Harriet Harman - You know where I am.

  john bunyan 17:43 04 Oct 09
Locked

According to the Papers today H Harman was allegedly driving whist on a mobile, hit a parked car, and drove off when challenged, just giving her name to a winess saying "You know where I am". If true this is surely yet another case of MP's thinking they are above the law. Anyone knows you have to take steps to exchange details etc at the time, and not use a hand held mobile. It is lucky it was only a parked car she hit and not a person. I agree it is all allegation but I hope she is treated just as one of us would be by the boys in blue, but I am sceptical !

  lofty29 18:22 04 Oct 09

As I saw the story she was actually using a hands free unit, however it does show the distraction even one of these can cause. She was a bit stupid and arrogant in not following recognised proceedure in the light of all the other stories about MP's being lacksidasical about the rules.

  Forum Editor 19:02 04 Oct 09

to leave the scene of an accident without providing your name, the name of the owner of your vehicle, and the registration number, or without visiting a Police station immediately after the accident and reporting it.

Courts take this offence very seriously, it's punishable with up to six months imprisonment.

If Harriet Harman did leave the scene without exchanging details with the owner/driver of the other vehicle - or without reporting it to Police in the absence of the owner/driver - she may have committed an offence. That is no doubt what the Police are investigating. It's not an offence to use a hands-free phone in your car unless its use leads to you driving without due care and attention.

  egapup 19:13 04 Oct 09

She will get away with it. She will say it was a mistake, an oversight, and nothing more will be done, as usual.

  OTT_Buzzard 20:10 04 Oct 09

"She will say it was a mistake, an oversight, and nothing more will be done, as usual"

Or perhaps claim security reasons for not stopping....

  hssutton 20:24 04 Oct 09

"Or perhaps claim security reasons for not stopping...."

I remember the time that Jack Straw with his driver travelling at over 100 miles an hour on the motorway. Their excuse was that a car was acting suspiciously behind them, so for security reasons they increased their speed to over 100mph.

This sticks in my mind as at the time I received a speeding ticket for travelling at 1mph over the 70 MPH speed limit.

It was only after sending a letter to Ceefax letter pages comparing the two incidents, that I received a phone call and a letter from the police apologising for the speeding ticket.

  Deekio 21:00 04 Oct 09

I'm with egapup,
She'll get a slap on the portfolio and puleese don't do it again while the rest of us get stamped
on as if we are vermin/cash cows.
I wonder since she is a so called feminist
does she she want to be treated as a male driver
would or just a dipsy female?
Col.

  karmgord 21:17 04 Oct 09

one rule for them, another for us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  Stuartli 21:34 04 Oct 09

As the police have normally added 10 per cent to a particular speed limit to allow for speedometer inaccuracy, plus 2.5mph, it would seem to indicate that your speedometer would be displaying at least 80mph when you were booked.

For information:

From Hansard

Lord Whitty (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Labour)

"The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, as amended, allows the use of speedometers that meet the requirements of EC Community Directive 75/443(97/39) or ECE Regulation 39. Both the EC Directive and the ECE Regulation lay down accuracy requirements to be applied at the time of vehicle approval for speedometers.

"These requirements are that the indicated speed must not be more than 10 per cent of the true speed plus 4 km/h. In production, however, a slightly different tolerance of 5 per cent plus 10 km/h is applied. The requirements are also that the indicated speed must never be less than the true speed.

"A vehicle meeting these requirements would not be able to travel at a greater speed than that shown on the speedometer and a driver could not, therefore, inadvertently exceed speed restrictions. Her Majesty's Government have no plans to introduce instrument tests."

  Deekio 22:06 04 Oct 09

Stuartli,
Will Harriet Harmon get away with it or not?
Col.

  Bapou 23:02 04 Oct 09

If you are referring to the version in the Mail On Sunday, further into the story is reference to Ms Harman having 'form' when it comes to attitude involving driving offences.

"In 2003, Ms Harman was fined £400 and banned from driving for a week after being convicted of driving at 99mph on a motorway.

In April 2007 she was also issued with a £60 fixed-penalty notice and three penalty points for driving at 50mph in a 40mph zone on the A14 in Suffolk.

She paid the fine several months late, narrowly avoiding appearing at Ipswich magistrates' court."

Maybe it is time she was taught the law really does apply to her as well.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Huawei P10 review

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

An overview: What leading creative agencies are doing to improve diversity

New iPad, iPhone SE & Red iPhone 7 on sale now