In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?

"Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:op.06xr84ehmvhs6z@ryzen.lan...
> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's his
> car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the camera
> does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?

I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name appears
on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one driving if there
is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that Barry was driving
but won't own up, he will obviously have a major grievance against Barry ;-)

I presume a car which is temporarily hired to someone is a special case: the
registered keeper will be company which is doing the hiring but the legal
responsibility for paying fines and receiving points is contracted to the
person who has hired the car.

On 22/07/2021 03:37 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:

> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's his
> car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the camera
> does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?

If the registered keeper (TK) of the vehicle truthfully tells the police
who was driving on an occasion when it was observed by a camera that the
person driving may have committed an offence, that is all the RK need do
in order to comply with the law.

Thereafter, the matter lies between the police and the person said to
have been driving.

Of course, the named driver may not have been driving. The RK only
really knows who was in charge of the vehicle, unless he (the RK) was
also in the vehicle at the time.

On 22/07/2021 15:51, NY wrote:
>
> I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
> appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one
> driving if there is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that
> Barry was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major
> grievance against Barry ;-)
>
My missus went through a spate of attracting speeding tickets in our car
(registered to me).
I went through a spate of forgetfulness as to who was driving the car at
the time and none of them were paid.

Not proud of the fact, just saying....

On 22/07/2021 15:51, NY wrote:
> "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.06xr84ehmvhs6z@ryzen.lan...
>> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
>> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's
>> his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the
>> camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>
> I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
> appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one
> driving if there is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that
> Barry was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major
> grievance against Barry ;-)

The owner has a legal responsibility to name the driver. At that point
if there is a dispute, case law may suggest a defence.

"There have been a number of cases, and in particular, police officers
who have successfully disputed speeding prosecutions because photographs
have not been enough to show who the driver was.

One of the most cited cases is that of Regina v Detective Superintendent
Adrian Roberts, who appealed against a fixed penalty notice. His defence
was that he could not remember if he been driving at the time. It was
subsequently ruled that the photographic evidence was inconclusive and
the ticket was scrapped. It is useful to cite cases such as this when
writing to the police."

Which suggests that a registered keeper naming the driver, but the
driver disputing it would also need to rely upon photographic evidence
for the police to proceed.

On 22/07/2021 16:09, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 03:37 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
>> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's
>> his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the
>> camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>
> If the registered keeper (TK) of the vehicle truthfully tells the police
> who was driving on an occasion when it was observed by a camera that the
> person driving may have committed an offence, that is all the RK need do
> in order to comply with the law.
>
> Thereafter, the matter lies between the police and the person said to
> have been driving.
>
> Of course, the named driver may not have been driving. The RK only
> really knows who was in charge of the vehicle, unless he (the RK) was
> also in the vehicle at the time.

It is even possible for the registered keep to simply not know.

When I still lived with my parents. My father may have been at work in
his company car, while my mother, sister or myself might have used the
car that was registered in his name for a short trip (rather than moving
it to get our own cars out).

He would not know that the car had even been used, but we all had
blanket permission from each other to use whichever car was most
convenient, at any time.

On 22/07/2021 04:20 pm, Steve Walker wrote:

> On 22/07/2021 16:09, JNugent wrote:
>> On 22/07/2021 03:37 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>
>>> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
>>> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's
>>> his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the
>>> camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>>
>> If the registered keeper (TK) of the vehicle truthfully tells the
>> police who was driving on an occasion when it was observed by a camera
>> that the person driving may have committed an offence, that is all the
>> RK need do in order to comply with the law.
>>
>> Thereafter, the matter lies between the police and the person said to
>> have been driving.
>>
>> Of course, the named driver may not have been driving. The RK only
>> really knows who was in charge of the vehicle, unless he (the RK) was
>> also in the vehicle at the time.
>
> It is even possible for the registered keep to simply not know.
>
> When I still lived with my parents. My father may have been at work in
> his company car, while my mother, sister or myself might have used the
> car that was registered in his name for a short trip (rather than moving
> it to get our own cars out).
>
> He would not know that the car had even been used, but we all had
> blanket permission from each other to use whichever car was most
> convenient, at any time.

Quite.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:15:52 +0100, R D S <rsandr@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 22/07/2021 15:51, NY wrote:
>>
>> I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
>> appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one
>> driving if there is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that
>> Barry was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major
>> grievance against Barry ;-)
>>
> My missus went through a spate of attracting speeding tickets in our car
> (registered to me).
> I went through a spate of forgetfulness as to who was driving the car at
> the time and none of them were paid.
>
> Not proud of the fact, just saying....

I'd be proud of it. I'm surprised they didn't want to fine one of you each time.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:16:55 +0100, Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 22/07/2021 15:51, NY wrote:
>> "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.06xr84ehmvhs6z@ryzen.lan...
>>> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
>>> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's
>>> his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the
>>> camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>>
>> I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
>> appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one
>> driving if there is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that
>> Barry was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major
>> grievance against Barry ;-)
>
> The owner has a legal responsibility to name the driver. At that point
> if there is a dispute, case law may suggest a defence.
>
> "There have been a number of cases, and in particular, police officers
> who have successfully disputed speeding prosecutions because photographs
> have not been enough to show who the driver was.
>
> One of the most cited cases is that of Regina v Detective Superintendent
> Adrian Roberts, who appealed against a fixed penalty notice. His defence
> was that he could not remember if he been driving at the time. It was
> subsequently ruled that the photographic evidence was inconclusive and
> the ticket was scrapped. It is useful to cite cases such as this when
> writing to the police."
>
> Which suggests that a registered keeper naming the driver, but the
> driver disputing it would also need to rely upon photographic evidence
> for the police to proceed.

This got me thinking, what about motorbikes? Picture through a helmet visor? Not possible.

On 22/07/2021 16:09, JNugent wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 03:37 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
>> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's
>> his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the
>> camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>
> If the registered keeper (TK) of the vehicle truthfully tells the police
> who was driving on an occasion when it was observed by a camera that the
> person driving may have committed an offence, that is all the RK need do
> in order to comply with the law.
>
> Thereafter, the matter lies between the police and the person said to
> have been driving.
>
Viz a certain liberal democrat energy minister....

> Of course, the named driver may not have been driving. The RK only
> really knows who was in charge of the vehicle, unless he (the RK) was
> also in the vehicle at the time.
>

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

On 22/07/2021 15:51, NY wrote:
> "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:op.06xr84ehmvhs6z@ryzen.lan...
>> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
>> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's
>> his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the
>> camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>
> I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
> appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one
> driving if there is any dispute.

I think not, if he has 30 witnesses to say he was in the office at the time

If John gets fined when he *knows* that
> Barry was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major
> grievance against Barry ;-)
>
And Barry is perverting the course of justice if he lies. A far more
serious offence than speeding.

"On 3 February 2012, Huhne resigned from the Cabinet when he was charged
with perverting the course of justice over a 2003 speeding case. His
wife at the time, Vicky Pryce, had claimed that she was driving the car,
and accepted the licence penalty points on his behalf so that he could
avoid being banned from driving."

> I presume a car which is temporarily hired to someone is a special case:
> the registered keeper will be company which is doing the hiring but the
> legal responsibility for paying fines and receiving points is contracted
> to the person who has hired the car.

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
-- Yogi Berra

"Steve Walker" <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote in message
news:sdc258$ahf$1@dont-email.me...
> On 22/07/2021 15:51, NY wrote:
>> "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.06xr84ehmvhs6z@ryzen.lan...
>>> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
>>> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's his
>>> car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the camera
>>> does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>>
>> I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
>> appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one driving
>> if there is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that Barry
>> was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major grievance
>> against Barry ;-)
>
> The owner has a legal responsibility to name the driver. At that point if
> there is a dispute, case law may suggest a defence.
>
> "There have been a number of cases, and in particular, police officers who
> have successfully disputed speeding prosecutions because photographs have
> not been enough to show who the driver was.
>
> One of the most cited cases is that of Regina v Detective Superintendent
> Adrian Roberts, who appealed against a fixed penalty notice. His defence
> was that he could not remember if he been driving at the time. It was
> subsequently ruled that the photographic evidence was inconclusive and the
> ticket was scrapped. It is useful to cite cases such as this when writing
> to the police."
>
> Which suggests that a registered keeper naming the driver, but the driver
> disputing it would also need to rely upon photographic evidence for the
> police to proceed.

Ah, so the RK isn't *automatically* assumed to have been driving if the
person named by him denies doing so? I hadn't realised that, or that if both
the RK and the named driver deny it - or say "I really can't remember" - it
is possible for *neither* person to be charged. Hence the need for
photographs to back up the fact of the speeding (*) and the identity of the
driver.

(*) Two photos taken an exact number of milliseconds apart showing how far
the car has moved against white lines on the road.

"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:sdc3vn$obn$1@dont-email.me...
>> I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
>> appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one driving
>> if there is any dispute.
>
> I think not, if he has 30 witnesses to say he was in the office at the
> time

I was implying (but agreed, I wasn't stating explicitly) that this was in
the absence of alibi evidence. If there is alibi evidence then the police
are going to ask driver that the RK has named some very searching questions
because it is not simply "I don't remember - maybe I was, maybe I wasn't"
but "I can prove it wasn't me".

And yes perverting the course of justice by letting someone else to take the
blame is a lot more serious than speeding - if you get caught...

On 22/07/2021 04:33 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 16:16:55 +0100, Steve Walker
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22/07/2021 15:51, NY wrote:
>>> "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:op.06xr84ehmvhs6z@ryzen.lan...
>>>> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
>>>> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's
>>>> his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the
>>>> camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>>>
>>> I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
>>> appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one
>>> driving if there is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that
>>> Barry was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major
>>> grievance against Barry ;-)
>>
>> The owner has a legal responsibility to name the driver. At that point
>> if there is a dispute, case law may suggest a defence.
>>
>> "There have been a number of cases, and in particular, police officers
>> who have successfully disputed speeding prosecutions because photographs
>> have not been enough to show who the driver was.
>>
>> One of the most cited cases is that of Regina v Detective Superintendent
>> Adrian Roberts, who appealed against a fixed penalty notice. His defence
>> was that he could not remember if he been driving at the time. It was
>> subsequently ruled that the photographic evidence was inconclusive and
>> the ticket was scrapped. It is useful to cite cases such as this when
>> writing to the police."
>>
>> Which suggests that a registered keeper naming the driver, but the
>> driver disputing it would also need to rely upon photographic evidence
>> for the police to proceed.
>
> This got me thinking, what about motorbikes?  Picture through a helmet
> visor?  Not possible.

Some years ago, I was driving the Swiss N2 southbound near Lucerne,
keeping right and rigidly obeying the 80kph limit in a section running
through a gallery.

Two motor-cyclists came up fast in the offside lane and triggered a
traffic-facing Truvelo camera, which went off with a distinctly dark red
flash (presumably for glare- and dazzle-reduction).

The riders won't have been identifiable and the bikes had no number
plates on the front, no doubt leading to the cavalier disregard for the
80kph limit.

JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 03:37 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
> > In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
> > limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's his
> > car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the camera
> > does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>
> If the registered keeper (TK) of the vehicle truthfully tells the police
> who was driving on an occasion when it was observed by a camera that the
> person driving may have committed an offence, that is all the RK need do
> in order to comply with the law.
>
> Thereafter, the matter lies between the police and the person said to
> have been driving.
>
> Of course, the named driver may not have been driving. The RK only
> really knows who was in charge of the vehicle, unless he (the RK) was
> also in the vehicle at the time.
>
As I've commented elsewhere why *should* the RK know who was driving?
Our two family cars each have four named drivers, why should anyone
know who is driving the car at any particular time?

E.g. RK is on holiday in France (pre Covid!), someone else in the
family uses the car to go shopping, how is RK to know who?

--
Chris Green
·

Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
> On 22/07/2021 15:51, NY wrote:
> > "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:op.06xr84ehmvhs6z@ryzen.lan...
> >> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
> >> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's
> >> his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the
> >> camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
> >
> > I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
> > appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one
> > driving if there is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that
> > Barry was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major
> > grievance against Barry ;-)
>
> The owner has a legal responsibility to name the driver. At that point
> if there is a dispute, case law may suggest a defence.
>
I've often wondered about this.

Our two family cars are both insured for any of the family of four to
drive, we are all 'named drivers' on the insurance. Thus there is no
need for the 'registered keeper' to have given permission for someone
to drive the car.

As far as I know there's no legal requirement that the registered
keeper records who is driving the car when so, how can the registered
keeper be required to name the driver? The registered keeper may
genuinely not know who was driving, to say that he *does* know would
be perjury.

--
Chris Green
·

On 22/07/2021 05:06 pm, Chris Green wrote:

> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>> On 22/07/2021 15:51, NY wrote:
>>> "Commander Kinsey" <CK1@nospam.com> wrote

>>>> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
>>>> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's
>>>> his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the
>>>> camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>>>
>>> I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
>>> appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one
>>> driving if there is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that
>>> Barry was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major
>>> grievance against Barry ;-)
>>
>> The owner has a legal responsibility to name the driver. At that point
>> if there is a dispute, case law may suggest a defence.
>>
> I've often wondered about this.
>
> Our two family cars are both insured for any of the family of four to
> drive, we are all 'named drivers' on the insurance. Thus there is no
> need for the 'registered keeper' to have given permission for someone
> to drive the car.
>
> As far as I know there's no legal requirement that the registered
> keeper records who is driving the car when so, how can the registered
> keeper be required to name the driver? The registered keeper may
> genuinely not know who was driving, to say that he *does* know would
> be perjury.

All the RK can do is tell the truth.

"Chris Green" <cl@isbd.net> wrote in message
news:iqhosh-3h6h2.ln1@esprimo.zbmc.eu...
> E.g. RK is on holiday in France (pre Covid!), someone else in the
> family uses the car to go shopping, how is RK to know who?

I presume is still obliged to name the possible drivers (plural) who could
have been driving - "it may have been one of my children X, Y or Z who were
at home, but it definitely wasn't me, my wife or my youngest child W who was
with us in France". Or is "I don't know" with no further elaboration of the
"likely suspects" considered enough?

"JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:iltk9jF994vU6@mid.individual.net...
>> As far as I know there's no legal requirement that the registered
>> keeper records who is driving the car when so, how can the registered
>> keeper be required to name the driver? The registered keeper may
>> genuinely not know who was driving, to say that he *does* know would
>> be perjury.
>
> All the RK can do is tell the truth.

There is also the thorny issue of the identity of the driver when a car is
stolen. My middle nephew had someone reverse into him late at night at a
road junction, and then drive off. The RK of that car reported the car
stolen shortly afterwards and the wife of the RK gave him an alibi. It is
*plausible* that the RK did not notice immediately that his car had been
stolen, and by the time he did, the thief had already committed the offence.
Or it could be a hastily-contrived cover-up. The police had their
suspicions, but not enough proof... My nephew either managed to claim off
the RK's insurance on the basis that it covered liability if the car was
stolen, or else claimed off an uninsured driver's fund. It was partly that
incident which made my nephew decide to join the police...

Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote

> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry
> breaks the speed limit (fixed camera, not a policeman),
> John gets the ticket as it's his car reg, and says Barry
> was driving, but Barry denies it, and the camera does
> not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?

Trivially fixed by videoing Barry driving off in the borrowed car
of having surveillance cameras at your drive etc doing that.

Or a decent dashcam that records who is driving.

Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote
> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote
>> NY wrote
>>> Commander Kinsey <CK1@nospam.com> wrote

>>>> In the UK, if John lends his car to Barry, and Barry breaks the speed
>>>> limit (fixed camera, not a policeman), John gets the ticket as it's
>>>> his car reg, and says Barry was driving, but Barry denies it, and the
>>>> camera does not take a photo of the driver, who gets fined?
>>>
>>> I *think* the "registered keeper" of the car (the person whose name
>>> appears on the V5C registration document) is deemed to be the one
>>> driving if there is any dispute. If John gets fined when he *knows* that
>>> Barry was driving but won't own up, he will obviously have a major
>>> grievance against Barry ;-)
>>
>> The owner has a legal responsibility to name the driver. At that point
>> if there is a dispute, case law may suggest a defence.
>>
>> "There have been a number of cases, and in particular, police officers
>> who have successfully disputed speeding prosecutions because photographs
>> have not been enough to show who the driver was.
>>
>> One of the most cited cases is that of Regina v Detective Superintendent
>> Adrian Roberts, who appealed against a fixed penalty notice. His defence
>> was that he could not remember if he been driving at the time. It was
>> subsequently ruled that the photographic evidence was inconclusive and
>> the ticket was scrapped. It is useful to cite cases such as this when
>> writing to the police."
>>
>> Which suggests that a registered keeper naming the driver, but the
>> driver disputing it would also need to rely upon photographic evidence
>> for the police to proceed.
>
> This got me thinking, what about motorbikes? Picture through a helmet
> visor? Not possible.

But often still quite possible to identify the
individual without being able to see their
face. Most obviously with the helmet itself.

On 22 Jul 2021 at 17:08:02 BST, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Some years ago, I was driving the Swiss N2 southbound near Lucerne,
> keeping right and rigidly obeying the 80kph limit in a section running
> through a gallery.
>
> Two motor-cyclists came up fast in the offside lane and triggered a
> traffic-facing Truvelo camera, which went off with a distinctly dark red
> flash (presumably for glare- and dazzle-reduction).
>
> The riders won't have been identifiable and the bikes had no number
> plates on the front, no doubt leading to the cavalier disregard for the
> 80kph limit.

IIRC, motor bikes in Switzerland are not obliged to have number plates at the
front.

--
"The EU Customs Union is a racket that defends producers in rich countries against producers in poor countries."

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP

On 22/07/2021 10:08 pm, Tim Streater wrote:

> On 22 Jul 2021 at 17:08:02 BST, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Some years ago, I was driving the Swiss N2 southbound near Lucerne,
>> keeping right and rigidly obeying the 80kph limit in a section running
>> through a gallery.
>>
>> Two motor-cyclists came up fast in the offside lane and triggered a
>> traffic-facing Truvelo camera, which went off with a distinctly dark red
>> flash (presumably for glare- and dazzle-reduction).
>>
>> The riders won't have been identifiable and the bikes had no number
>> plates on the front, no doubt leading to the cavalier disregard for the
>> 80kph limit.
>
> IIRC, motor bikes in Switzerland are not obliged to have number plates at the
> front.

I have an idea that this is also the case here, nowadays.

Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> On 22 Jul 2021 at 17:08:02 BST, JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > Some years ago, I was driving the Swiss N2 southbound near Lucerne,
> > keeping right and rigidly obeying the 80kph limit in a section running
> > through a gallery.
> >
> > Two motor-cyclists came up fast in the offside lane and triggered a
> > traffic-facing Truvelo camera, which went off with a distinctly dark red
> > flash (presumably for glare- and dazzle-reduction).
> >
> > The riders won't have been identifiable and the bikes had no number
> > plates on the front, no doubt leading to the cavalier disregard for the
> > 80kph limit.
>
> IIRC, motor bikes in Switzerland are not obliged to have number plates at the
> front.
>
Nor here in the UK, it's fairly general I think, the reason being that
the classic vertical plate on the front mudguard did nasty injuries to
any pedestrian hit by a 'bike.

--
Chris Green
·

On 23/07/21 4:15 am, Peeler wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 17:08:02 +0100, JNugent, yet another absolutely brain
> dead, troll-feeding senile idiot, blathered:
>
>
>> Some years ago, I was driving the Swiss N2 southbound near Lucerne,
>
> You SENILITY does NOT give you the right to feed a known PROVEN clinically
> insane filthy troll, senile ASSHOLE! Can you get that into your senile head?
>

He has the right to feed whomever he likes.
If you think he has broken some law, complain to the police/KGB.
Your invective and insults say more about you than him.
Tramp trailer