Should we lie to save dh's licence?

[goodwife]

Moral dilemma here - and due to the nature of the dilemma, I'm going under a pseudonym.
The facts are as follows:

Over the last year dh has had 3 lots of speeding fines. Today he has had notification in the post that he was caught going 85 in a 70mph last week. As far as I am aware, this means that he will get another 3 points, making 12, which means a ban from driving (not sure how long for - anyone got any ideas?). Now if he's banned, then obviously this will have an impact on the family as a whole - he is able to get to work by public transport, and it is possible to get the children to school without a car (he does the morning school run), so not a drastic one, but obviously there are many times when he does things involving the car which he would no longer be able to do, and would therefore be down to me - running children to classes etc, shopping, taking stuff to the tip, etc. etc. Also, once he is able to drive again, the insurance premiums (already huge) would be even huger (is that a word?)

So where's the moral dilemma? Well, we could say that it was me driving the car. This would mean that I would have the points and he would not be banned. But, selfishly, I really don't want to do this - I've got a clean licence, and always have had, and obviously this would also increase our insurance premiums, whereas if he wasn't driving at all they would be manageable. But should I put him and any future inconvenience of me always having to do the driving before my pride? Of course, this would also be illegal (maybe this should have come higher in the list of reasons against! ) and the penalty if we were found out could be a £2000 fine. But how could we be found out - can the camera "see" who's driving the car?
So, your thoughts and experiences will be gratefully received.

just to let you know we decided that I wouldn't lie for dh. I would have had sleepless nights worrying about it so it just wasn't worth it. We have filled out the form and are waiting to see what happens next. DH is relying on a sympathetic magistrate.

oakmaiden - just a thought but if their photo evidence/speed camera says you were doing 32mph I think the onus is on you to prove that you weren't not the other way round. What I mean is that their photo IS the proof regardless of what you might say about the speedo. Unless of course you can prove it.

I thought that they did not prosecute for speeds within the 10% limit, not that you should happily drive at 10% over. I was surprised that they'd sent fines out for 2mph over a 30mph limit.

Not any more Soupy - apparently speedos are so accurate now that the 10% thing is no longer applicable. Either way, I don't take the risk.

That said, there are still many authorities that won't bother setting them below 35 because it's too easy for the person being fined to query whether the camera was calibrated properly causing unnecessary time and paperwork...

Um... 33 not 35 ... slip of the keyboard

I know for a fact that my speedo (2001 car) and the "speed check" gizmos they put up to display what speed you're going don't agree. My speedo showed about 38 (in a 30 - slapped wrists all round) but the display claimed it was 32. I wonder which was right!

It does seem utterly pointless prosecuting someone for 2mph over when there are drivers who get away with haring about like lunatics.

I agree Soupie

You would have been perverting the course of justice if you had lied - a really serious offence. He will get banned, I'm afraid, though you will be able to give reasons why this would be very inconvenient and they will be listened to. But he earned the points!
You are generally allowed '10% plus 2' as leeway - so you would get flashed at 36mph in a 30mph. That's not necessarily true if stopped by an officer with a hand held gun though. They have to stop you and tell you what speed you were doing.
Speed kills and if you are doing 35mph in a 30mph zone it will take you an extra 21ft to stop if someone walked out in front of you. As it said on the news last week the areas where they have speed cameras have seen reduction in accidents.

message withdrawn

Has she got an alibi? Don't sign the form and then no-one will have to pay

I don't believe they can actually tell who is driving, this is why you can get off by not signing the form to say it was you, or anyone else.

just thought id put this up re how clear the photos were...
dp's father was sent a notice saying he had been caught speeding, as he works overseas a lot he honestly couldnt remember if he was driving that day, so his wife signed the form saying it was her, a few days later they recieved a letter saying that they did not believe she was driving and sent the photo to prove it.
his dad is clearly seen driving the car! this was a very clear photo.

I've got a summons to appear in court for non payment of the congestion charge, despite having a confirmation text on my phone. I have to prove I am not guilty, what ever happened to innocent until proved guilty!

message withdrawn

They had the "Christine Hamilton defence" on You & Yours this week. Mr & Mrs H got a ticket for speeding on the M6 and they genuinely didn't know which of them was driving because they're always taking turns - asked for photo and still couldn't tell. They had to go to court anyway because they took more than 4 weeks replying and were let off.

So the photos are not v clear apparently. HTH!

oh - hadn't read tiredemma's post. Maybe it depends on the camera/speed of the car?

It depends on the camera - the new style ones take the picture from the front of the car and are very clear. The old style ones (I think) just take a picture of the back to get the colour/REG plate? So it would depend how old the camera was

Hi, it's goodwife here, but removing my mask to reveal my real id, seeing as I decided to take the "honesty is the best policy" route.

Funny this should come up today - dh has finally had his summons to appear in court on 6 Feb - 5.5 months down the line. In the interim, our insurance came up for renewal, and we decided to leave him off the policy - I know we could have insured with him on and then taken him off if necessary once we knew what was going to happen, but I just don't believe that they would quote me a price that would be as cheap as if he'd never been mentioned.

It has been a bit of a pain, being the only driver in the family, but not insurmountable. And the cost of a train and bus pass for dh is more than offset by the reduction in insurance premiums (£90 per month less) and the much smaller amount of petrol we have to buy. He has got used to going everywhere by public transport (would rarely do it before), and I quite like having the car at my disposal and at my whim.

Not sure what's going to happen with the court case - I hope that the fine won't be enourmous, but there's nothing we can do but wait.

Thanks (a little belated) for all your replies and thoughts, and I am glad that we chose the route we're now going down.

When we moved back to NZ my husband got a little confused about the speed limits and went too fast on a very wide road. He got a ticket, but from a mobile unit so no camera. As it was my car I got the fine, but the letter said if I told them "who done it guvnor" they would fine this person and give them points. I just paid, which I guess was admitting liability, but crucially no points. My dh felt like s*, was guiltly about going too fast and made an effort to brush up on his road code before venturing out. He now never breaks the speed limit and always has 15 cars stacked up behind him. Getting that $80 fine was the best thing that could have happened as he is really sensible all the time. What did it was in the letter they talked all about how much more likely it was he would have killed a child at his speed rather than the limit. The $80 was under 30 pounds at the time, but realising he could have killed someone was priceless.

I don't regret what I did, but I would have been mad as hell if he'd done it again.

Glad you decided to let DH take the consequences emsiewill. One of my best friends was hit by a speeding driver. She was on a pedestrian crossing, about 8am, when this guy overtook cars which had stopped. She was thrown onto his bonnet and then yards down the road, in hospital for 3 months, in a wheelchair for months more, walked with stick for more than a year after that and was unable to work. She's now OK ish but will always have a limp and won't be able to do all sorts of things such as ride, ski or stand for long periods and has had to change careers. If it had been a child on that crossing, I think it would have been a fatal accident. Speeding is NOT ok.

Weird that I was reading this thread just the other day and now its been revived! I'm afraid that I am one of the baddies as I endorse driving licences of speed camera offenders. (I guess it pays my bills and certainly isn't my dream job!) for the Magistrates Courts

I understand that the clarity of photos depends on the camera and conditions of that day. If someone doubts their photo then they have to go and view it themselves in this particular county. The police tend to deal with this side of things rather than the courts.

Emsiewill, I think you did the right thing by letting your husband go ahead with declaring himself as the driver - I assume he has filled in his Means Enquiry Form and stated that he couldn't accept the offer because of his other tickets ready for his hearing?

I have seen driving licences that would make a person want to go out and haul them into the cells personally. My particular bugbear is drink driving, which happens more than I care to think about! And from some licences it would seem that their previous points are cancelled after the ban period is over - I guess it depends on the verdict imposed on that day. However it still isn't fair that people unfortunate enough to be caught in 30mph zones more than 3 times suffer more than some.

It is the new ANPR tickets that spot offenders without tax or insurance you want to watch out for . . .

Emsiewill, also just want to mention that unless his accidents accrued points then I understand (don't quote me on this though!) that they won't be taken into consideration at the hearing.

Let us know how you both get on, I really wish you all the best.

If you think you've been unfairly 'done' you could challenge it like this person has. It seems that the camera does lie, sometimes.

message withdrawn

Just thought I'd update you all as we finally have resolution to this.

Dh was in court yesterday, and was banned for 6 months, and fined £60. To be honest, the ban is almost irrelevant, as whether he was banned, or whether he was just given the points, the effect on our insurance premiums would still have been enourmous. I was more concerned about what the fine would be.

So it looks like I'm going to be the only driver for a good few years yet. .

Still, I'm glad I didn't take the points. Thanks for all the good advice.