Ok, as far as I know when you get Disqual in the UK it applies to the UK 
only, so If I dont surrender my licence I assume I am committing a offence 
under section 38.

Im not sure anyone has been prosecuted for this.

So I keep my Licence and move to Spain or Germany where I assume I am 
entiltled to drive Legally.

Am I commiting any offence here by producing a licence that a court should 
have taken away, Fraud or deception

Do I have to surrender my licence anyway ??

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:58:55 +0100, "Dick Stroker"
 wrote:

>Ok, as far as I know when you get Disqual in the UK it applies to the UK 
>only, so If I dont surrender my licence I assume I am committing a offence 
>under section 38.
>

Absolutely.


>Im not sure anyone has been prosecuted for this.
>
>So I keep my Licence and move to Spain or Germany where I assume I am 
>entiltled to drive Legally.

What a ridiculous and false assumption.

You are allowed to drive in other countries due only to reciprocal
arrangements in which each country will recognise a *valid* driving
licence issued in the other.

Since you have no valid UK driving licence, you cannot legally drive
in any other country which requires a driving licence.


>
>Am I commiting any offence here by producing a licence that a court should 
>have taken away, Fraud or deception
>

Driving without a licence.

And fraud as well if you try to use your invalid licence as evidence
of entitlement to drive.


>Do I have to surrender my licence anyway ??
>

Yes.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
One good turn gets most of the blanket.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:23:36 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:58:55 +0100, "Dick Stroker"
>  wrote:
> 
>>Ok, as far as I know when you get Disqual in the UK it applies to the UK 
>>only, so If I dont surrender my licence I assume I am committing a offence 
>>under section 38.
>>
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> 
>>Im not sure anyone has been prosecuted for this.
>>
>>So I keep my Licence and move to Spain or Germany where I assume I am 
>>entiltled to drive Legally.
> 
> What a ridiculous and false assumption.
> 
> You are allowed to drive in other countries due only to reciprocal
> arrangements in which each country will recognise a *valid* driving
> licence issued in the other.
> 
> Since you have no valid UK driving licence, you cannot legally drive
> in any other country which requires a driving licence.
> 
> 
>>
>>Am I commiting any offence here by producing a licence that a court should 
>>have taken away, Fraud or deception
>>
> 
> Driving without a licence.
> 
> And fraud as well if you try to use your invalid licence as evidence
> of entitlement to drive.
> 
> 
>>Do I have to surrender my licence anyway ??
>>
> 
> Yes.

Technically he surrenders the certificate - the licence has been already
been withdrawn.

"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
news:c165e4pkeaka4aqko4vl0ipca378uq62jm@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:58:55 +0100, "Dick Stroker"
>  wrote:
>
>>Ok, as far as I know when you get Disqual in the UK it applies to the UK
>>only, so If I dont surrender my licence I assume I am committing a offence
>>under section 38.
>>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>>Im not sure anyone has been prosecuted for this.
>>
>>So I keep my Licence and move to Spain or Germany where I assume I am
>>entiltled to drive Legally.
>
> What a ridiculous and false assumption.
>


I believe that to be true. What if he goes to Spain or Germany or any other 
EU country, sits and passes the local test. He would hold a full licence for 
that country, he could return to the UK and drive here. Yes?

Alan

"Alan"  wrote in message 
news:G9CdnXDygN8oP3_VnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> "Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
> news:c165e4pkeaka4aqko4vl0ipca378uq62jm@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:58:55 +0100, "Dick Stroker"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, as far as I know when you get Disqual in the UK it applies to the UK
>>>only, so If I dont surrender my licence I assume I am committing a 
>>>offence
>>>under section 38.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>>
>>>Im not sure anyone has been prosecuted for this.
>>>
>>>So I keep my Licence and move to Spain or Germany where I assume I am
>>>entiltled to drive Legally.
>>
>> What a ridiculous and false assumption.
>>
> I believe that to be true. What if he goes to Spain or Germany or any 
> other EU country, sits and passes the local test. He would hold a full 
> licence for that country, he could return to the UK and drive here. Yes?
>

No, not for the duration of the ban because he's been banned from driving 
here.  I thought there was an issue that when you apply for a license in a 
EU country you normally have to surrender your UK license.  In this case he 
hasn't got a license so could apply for a new one in a different country, 
yet he'll be given the UK one back in due course?  Am I wrong?

"Dick Stroker"  wrote in message 
news:0338857c$0$5201$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Ok, as far as I know when you get Disqual in the UK it applies to the UK 
> only, so If I dont surrender my licence I assume I am committing a offence 
> under section 38.
>
> Im not sure anyone has been prosecuted for this.
>
> So I keep my Licence and move to Spain or Germany where I assume I am 
> entiltled to drive Legally.

Dunno, but if you get an International Driving Permit just before you get 
banned, then you could surrender your UK paperwork and have a document to 
produce in other countries.  They only last a year though.

You will probably commit offences to obtain insurance (e.g. when hiring a 
car) and could be in serious trouble of caught or in an accident.

>
> Am I commiting any offence here by producing a licence that a court should 
> have taken away, Fraud or deception
>
> Do I have to surrender my licence anyway ??
>
>

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:bNKdnZedO5O-X3_VnZ2dnUVZ8tninZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Dick Stroker"  wrote in message 
> news:0338857c$0$5201$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> Ok, as far as I know when you get Disqual in the UK it applies to the UK 
>> only, so If I dont surrender my licence I assume I am committing a 
>> offence under section 38.
>>
>> Im not sure anyone has been prosecuted for this.
>>
>> So I keep my Licence and move to Spain or Germany where I assume I am 
>> entiltled to drive Legally.
>
> Dunno, but if you get an International Driving Permit just before you get 
> banned, then you could surrender your UK paperwork and have a document to 
> produce in other countries.  They only last a year though.

The international driving permit is only valid so long as the national 
license on which it is based is valid (it says so in the paperwork). If you 
use such a permit whilst your national license is invalid then you are 
committing an offense in the country where you drive - whatever the local 
equivilent of "driving without a license" or "driving whilst disqualified" 
might be.

PDR

"Alan"  wrote in message 
news:G9CdnXDygN8oP3_VnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...

> I believe that to be true. What if he goes to Spain or Germany or any 
> other EU country, sits and passes the local test. He would hold a full 
> licence for that country, he could return to the UK and drive here. Yes?

No, because he is explicitly banned from driving here. You may use your 
local license to drive when abroad, but a british national cannot drive in 
the UK based on a license obtained overseas. When I was 16 I lived in the 
USA for a while, in a state which allowed 16-year-olds to drive. So I took 
and passed a local test and had a US license. When we returned to the UK I 
couldn't drive until I was 17, and I had to pass a UK test to do so.

PDR

On 1 Oct, 10:02, "PDR"  wrote:

> You may use your
> local license to drive when abroad, but a british national cannot drive in
> the UK based on a license obtained overseas.

Oh...  has this changed in recent times?

Reason for asking is cos 20 years ago I moved to germany - wirhin a
year of being there I had to surrender my UK licence to the german
authorities as part of the process of being issued with a german
licence.  Subsequently on vsisits to the Uk I drove, presumably "on my
German licence".

As I was a British national still of course was I thus (illegally)
driving on a licence obtained overseas?  And if so - would this
process (ie moving abroad and "swapping" a UK licence for a local one)
mean that one could then NEVER drive in the UK until one had returned
to living in the UK?

Or was it a case of although the german authorities held my Uk licence
it was still in effect still issued to me from a UK authorities'
perspective - even though had I needed to do so I wouldn;t have been
able to produce it.



didds

"didds"  wrote in message 
news:be97fc09-4c91-45ae-93d1-1c2f30004c58@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Oct, 10:02, "PDR"  wrote:
>
>> You may use your
>> local license to drive when abroad, but a british national cannot drive 
>> in
>> the UK based on a license obtained overseas.
>
> Oh...  has this changed in recent times?
>
> Reason for asking is cos 20 years ago I moved to germany - wirhin a
> year of being there I had to surrender my UK licence to the german
> authorities as part of the process of being issued with a german
> licence.  Subsequently on vsisits to the Uk I drove, presumably "on my
> German licence".
>
> As I was a British national still of course was I thus (illegally)
> driving on a licence obtained overseas?  And if so - would this
> process (ie moving abroad and "swapping" a UK licence for a local one)
> mean that one could then NEVER drive in the UK until one had returned
> to living in the UK?
>
> Or was it a case of although the german authorities held my Uk licence
> it was still in effect still issued to me from a UK authorities'
> perspective - even though had I needed to do so I wouldn;t have been
> able to produce it.

Actually it may have changed with respect to EU countries since my 
experience, because in my case it pre-dated the existance of the EU.

PDR

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 02:20:42 -0700 (PDT), didds wrote:

> On 1 Oct, 10:02, "PDR"  wrote:
> 
>> You may use your
>> local license to drive when abroad, but a british national cannot drive in
>> the UK based on a license obtained overseas.
> 
> Oh...  has this changed in recent times?
> 
> Reason for asking is cos 20 years ago I moved to germany - wirhin a
> year of being there I had to surrender my UK licence to the german
> authorities as part of the process of being issued with a german
> licence.  Subsequently on vsisits to the Uk I drove, presumably "on my
> German licence".
> 
> As I was a British national still of course was I thus (illegally)
> driving on a licence obtained overseas?  And if so - would this
> process (ie moving abroad and "swapping" a UK licence for a local one)
> mean that one could then NEVER drive in the UK until one had returned
> to living in the UK?
> 
> Or was it a case of although the german authorities held my Uk licence
> it was still in effect still issued to me from a UK authorities'
> perspective - even though had I needed to do so I wouldn;t have been
> able to produce it.
> 

If that were the case then what you would "produce" would be a certificate,
not a licence.  A licence is a permission - records of these are kept and
certificates issued, but the loss of a bit of paper does not mean that the
loser/posessor is not permitted to drive; and vice-versa.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 02:20:42 -0700 (PDT), didds 
wrote:

>> You may use your
>> local license to drive when abroad, but a british national cannot drive in
>> the UK based on a license obtained overseas.
>
>Oh...  has this changed in recent times?

I *think* the PP meant that you cannot drive on a foreign licence in
the UK if you would not be entitled to have a UK driving licence for
any reason (e.g. disqualified or underage)


-- 
Cynic

"_"  wrote in message 
news:imv2mcc9s66m.1r6cqx8mbm6dn.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:23:36 +0100, Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:58:55 +0100, "Dick Stroker"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, as far as I know when you get Disqual in the UK it applies to the UK
>>>only, so If I dont surrender my licence I assume I am committing a 
>>>offence
>>>under section 38.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>>
>>>Im not sure anyone has been prosecuted for this.
>>>
>>>So I keep my Licence and move to Spain or Germany where I assume I am
>>>entiltled to drive Legally.
>>
>> What a ridiculous and false assumption.
>>
>> You are allowed to drive in other countries due only to reciprocal
>> arrangements in which each country will recognise a *valid* driving
>> licence issued in the other.
>>
>> Since you have no valid UK driving licence, you cannot legally drive
>> in any other country which requires a driving licence.

Absolutely true, but I wonder where he stands if he applies for a German or 
Spanish driving licence whilst resident there.
Could he be granted one?
I remember once applying for a Cypriot driving licence on holiday when I had 
forgotten my own licence and wanted to hire a car.
Just a quick trip to the local police station with a passport and photo, 
paid for , stamped and temporary driving licence issued!

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:39:56 +0100, "Steve O" 
wrote:

>Absolutely true, but I wonder where he stands if he applies for a German or 
>Spanish driving licence whilst resident there.
>Could he be granted one?
>I remember once applying for a Cypriot driving licence on holiday when I had 
>forgotten my own licence and wanted to hire a car.
>Just a quick trip to the local police station with a passport and photo, 
>paid for , stamped and temporary driving licence issued!

When was this?  I couldn't see it happening today.

-- 
Alasdair.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:57:00 GMT, _
 wrote:

>If that were the case then what you would "produce" would be a certificate,
>not a licence.  A licence is a permission - records of these are kept and
>certificates issued, but the loss of a bit of paper does not mean that the
>loser/posessor is not permitted to drive; and vice-versa.

Technically, this may be correct but the licence document is what
counts if one is stopped by the police or one needs to hire a car.

-- 
Alasdair.

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:02:28 +0100, "PDR" 
wrote:

>"Alan"  wrote in message 
>news:G9CdnXDygN8oP3_VnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
>> I believe that to be true. What if he goes to Spain or Germany or any 
>> other EU country, sits and passes the local test. He would hold a full 
>> licence for that country, he could return to the UK and drive here. Yes?
>
>No, because he is explicitly banned from driving here. You may use your 
>local license to drive when abroad, but a british national cannot drive in 
>the UK based on a license obtained overseas. 

Have you got a cite for that? I believe that, in general terms, if you come from
overseas you can drive on your overseas license for a certain time (?6 months?
?a year?) before you *have* to get a UK license.

I don't believe the nationality of the license holder makes any difference; a
Brit with an American license would be treated the same as an American with an
American license.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:04:46 -0400, Mike Ross 
wrote:

>On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:02:28 +0100, "PDR" 
>wrote:
>
>>"Alan"  wrote in message 
>>news:G9CdnXDygN8oP3_VnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>
>>> I believe that to be true. What if he goes to Spain or Germany or any 
>>> other EU country, sits and passes the local test. He would hold a full 
>>> licence for that country, he could return to the UK and drive here. Yes?
>>
>>No, because he is explicitly banned from driving here. You may use your 
>>local license to drive when abroad, but a british national cannot drive in 
>>the UK based on a license obtained overseas. 
>
>Have you got a cite for that? I believe that, in general terms, if you come from
>overseas you can drive on your overseas license for a certain time (?6 months?
>?a year?) before you *have* to get a UK license.
>
>I don't believe the nationality of the license holder makes any difference; a
>Brit with an American license would be treated the same as an American with an
>American license.
>
 In the 90s there was a EMP who was a UK citizen but normally resident
in France. Can't recall his name but he drove on a French driving
licence. Stopped by plod in the uk when he visited his constituency
and prosecuted for driving without a valid licence. Case got tossed
out. The details are hazy in my memory but perhaps someone else will
recall the case.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:05:39 +0100, "Alan"  wrote:

>
>"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
>news:c165e4pkeaka4aqko4vl0ipca378uq62jm@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:58:55 +0100, "Dick Stroker"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>Ok, as far as I know when you get Disqual in the UK it applies to the UK
>>>only, so If I dont surrender my licence I assume I am committing a offence
>>>under section 38.
>>>
>>
>> Absolutely.
>>
>>
>>>Im not sure anyone has been prosecuted for this.
>>>
>>>So I keep my Licence and move to Spain or Germany where I assume I am
>>>entiltled to drive Legally.
>>
>> What a ridiculous and false assumption.
>>
>
>
>I believe that to be true. What if he goes to Spain or Germany or any other 
>EU country, sits and passes the local test. He would hold a full licence for 
>that country, he could return to the UK and drive here. Yes?
>

I think that would only be the case if he were resident in the other
country and just visiting the UK.

The rules generally only allow licences issued by one country to be
valid in other countries for a limited period of time before you have
to sit the appropriate test for the country you now reside in.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Get behind early so you have plenty of time to catch up.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 02:20:42 -0700 (PDT), didds 
wrote:

>On 1 Oct, 10:02, "PDR"  wrote:
>
>> You may use your
>> local license to drive when abroad, but a british national cannot drive in
>> the UK based on a license obtained overseas.
>
>Oh...  has this changed in recent times?
>
>Reason for asking is cos 20 years ago I moved to germany - wirhin a
>year of being there I had to surrender my UK licence to the german
>authorities as part of the process of being issued with a german
>licence.  Subsequently on vsisits to the Uk I drove, presumably "on my
>German licence".
>
>As I was a British national still of course was I thus (illegally)
>driving on a licence obtained overseas?  And if so - would this
>process (ie moving abroad and "swapping" a UK licence for a local one)
>mean that one could then NEVER drive in the UK until one had returned
>to living in the UK?
>
>Or was it a case of although the german authorities held my Uk licence
>it was still in effect still issued to me from a UK authorities'
>perspective - even though had I needed to do so I wouldn;t have been
>able to produce it.
>

I think the only thing wrong with what PDR said was that rather than
"UK National", it should have been "UK Resident".

It is generally true that when you become *resident* in another
country, you will have to replace your licence with the local one
within a given period of time, but which country you are a "national"
of is irrelevant.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Daddy, what does FORMATTING DRIVE C: mean?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Alasdair"  wrote in message 
news:nv67e4plu9vqth7l5h0tggk31hpnmnddjv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:39:56 +0100, "Steve O" 
> wrote:
>
>>Absolutely true, but I wonder where he stands if he applies for a German 
>>or
>>Spanish driving licence whilst resident there.
>>Could he be granted one?
>>I remember once applying for a Cypriot driving licence on holiday when I 
>>had
>>forgotten my own licence and wanted to hire a car.
>>Just a quick trip to the local police station with a passport and photo,
>>paid for , stamped and temporary driving licence issued!
>
> When was this?  I couldn't see it happening today.

Probably not.
It was on my honeymoon, so it must have been back in 1992.
I kept hold of the licence for a couple of years.

"Alasdair"  wrote in message 
news:5577e41nn9vu84srl3ih6r1frv3v49ooke@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:57:00 GMT, _
>  wrote:
>
>>If that were the case then what you would "produce" would be a 
>>certificate,
>>not a licence.  A licence is a permission - records of these are kept and
>>certificates issued, but the loss of a bit of paper does not mean that the
>>loser/posessor is not permitted to drive; and vice-versa.
>
> Technically, this may be correct but the licence document is what
> counts if one is stopped by the police or one needs to hire a car.

Yes and no. The police can check licenses electronically with the DVLA if 
they wish - the whole "procducer" thing is only there because the police 
love beaurocracy (gives them a feeling of power). Similarly I have 
successfully hired cars many times without having one or both parts of my 
license certificate. The hire company has a phone number they can ring to 
verify your license details with Swansea.

PDR

"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
news:f2o7e45utjulgvslcq77srhqiag3touqr4@4ax.com...

> I think the only thing wrong with what PDR said was that rather than
> "UK National", it should have been "UK Resident".
>
> It is generally true that when you become *resident* in another
> country, you will have to replace your licence with the local one
> within a given period of time, but which country you are a "national"
> of is irrelevant.

I think you are absolutely correct here - my error and/or sloppy language.

PDR

"Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
news:9l77e4dkvlr5cskqq9g3eqk0soror0hvsr@4ax.com...
> Have you got a cite for that? I believe that, in general terms, if you 
> come from
> overseas you can drive on your overseas license for a certain time (?6 
> months?
> ?a year?) before you *have* to get a UK license.
>
> I don't believe the nationality of the license holder makes any 
> difference; a
> Brit with an American license would be treated the same as an American 
> with an
> American license.

As Alex pointed out, I was sloppy in my use of language. It's the contry of 
residency rather than nationality that is the determining factor.

PDR

"PDR"  wrote in message 
news:48e48df1$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Alasdair"  wrote in message 
> news:5577e41nn9vu84srl3ih6r1frv3v49ooke@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:57:00 GMT, _
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>If that were the case then what you would "produce" would be a 
>>>certificate,
>>>not a licence.  A licence is a permission - records of these are kept and
>>>certificates issued, but the loss of a bit of paper does not mean that 
>>>the
>>>loser/posessor is not permitted to drive; and vice-versa.
>>
>> Technically, this may be correct but the licence document is what
>> counts if one is stopped by the police or one needs to hire a car.
>
> Yes and no. The police can check licenses electronically with the DVLA if 
> they wish - the whole "procducer" thing is only there because the police 
> love beaurocracy (gives them a feeling of power).

It isn't police bureacracy.
It's actually doing the driver a favour.
The offence is to fail to produce driving documents to the police officer at 
the roadside, but you will evade prosecution if yopu produce them within 
seven days.
Or would you prefer to have to carry your driving documents with you at at 
all times to avoid prosecution?

"Steve O"  wrote in message 
news:6kjnt4F7vd4kU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "PDR"  wrote in message 
> news:48e48df1$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>> "Alasdair"  wrote in message 
>> news:5577e41nn9vu84srl3ih6r1frv3v49ooke@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:57:00 GMT, _
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>If that were the case then what you would "produce" would be a 
>>>>certificate,
>>>>not a licence.  A licence is a permission - records of these are kept 
>>>>and
>>>>certificates issued, but the loss of a bit of paper does not mean that 
>>>>the
>>>>loser/posessor is not permitted to drive; and vice-versa.
>>>
>>> Technically, this may be correct but the licence document is what
>>> counts if one is stopped by the police or one needs to hire a car.
>>
>> Yes and no. The police can check licenses electronically with the DVLA if 
>> they wish - the whole "procducer" thing is only there because the police 
>> love beaurocracy (gives them a feeling of power).
>
> It isn't police bureacracy.
> It's actually doing the driver a favour.
> The offence is to fail to produce driving documents to the police officer 
> at the roadside, but you will evade prosecution if yopu produce them 
> within seven days.
> Or would you prefer to have to carry your driving documents with you at at 
> all times to avoid prosecution?

That may well be the technical offence, but the purpose of the exercise is 
to establish whether you do or do not hold the requisite license & 
insurance, and that your vehicle is currently taxed and has an MoT. All of 
these can be established electronically in a less time than it takes to sing 
a single verse of the Horst Wessel by way of a single radio or mobile phone 
call to the police station. One should only have to produce the physical 
certificates if the on-line systems show you as deficient and you wish to 
show the evidence to refute them.

The purpose of the technical offence has been obsoleted by technology. 
Enjoying the exercise of power inherent in policing the technical offence 
when there is no net benefit to society is the action of people who are 
temperamentally unfit to serve in any police force which has no swastika in 
its insignia.

PDR

"PDR"  wrote in message 
news:48e4c12a$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
> news:6kjnt4F7vd4kU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>> news:48e48df1$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>
>>> "Alasdair"  wrote in message 
>>> news:5577e41nn9vu84srl3ih6r1frv3v49ooke@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:57:00 GMT, _
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If that were the case then what you would "produce" would be a 
>>>>>certificate,
>>>>>not a licence.  A licence is a permission - records of these are kept 
>>>>>and
>>>>>certificates issued, but the loss of a bit of paper does not mean that 
>>>>>the
>>>>>loser/posessor is not permitted to drive; and vice-versa.
>>>>
>>>> Technically, this may be correct but the licence document is what
>>>> counts if one is stopped by the police or one needs to hire a car.
>>>
>>> Yes and no. The police can check licenses electronically with the DVLA 
>>> if they wish - the whole "procducer" thing is only there because the 
>>> police love beaurocracy (gives them a feeling of power).
>>
>> It isn't police bureacracy.
>> It's actually doing the driver a favour.
>> The offence is to fail to produce driving documents to the police officer 
>> at the roadside, but you will evade prosecution if yopu produce them 
>> within seven days.
>> Or would you prefer to have to carry your driving documents with you at 
>> at all times to avoid prosecution?
>
> That may well be the technical offence, but the purpose of the exercise is 
> to establish whether you do or do not hold the requisite license & 
> insurance, and that your vehicle is currently taxed and has an MoT. All of 
> these can be established electronically in a less time than it takes to 
> sing a single verse of the Horst Wessel by way of a single radio or mobile 
> phone call to the police station. One should only have to produce the 
> physical certificates if the on-line systems show you as deficient and you 
> wish to show the evidence to refute them.

Your faith in technology is admirable, but a little misplaced.

>
> The purpose of the technical offence has been obsoleted by technology. 
> Enjoying the exercise of power inherent in policing the technical offence 
> when there is no net benefit to society is the action of people who are 
> temperamentally unfit to serve in any police force which has no swastika 
> in its insignia.
>
> PDR

It always takes a littte time for technology to catch up with reality.
And yes, you are right, the technology available could (or should) make the 
old way of doing things obsolete.
However, there are times when it simply doesn't work, and the old hard copy 
system is more effective.
However, even so I'm sure that there are less HO/RT1's issued since the MOT, 
DVLA and insurance databases were made available to PNC.
I'm not really sure why you think police officers prefer to make more 
paperwork for themselves by issuing HO/RT1's to drivers rather than simply 
than directly checking them on PNC.

"PDR"  wrote in message 
news:48e48df1$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Alasdair"  wrote in message 
> news:5577e41nn9vu84srl3ih6r1frv3v49ooke@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:57:00 GMT, _
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>If that were the case then what you would "produce" would be a 
>>>certificate,
>>>not a licence.  A licence is a permission - records of these are kept and
>>>certificates issued, but the loss of a bit of paper does not mean that 
>>>the
>>>loser/posessor is not permitted to drive; and vice-versa.
>>
>> Technically, this may be correct but the licence document is what
>> counts if one is stopped by the police or one needs to hire a car.
>
> Yes and no. The police can check licenses electronically with the DVLA if 
> they wish - the whole "procducer" thing is only there because the police 
> love beaurocracy (gives them a feeling of power). Similarly I have 
> successfully hired cars many times without having one or both parts of my 
> license certificate. The hire company has a phone number they can ring to 
> verify your license details with Swansea.
>
Really?  My old man once had to get a friend to fax over the green part 
after he left it at home.

mert1639 wrote:
> "PDR"  wrote in message 
> news:48e48df1$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>> "Alasdair"  wrote in message 
>> news:5577e41nn9vu84srl3ih6r1frv3v49ooke@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:57:00 GMT, _
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> If that were the case then what you would "produce" would be a 
>>>> certificate,
>>>> not a licence.  A licence is a permission - records of these are kept and
>>>> certificates issued, but the loss of a bit of paper does not mean that 
>>>> the
>>>> loser/posessor is not permitted to drive; and vice-versa.
>>> Technically, this may be correct but the licence document is what
>>> counts if one is stopped by the police or one needs to hire a car.
>> Yes and no. The police can check licenses electronically with the DVLA if 
>> they wish - the whole "procducer" thing is only there because the police 
>> love beaurocracy (gives them a feeling of power). Similarly I have 
>> successfully hired cars many times without having one or both parts of my 
>> license certificate. The hire company has a phone number they can ring to 
>> verify your license details with Swansea.
>>
> Really?  My old man once had to get a friend to fax over the green part 
> after he left it at home. 
> 
> 
Yes, really, It's just pedantry, and laziness that more hire companies 
don't use it.
I've recently had the misfortune to have had a fellow motorist nearly 
kill me at a mini roundabout (sorry, I didn't see you, obviously they 
didn't see the roundabout, or the give way lines either!!!).
While arranging for a 'courtesy' motorcycle, I was liaising with  a 
remote hire company, who simply set up a conference call with DVLA, DVLA 
asked me a few pertinent questions, listening hire company was satisfied 
as to my right to ride a motorcycle, hire company asked DVLA a few 
questions, and the hire was then authorized and actioned, all this was 
done without the hire company seeing either part of my licence.

Ken Phillips.

"Steve O"  wrote in message 
news:6kl7meF8djekU1@mid.individual.net...

> Your faith in technology is admirable, but a little misplaced.

A cute phrase, but devoid of any actual meaning in this context. If the 
technology should fail it would simply give an incorrect answer, which for 
technical reasons would most likely be to deny te existance of a 
license/tax/MoT that actually did exist. In that event, as stated above, the 
"producer" provides the victim with the opportunity to provide the 
certificates that show the technology had failed. That is the one and only 
useful role of the process.

Bu it should be noted that it is not I, but the self-same Stassi who have 
the "faith in technology" - they will steal a law-abiding citizen's property 
(to whit - his car) simply because the on-line insurance database hasn't got 
a record of its insurance EVEN IF said citizen provides (there and then) the 
insurance certificate. Even when he subsequently DOES prove the error was in 
the technology he has to pay fees to recover his car. So it begs the 
question as to why the paper certificates are not an acceptable proof of 
compliance on the roadside, but become acceptable in response to a 
"producer".

> However, there are times when it simply doesn't work, and the old hard 
> copy system is more effective.

Please name them, 'cos I sure as heck can't think of them.

> I'm not really sure why you think police officers prefer to make more 
> paperwork for themselves by issuing HO/RT1's to drivers rather than simply 
> than directly checking them on PNC.

I'm not sure why police do 90% of the things they do, but my taxes still 
have to pay their salaries. I'm making no judgements on the "why" - I'm 
merely reporting the "what".

PDR

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:59:46 +0100, "Steve O"  wrote:

>It isn't police bureacracy.
>It's actually doing the driver a favour.
>The offence is to fail to produce driving documents to the police officer at 
>the roadside, but you will evade prosecution if yopu produce them within 
>seven days.

Or as soon as possible; seven days won't be much use if you're stopped on the
way to the airport for an overseas trip.

>Or would you prefer to have to carry your driving documents with you at at 
>all times to avoid prosecution?

Yes! That's how it is in the USA, and it works very well. It avoids all the BS
we discussed in another thread regarding the police siezing cars on the spot if
they erronously believe them to be uninsured. You carry your docs, you show
them, no arguments.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

"PDR"  wrote in message 
news:48e63103$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
> news:6kl7meF8djekU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Your faith in technology is admirable, but a little misplaced.
>
> A cute phrase, but devoid of any actual meaning in this context. If the 
> technology should fail it would simply give an incorrect answer, which for 
> technical reasons would most likely be to deny te existance of a 
> license/tax/MoT that actually did exist. In that event, as stated above, 
> the "producer" provides the victim with the opportunity to provide the 
> certificates that show the technology had failed. That is the one and only 
> useful role of the process.
>
> Bu it should be noted that it is not I, but the self-same Stassi who have 
> the "faith in technology" - they will steal a law-abiding citizen's 
> property (to whit - his car) simply because the on-line insurance database 
> hasn't got a record of its insurance EVEN IF said citizen provides (there 
> and then) the insurance certificate. Even when he subsequently DOES prove 
> the error was in the technology he has to pay fees to recover his car. So 
> it begs the question as to why the paper certificates are not an 
> acceptable proof of compliance on the roadside, but become acceptable in 
> response to a "producer".
>
>> However, there are times when it simply doesn't work, and the old hard 
>> copy system is more effective.
>
> Please name them, 'cos I sure as heck can't think of them.

When the database is not updated properly by the insurance companies, for 
example.

>
>> I'm not really sure why you think police officers prefer to make more 
>> paperwork for themselves by issuing HO/RT1's to drivers rather than 
>> simply than directly checking them on PNC.
>
> I'm not sure why police do 90% of the things they do, but my taxes still 
> have to pay their salaries. I'm making no judgements on the "why" - I'm 
> merely reporting the "what".

Which happens to be inaccurate.
Police officers do not issue HO/RT1's simply for the sake of it- they issue 
them for a reason.



> PDR
>

"Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
news:s77de41ukatqecdjoves23n166e4fie7na@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:59:46 +0100, "Steve O"  
> wrote:
>
>>It isn't police bureacracy.
>>It's actually doing the driver a favour.
>>The offence is to fail to produce driving documents to the police officer 
>>at
>>the roadside, but you will evade prosecution if yopu produce them within
>>seven days.
>
> Or as soon as possible; seven days won't be much use if you're stopped on 
> the
> way to the airport for an overseas trip.
>
>>Or would you prefer to have to carry your driving documents with you at at
>>all times to avoid prosecution?
>
> Yes! That's how it is in the USA, and it works very well. It avoids all 
> the BS
> we discussed in another thread regarding the police siezing cars on the 
> spot if
> they erronously believe them to be uninsured. You carry your docs, you 
> show
> them, no arguments.
>
Hmmm.
Perhaps.
But there are still problems with documents carried in vehicles, which is 
where they would normally be carried.

In message , Mike Ross 
 writes
>On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 11:59:46 +0100, "Steve O"  wrote:
>
>>It isn't police bureacracy.
>>It's actually doing the driver a favour.
>>The offence is to fail to produce driving documents to the police officer at
>>the roadside, but you will evade prosecution if yopu produce them within
>>seven days.
>
>Or as soon as possible; seven days won't be much use if you're stopped on the
>way to the airport for an overseas trip.
>
>>Or would you prefer to have to carry your driving documents with you at at
>>all times to avoid prosecution?
>
>Yes! That's how it is in the USA, and it works very well. It avoids all the BS
>we discussed in another thread regarding the police siezing cars on the spot if
>they erronously believe them to be uninsured. You carry your docs, you show
>them, no arguments.
>
>Mike

I 48 years of driving, I can't recall ever going more than half a mile 
from home without carrying my driving licence, vehicle insurance and MOT 
certificate.

I have only been asked once - in 1961 - to show my documents, and I 
wasn't actually driving at the time. I was accompanying a learner - a 
fellow student - in his newly-purchased beaten-up wreck of a car, and we 
were stopped by a policemen controlling a crossing for school children. 
While waiting for the children to finish crossing, he noticed that there 
was no tax disc on the windscreen. Fortunately, it had simply fallen 
onto the floor and, after I had picked it up and re-attached it, and 
after a cursory glance at my licence, he happily waved us on our way.

I have since never been asked (or had occasion to be asked) for my 
documents. But I still carry them - just in case.
-- 
Ian.

"Steve O"  wrote in message 
news:6kog6bF8udioU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "PDR"  wrote in message 
> news:48e63103$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>> news:6kl7meF8djekU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> Your faith in technology is admirable, but a little misplaced.
>>
>> A cute phrase, but devoid of any actual meaning in this context. If the 
>> technology should fail it would simply give an incorrect answer, which 
>> for technical reasons would most likely be to deny te existance of a 
>> license/tax/MoT that actually did exist. In that event, as stated above, 
>> the "producer" provides the victim with the opportunity to provide the 
>> certificates that show the technology had failed. That is the one and 
>> only useful role of the process.
>>
>> Bu it should be noted that it is not I, but the self-same Stassi who have 
>> the "faith in technology" - they will steal a law-abiding citizen's 
>> property (to whit - his car) simply because the on-line insurance 
>> database hasn't got a record of its insurance EVEN IF said citizen 
>> provides (there and then) the insurance certificate. Even when he 
>> subsequently DOES prove the error was in the technology he has to pay 
>> fees to recover his car. So it begs the question as to why the paper 
>> certificates are not an acceptable proof of compliance on the roadside, 
>> but become acceptable in response to a "producer".
>>
>>> However, there are times when it simply doesn't work, and the old hard 
>>> copy system is more effective.
>>
>> Please name them, 'cos I sure as heck can't think of them.
>
> When the database is not updated properly by the insurance companies, for 
> example.

This might produce a false-negative - it might suggest that the person is 
not insured when they actually are. In these cases the paper certificate 
might be useful, but there are numerous reports that the certificates are 
not accepted at the roadside where the database says otherwise, so why would 
the be accepted up to 7 days later at a polcie station? Insurance companies 
failing to update the database should never produce a false-positive, 
because the expiry date of the policy is loaded at the time the details are 
first loaded - it doesn't require a seperate action to "switch it off". If 
the policy was subsequently cancelled the insured would usually still have 
the paper certificate, so agaion producing it has no advantages.

Try again.

>> I'm not sure why police do 90% of the things they do, but my taxes still 
>> have to pay their salaries. I'm making no judgements on the "why" - I'm 
>> merely reporting the "what".
>
> Which happens to be inaccurate.
> Police officers do not issue HO/RT1's simply for the sake of it- they 
> issue them for a reason.

In your experience, perhaps.

I reported an accident recently (motorbike ran into me at some traffic 
lights and then zoomed off). I reported the accident by phone, and was told 
to take all my documents to the police station. When I got there the 
documents weren't read because the WPC behind the desk told me that they had 
already checked the details, but there was a check box that had to be ticked 
and If I hadn't brought them I would have apparently committed an offense. 
This is a waste of everyone's time.

A couple of years ago I was stopped by a police car because one of my brake 
lights had failed. I thanked the officer and replaced it on the spot (I have 
always carried spare bulbs). While I was doing this he was on the radio 
confirming my license and insurance details were satisfactory, and he then 
confirmed that my brake light was working and told me that he wouldn't have 
to issue what I think he called a "Voluntary Rectification Notice". But he 
still issued me with a producer because "procedure requires that we issue 
one for every interaction with a motorist". I pointed out that he had just 
confirmed all the details over the radio - his response was to grin and say 
"yes, ain't life a bitch".

So our experiences differ.

PDR

"PDR"  wrote in message 
news:48e9d625$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
> news:6kog6bF8udioU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>> news:48e63103$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6kl7meF8djekU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>


>
>>> I'm not sure why police do 90% of the things they do, but my taxes still 
>>> have to pay their salaries. I'm making no judgements on the "why" - I'm 
>>> merely reporting the "what".
>>
>> Which happens to be inaccurate.
>> Police officers do not issue HO/RT1's simply for the sake of it- they 
>> issue them for a reason.
>
> In your experience, perhaps.
>
> I reported an accident recently (motorbike ran into me at some traffic 
> lights and then zoomed off). I reported the accident by phone, and was 
> told to take all my documents to the police station.

As you obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act, of course

 >When I got there the
> documents weren't read because the WPC behind the desk told me that they 
> had already checked the details, but there was a check box that had to be 
> ticked and If I hadn't brought them I would have apparently committed an 
> offense.

Absolutely.
Had you not attended the police station personally or to a constable within 
24 hrs to report the fail to stop accident, you would have been guilty of an 
offence.
Reporting by telephone is insufficient.
The police did you a favour by ensuring you complied with your statutory 
obligations and therefore avoiding prosecution.

> This is a waste of everyone's time.


>
> A couple of years ago I was stopped by a police car because one of my 
> brake lights had failed. I thanked the officer and replaced it on the spot 
> (I have always carried spare bulbs). While I was doing this he was on the 
> radio confirming my license and insurance details were satisfactory, and 
> he then confirmed that my brake light was working and told me that he 
> wouldn't have to issue what I think he called a "Voluntary Rectification 
> Notice". But he still issued me with a producer because "procedure 
> requires that we issue one for every interaction with a motorist". I 
> pointed out that he had just confirmed all the details over the radio - 
> his response was to grin and say "yes, ain't life a bitch".
>
> So our experiences differ.
>
> PDR
>

"Steve O"  wrote in message 
news:6kubpjF9p2r1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "PDR"  wrote in message 
> news:48e9d625$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>> news:6kog6bF8udioU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>>> news:48e63103$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:6kl7meF8djekU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>
>
>>
>>>> I'm not sure why police do 90% of the things they do, but my taxes 
>>>> still have to pay their salaries. I'm making no judgements on the 
>>>> "why" - I'm merely reporting the "what".
>>>
>>> Which happens to be inaccurate.
>>> Police officers do not issue HO/RT1's simply for the sake of it- they 
>>> issue them for a reason.
>>
>> In your experience, perhaps.
>>
>> I reported an accident recently (motorbike ran into me at some traffic 
>> lights and then zoomed off). I reported the accident by phone, and was 
>> told to take all my documents to the police station.
>
> As you obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act, of course
>
> >When I got there the
>> documents weren't read because the WPC behind the desk told me that they 
>> had already checked the details, but there was a check box that had to be 
>> ticked and If I hadn't brought them I would have apparently committed an 
>> offense.
>
> Absolutely.
> Had you not attended the police station personally or to a constable 
> within 24 hrs to report the fail to stop accident, you would have been 
> guilty of an offence.
> Reporting by telephone is insufficient.
> The police did you a favour by ensuring you complied with your statutory 
> obligations and therefore avoiding prosecution.
>
What a load of crap.
The Police are never interested in an RTA unless there are injuries.  I've 
called the Police after accidents and they said that they were too busy to 
come and to sort it out with the insuance.

"mert1639"  wrote in message 
news:gcdoig$vqb$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>
> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
> news:6kubpjF9p2r1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>> news:48e9d625$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>
>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6kog6bF8udioU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:48e63103$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:6kl7meF8djekU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure why police do 90% of the things they do, but my taxes 
>>>>> still have to pay their salaries. I'm making no judgements on the 
>>>>> "why" - I'm merely reporting the "what".
>>>>
>>>> Which happens to be inaccurate.
>>>> Police officers do not issue HO/RT1's simply for the sake of it- they 
>>>> issue them for a reason.
>>>
>>> In your experience, perhaps.
>>>
>>> I reported an accident recently (motorbike ran into me at some traffic 
>>> lights and then zoomed off). I reported the accident by phone, and was 
>>> told to take all my documents to the police station.
>>
>> As you obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act, of course
>>
>> >When I got there the
>>> documents weren't read because the WPC behind the desk told me that they 
>>> had already checked the details, but there was a check box that had to 
>>> be ticked and If I hadn't brought them I would have apparently committed 
>>> an offense.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>> Had you not attended the police station personally or to a constable 
>> within 24 hrs to report the fail to stop accident, you would have been 
>> guilty of an offence.
>> Reporting by telephone is insufficient.
>> The police did you a favour by ensuring you complied with your statutory 
>> obligations and therefore avoiding prosecution.
>>
> What a load of crap.

Actually, it's the law.
Whether it's a crap law or not is a matter of opinion.

> The Police are never interested in an RTA unless there are injuries.  I've 
> called the Police after accidents and they said that they were too busy to 
> come and to sort it out with the insuance.

Presumably, you were trying to report a non- injury, non - reportable RTC 
for which there is no need for the police to attend.
The police don't deal with those- that's what your insurance is for.
Did you think that the police should have turned out and filled out your 
insurance claim or something?

mert1639 wrote:

> What a load of crap.
> The Police are never interested in an RTA unless there are injuries.  I've 
> called the Police after accidents and they said that they were too busy to 
> come and to sort it out with the insuance. 
> 
> 

I learnt this lesson years ago. ALWAYS dial 999 and ask for an ambulance 
'for whiplash injury' rather than asking for plod. That way they will 
attend.

"Steve O"  wrote in message 
news:6kv7ipF9pk74U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "mert1639"  wrote in message 
> news:gcdoig$vqb$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>>
>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>> news:6kubpjF9p2r1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>>> news:48e9d625$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:6kog6bF8udioU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:48e63103$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:6kl7meF8djekU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure why police do 90% of the things they do, but my taxes 
>>>>>> still have to pay their salaries. I'm making no judgements on the 
>>>>>> "why" - I'm merely reporting the "what".
>>>>>
>>>>> Which happens to be inaccurate.
>>>>> Police officers do not issue HO/RT1's simply for the sake of it- they 
>>>>> issue them for a reason.
>>>>
>>>> In your experience, perhaps.
>>>>
>>>> I reported an accident recently (motorbike ran into me at some traffic 
>>>> lights and then zoomed off). I reported the accident by phone, and was 
>>>> told to take all my documents to the police station.
>>>
>>> As you obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act, of course
>>>
>>> >When I got there the
>>>> documents weren't read because the WPC behind the desk told me that 
>>>> they had already checked the details, but there was a check box that 
>>>> had to be ticked and If I hadn't brought them I would have apparently 
>>>> committed an offense.
>>>
>>> Absolutely.
>>> Had you not attended the police station personally or to a constable 
>>> within 24 hrs to report the fail to stop accident, you would have been 
>>> guilty of an offence.
>>> Reporting by telephone is insufficient.
>>> The police did you a favour by ensuring you complied with your statutory 
>>> obligations and therefore avoiding prosecution.
>>>
>> What a load of crap.
>
> Actually, it's the law.
> Whether it's a crap law or not is a matter of opinion.
>
>> The Police are never interested in an RTA unless there are injuries. 
>> I've called the Police after accidents and they said that they were too 
>> busy to come and to sort it out with the insuance.
>
> Presumably, you were trying to report a non- injury, non - reportable RTC 
> for which there is no need for the police to attend.
> The police don't deal with those- that's what your insurance is for.
> Did you think that the police should have turned out and filled out your 
> insurance claim or something?
>
Someone drove into the back of me.  He waited and gave me his insurance 
details.

"Iggly Doodah"  wrote in message 
news:gcdptg$s83$1@aioe.org...
> mert1639 wrote:
>
>> What a load of crap.
>> The Police are never interested in an RTA unless there are injuries. 
>> I've called the Police after accidents and they said that they were too 
>> busy to come and to sort it out with the insuance.
>
> I learnt this lesson years ago. ALWAYS dial 999 and ask for an ambulance 
> 'for whiplash injury' rather than asking for plod. That way they will 
> attend.
>
Why would one want plod there anyway, though?

"Iggly Doodah"  wrote in message 
news:gcdptg$s83$1@aioe.org...
> mert1639 wrote:
>
>> What a load of crap.
>> The Police are never interested in an RTA unless there are injuries. 
>> I've called the Police after accidents and they said that they were too 
>> busy to come and to sort it out with the insuance.
>
> I learnt this lesson years ago. ALWAYS dial 999 and ask for an ambulance 
> 'for whiplash injury' rather than asking for plod. That way they will 
> attend.

Why would you want the police to attend?

"mert1639"  wrote in message 
news:gcdqib$oa$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>
> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
> news:6kv7ipF9pk74U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "mert1639"  wrote in message 
>> news:gcdoig$vqb$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>>>
>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6kubpjF9p2r1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:48e9d625$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:6kog6bF8udioU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:48e63103$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:6kl7meF8djekU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure why police do 90% of the things they do, but my taxes 
>>>>>>> still have to pay their salaries. I'm making no judgements on the 
>>>>>>> "why" - I'm merely reporting the "what".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which happens to be inaccurate.
>>>>>> Police officers do not issue HO/RT1's simply for the sake of it- they 
>>>>>> issue them for a reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> In your experience, perhaps.
>>>>>
>>>>> I reported an accident recently (motorbike ran into me at some traffic 
>>>>> lights and then zoomed off). I reported the accident by phone, and was 
>>>>> told to take all my documents to the police station.
>>>>
>>>> As you obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act, of course
>>>>
>>>> >When I got there the
>>>>> documents weren't read because the WPC behind the desk told me that 
>>>>> they had already checked the details, but there was a check box that 
>>>>> had to be ticked and If I hadn't brought them I would have apparently 
>>>>> committed an offense.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely.
>>>> Had you not attended the police station personally or to a constable 
>>>> within 24 hrs to report the fail to stop accident, you would have been 
>>>> guilty of an offence.
>>>> Reporting by telephone is insufficient.
>>>> The police did you a favour by ensuring you complied with your 
>>>> statutory obligations and therefore avoiding prosecution.
>>>>
>>> What a load of crap.
>>
>> Actually, it's the law.
>> Whether it's a crap law or not is a matter of opinion.
>>
>>> The Police are never interested in an RTA unless there are injuries. 
>>> I've called the Police after accidents and they said that they were too 
>>> busy to come and to sort it out with the insuance.
>>
>> Presumably, you were trying to report a non- injury, non - reportable RTC 
>> for which there is no need for the police to attend.
>> The police don't deal with those- that's what your insurance is for.
>> Did you think that the police should have turned out and filled out your 
>> insurance claim or something?
>>
> Someone drove into the back of me.  He waited and gave me his insurance 
> details.

So why would you need the police?

>

"Steve O"  wrote in message 
news:6l0fv2F9u2tuU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "mert1639"  wrote in message 
> news:gcdqib$oa$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>>
>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>> news:6kv7ipF9pk74U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "mert1639"  wrote in message 
>>> news:gcdoig$vqb$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>>>>
>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:6kubpjF9p2r1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:48e9d625$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:6kog6bF8udioU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:48e63103$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>>> news:6kl7meF8djekU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why police do 90% of the things they do, but my taxes 
>>>>>>>> still have to pay their salaries. I'm making no judgements on the 
>>>>>>>> "why" - I'm merely reporting the "what".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which happens to be inaccurate.
>>>>>>> Police officers do not issue HO/RT1's simply for the sake of it- 
>>>>>>> they issue them for a reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your experience, perhaps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I reported an accident recently (motorbike ran into me at some 
>>>>>> traffic lights and then zoomed off). I reported the accident by 
>>>>>> phone, and was told to take all my documents to the police station.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act, of course
>>>>>
>>>>> >When I got there the
>>>>>> documents weren't read because the WPC behind the desk told me that 
>>>>>> they had already checked the details, but there was a check box that 
>>>>>> had to be ticked and If I hadn't brought them I would have apparently 
>>>>>> committed an offense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely.
>>>>> Had you not attended the police station personally or to a constable 
>>>>> within 24 hrs to report the fail to stop accident, you would have been 
>>>>> guilty of an offence.
>>>>> Reporting by telephone is insufficient.
>>>>> The police did you a favour by ensuring you complied with your 
>>>>> statutory obligations and therefore avoiding prosecution.
>>>>>
>>>> What a load of crap.
>>>
>>> Actually, it's the law.
>>> Whether it's a crap law or not is a matter of opinion.
>>>
>>>> The Police are never interested in an RTA unless there are injuries. 
>>>> I've called the Police after accidents and they said that they were too 
>>>> busy to come and to sort it out with the insuance.
>>>
>>> Presumably, you were trying to report a non- injury, non - reportable 
>>> RTC for which there is no need for the police to attend.
>>> The police don't deal with those- that's what your insurance is for.
>>> Did you think that the police should have turned out and filled out your 
>>> insurance claim or something?
>>>
>> Someone drove into the back of me.  He waited and gave me his insurance 
>> details.
>
> So why would you need the police?
>
Beacuse you said that they must be informed of an accident.  And I called 
them beacuse I had an idea that this was the case.

"mert1639"  wrote in message 
news:gcf5vi$fnq$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>
> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
> news:6l0fv2F9u2tuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "mert1639"  wrote in message 
>> news:gcdqib$oa$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>>>
>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6kv7ipF9pk74U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> "mert1639"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:gcdoig$vqb$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:6kubpjF9p2r1U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:48e9d625$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:6kog6bF8udioU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "PDR"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>>> news:48e63103$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>>>>>>>> "Steve O"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>> news:6kl7meF8djekU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why police do 90% of the things they do, but my taxes 
>>>>>>>>> still have to pay their salaries. I'm making no judgements on the 
>>>>>>>>> "why" - I'm merely reporting the "what".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which happens to be inaccurate.
>>>>>>>> Police officers do not issue HO/RT1's simply for the sake of it- 
>>>>>>>> they issue them for a reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In your experience, perhaps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I reported an accident recently (motorbike ran into me at some 
>>>>>>> traffic lights and then zoomed off). I reported the accident by 
>>>>>>> phone, and was told to take all my documents to the police station.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you obliged to do so under the Road Traffic Act, of course
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >When I got there the
>>>>>>> documents weren't read because the WPC behind the desk told me that 
>>>>>>> they had already checked the details, but there was a check box that 
>>>>>>> had to be ticked and If I hadn't brought them I would have 
>>>>>>> apparently committed an offense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely.
>>>>>> Had you not attended the police station personally or to a constable 
>>>>>> within 24 hrs to report the fail to stop accident, you would have 
>>>>>> been guilty of an offence.
>>>>>> Reporting by telephone is insufficient.
>>>>>> The police did you a favour by ensuring you complied with your 
>>>>>> statutory obligations and therefore avoiding prosecution.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What a load of crap.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it's the law.
>>>> Whether it's a crap law or not is a matter of opinion.
>>>>
>>>>> The Police are never interested in an RTA unless there are injuries. 
>>>>> I've called the Police after accidents and they said that they were 
>>>>> too busy to come and to sort it out with the insuance.
>>>>
>>>> Presumably, you were trying to report a non- injury, non - reportable 
>>>> RTC for which there is no need for the police to attend.
>>>> The police don't deal with those- that's what your insurance is for.
>>>> Did you think that the police should have turned out and filled out 
>>>> your insurance claim or something?
>>>>
>>> Someone drove into the back of me.  He waited and gave me his insurance 
>>> details.
>>
>> So why would you need the police?
>>
> Beacuse you said that they must be informed of an accident.  And I called 
> them beacuse I had an idea that this was the case.
No, I said that a person is obliged to report an accident where they have 
failed to pass their details to the third party.
In a non reportable, non injury accident , as long as the driver provides 
their details to the other party or any other person who has suffered damage 
there is no need to report to the police.
Even if injury , there would also be no need to report to the police if the 
insurance details were given, but that doesn't always happen at the scene.

You could literally mow someone down on a zebra crossing and kill them, and 
provided you jump out of the car, give the corpse your name and address, the 
name address of the owner of the vehicle, the registration number of your 
vehicle and your insurance details then you will have fulfilled your 
obligations under the Road Traffic Act in relation to stopping after an 
accident and you are not under any obligation to call the police and will 
not have committed the offence of failing to stop and report an accident.
Of course, you nay have some problems in talking your way out of death by 
reckless driving, failing to conform to a traffic sign, etc.