This would seem to be the better route. Unless the owner has reported the vehicle stolen, they certainly know who is driving it and should still be responsible for letting the other person drive. Sorry, snitch them out if you don’t like thousands in fines. Deliberately using “you can’t prove it was me” while racking up fines with the expectation of getting away with it has to have some limits.
The cameras in north america typically aim at the plates and not the driver themselves, so there is plausible deniability for who was driving making the lisence difficult to suspend. That said, there is no good reason they can’t suspend the registration or impound the vehicle itself regardless of who was driving.
This highlights some pretty lax road traffic law tbh.
Not being able to suspend a licence because they were caught on a camera is fucking moronic.
After over 500 times it seems more appropriate to revoke and never allow reapplication
Here, after that many proven violations, the car itself would’ve been impounded.
This would seem to be the better route. Unless the owner has reported the vehicle stolen, they certainly know who is driving it and should still be responsible for letting the other person drive. Sorry, snitch them out if you don’t like thousands in fines. Deliberately using “you can’t prove it was me” while racking up fines with the expectation of getting away with it has to have some limits.
The cameras in north america typically aim at the plates and not the driver themselves, so there is plausible deniability for who was driving making the lisence difficult to suspend. That said, there is no good reason they can’t suspend the registration or impound the vehicle itself regardless of who was driving.
In the UK you are legally required to say who was driving at the time.
If you refuse then you get the blame.
Your friend can be driving the vehicle, they know the vehicle sped, but not who was actually driving. So demerits aren’t issued.