Pushy Bristol BMW driver

[Markymark]

Under what circumstances can you see yourself not knowing who was driving your car?

You were blind drunk at the time?

 

[summerdays]

You were blind drunk at the time?

If I'm that drunk I'm not going near my car..... I enjoy alcohol but have never seen the point in being blind drunk ... I prefer to enjoy it rather than pass out. In which case they have taken the keys without your permission and you should be asking questions such as how did my car change location etc .... it could have been you behind the wheel for a start.

 

[Markymark]

If I'm that drunk I'm not going near my car..... I enjoy alcohol but have never seen the point in being blind drunk ... I prefer to enjoy it rather than pass out. In which case they have taken the keys without your permission and you should be asking questions such as how did my car change location etc .... it could have been you behind the wheel for a start.

I wasn't being serious.

 

[ufkacbln]

Because somebody can't name a driver, it's right to do an action that will likely result in unemployment and loss of earnings, potentially putting a family, and children at risk. With no evidence that they are guilty of anything?

1. The car has been driven dangerously and in amanner that could have called serious injury
2. The owner has a legal obligation to ensure that at the time the vehicle was insured, driven by a licensed driver.....
3. If they have not done this then they are guilty.... the evidence is simple that they lent their vehicle without these checks

The consequences are the price of stupidity

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Oh do stop overdramatising it. Nobody needs a car to work and it's high time we stopped trotting that tired old meme out.

No, but if you lock them up in a cell for a month so they can "think" as per the post I quoted, then you're likely not to have a job at the end of it. Please do actually read what I posted.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

1. The car has been driven dangerously and in amanner that could have called serious injury
2. The owner has a legal obligation to ensure that at the time the vehicle was insured, driven by a licensed driver.....
3. If they have not done this then they are guilty.... the evidence is simple that they lent their vehicle without these checks

The consequences are the price of stupidity

And this is already a crime, It is 6-8 points for permitting an uninsured person to drive the vehicle. What is needed is for it to be enforced. Not, over the top reactions about locking people up because they try and dodge the law.

Whether we like it or not, there is a standard that our justice system follows, while it will be abused at times, and some people may get away with it. I wouldn't swap it for any of the alternatives that are mentioned in this thread.

 

[glenn forger]

I reckon it would only take 28 MINUTES!

 

[uphillstruggler]

Because somebody can't name a driver, it's right to do an action that will likely result in unemployment and loss of earnings, potentially putting a family, and children at risk. With no evidence that they are guilty of anything?

would you lend your new BMW to a driver you cant identify? its sounds like obstruction to me.

but that's ok, because he cant remember his name.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

would you lend your new BMW to a driver you cant identify? its sounds like obstruction to me.

but that's ok, because he cant remember his name.

No, and it's not something I agree with. It's certainly not 'ok'.

It is still a crime. The onus is still on the prosecution to provide the proof, and/or for a jury to find him guilty. That is the part I don't think we should ever change.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Perhaps we can settle on it being a legal requirement to keep a record of who you allow to drive a car then? On the very rare occasions I use a work car, I have to sign for it, so there is no getting away from responsibility.

An even easier way would be to ban insurance companies providing an "other vehicles under 3rd party clause". That way, if the person isn't specifically named on the certificate with that reg, they're not insured.

There's no additional paperwork, and it's black and white. None of this, "He said he was insured with his own insurer". That way, at the very least if you can't name the driver (and you should, as it would be named on the insurance certificate), then you could be charged with permitting no insurance.

 

[sanddancer]

Reading the comments from Glenn's link there is this gem:
View attachment 121051

LoL illiterate Audi driver defends moron bmw driver. How ironic

i like the response from lien .
short and to the point

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Nobody was suggesting that.

That is what various suggestions in this thread are.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Really? Where?

"the owner could be held for a modest amount of time, to allow them to search their memory in a distraction free environment."

Lock people up till they remember the information Police want?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

So the police can use that option if they want for those that are non-compliant.

 

[glenn forger]

They already do.