) then I suspect that they will assign the points (or more specifically ban) to the registered keeper.
 
Looks a lot like "very little if any".

You'd think that, but the authorities do tend to be quite persistent at finding out who was driving the "company" car (as the number of entertainment and sports
personalities caught for speeding shows).

If the speeding offence is severe (speed limit +30 mph) then I suspect that they will assign the points (or more specifically ban) to the registered keeper.
What if the registered keeper is XYZ Corp.?
 
According to today's Times the AA ran a poll which resulted in an estimate of 300,000 cases of people getting others to take their points for them.
 
I understand that, but I'd be shocked if the practice of taking points for others isn't widespread.

What's the point (no pun intended) of assigning points for speed camera violations? Just take the money, that's the purpose of the cameras anyway.
And if that isn't the purpose of the cameras? :rolleyes:

Yeah, good luck ever figuring out someone lied about it. Best case scenario is the he said/she said example in the OP, and I doubt that's enough for a conviction.
It's up the owner of the vehicle to state who was driving.


Rich people could also figure out a way to make it a company car and avoid points entirely.
It's been tried and doesn't usually work.

Is there any evidence at all that speed cameras make the roads safer?
Some yes.

Reminds me a little of a friend of mine who got caught on camera for speeding. He received a photograph in which he couldn't be identified and argued that it wasn't him driving. They asked him what cigarettes he smoked and then handed him an enhanced photograph that not only clearly showed his face but also the pack of Marlboro Lights on his dashboard.:xtongue
Wait until the start uploading SCORPION STARE to the speed cameras. That's the way to deal with eldrich horrors from the dungeon dimensions, terrorists and speeders.
 
According to today's Times the AA ran a poll which resulted in an estimate of 300,000 cases of people getting others to take their points for them.

Usually because they don't realize they could end up sharing a cell with Bubba for doing it.
 
Usually because they don't realize they could end up sharing a cell with Bubba for doing it.

I suspect there are many who have no idea how serious the consequences can be, which is bad news for Mr Huhne as the British Establishment has a way of making an examples of its own when they get caught too obviously for a cover up to work deviate from the path of rectitude.
 

Back
Top Bottom