Is it a legal requirement like in the states?? i know a few people whove been pulled lately and told off by the copper claiming you are required to carry your license when driving.

I can find nothing online which says this is a legal requirement.

Anyone know anything???

seems a bit moronic these days with all the dvla databases the police have access to.

 

I've been told off for not having the paper part with me

 

i was told by my driving test examiner that it is and have been pulled many times by the police and told the same allthough i have never had it on me and the same coppers have said its ok allthough its illegal we dont enforce it as people may lose it if its caried all the time!

 

Read the Road Traffic Act 1988, section 164.

 

nah its not you just have to provide details at your local police station within so many days,

 

It's an offence not to produce your licence to a constable when required to do so, but there is a provision written that allows the driver to produce at a police station of their choice within 7 days.

The licence status will be simply be checked at the side of the road anyway. So I wouldn't worry about carrying it.

 

164 Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in certain cases statement of date of birth

(1) Any of the following persons—

(a) a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,

(b) a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road,

(c) a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on a road, or

(d) a person—

(i) who supervises the holder of a provisional licence while the holder is driving a motor vehicle on a road, or

(ii) whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe was supervising the holder of a provisional licence while driving, at a time when an accident occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on a road or at a time when an offence is suspected of having been committed by the holder of the provisional licence in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road,

must, on being so required by a constable, produce his licence for examination, so as to enable the constable to ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue, and the authority by which it was issued.

(2) Such a person must in prescribed circumstances, on being so required by the constable, state his date of birth.

(3) If—

(a) a licence has been revoked by the Secretary of State under section 93 or 99 of this Act, and

(b) the holder of the licence fails to deliver it to the Secretary of State in pursuance of the section in question,

a constable may require him to produce it, and upon its being produced may seize it and deliver it to the Secretary of State.

(4) Where a constable has reasonable cause to believe that the holder of a licence, or any other person, has knowingly made a false statement for the purpose of obtaining the grant of the licence, the constable may require the holder of the licence to produce it to him.

(5) Where a person has been required under section 27 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to produce a licence to the court and fails to do so, a constable may require him to produce it and, upon its being produced, may seize it and deliver it to the court.

(6) If a person required under the preceding provisions of this section to produce a licence or state his date of birth to a constable fails to do so he is, subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, guilty of an offence.

(7) Subsection (6) above does not apply where a person required on any occasion under the preceding provisions of this section to produce a licence—

(a) produces on that occasion a current receipt for the licence issued under section 56 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 and, if required to do so, produces the licence in person immediately on its return at a police station that was specified on that occasion, or

(b) within seven days after that occasion produces such a receipt in person at a police station that was specified by him on that occasion and, if required to do so, produces the licence in person immediately on its return at that police station.

(8) In proceedings against any person for the offence of failing to produce a licence it shall be a defence for him to show that—

(a) within seven days after the production of his licence was required he produced it in person at a police station that was specified by him at the time its production was required, or

(b) he produced it in person there as soon as was reasonably practicable, or

(c) it was not reasonably practicable for him to produce it there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced,

and for the purposes of this subsection the laying of the information or, in Scotland, the service of the complaint on the accused shall be treated as the commencement of the proceedings.

(9) Where in accordance with this section a person has stated his date of birth to a constable, the Secretary of State may serve on that person a notice in writing requiring him to provide the Secretary of State—

(a) with such evidence in that person’s possession or obtainable by him as the Secretary of State may specify for the purpose of verifying that date, and

(b) if his name differs from his name at the time of his birth, with a statement in writing specifying his name at that time,

and a person who knowingly fails to comply with a notice under this subsection is guilty of an offence.

(10) A notice authorised to be served on any person by subsection (9) above may be served on him by delivering it to him or by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it to him by post; and for the purposes of this subsection and section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978[1978 c. 30.] in its application to this subsection the proper address of any person shall be his latest address as known to the person giving the notice.

(11) In this section “licence” and “provisional licence” have the same meanings as in Part III of this Act.



according to that there is no offence unless not produced within 7 days.

so my original question stands then. there is no specific offence for not having a license on you as it stands? and hence the cops can do fuck all?? especially considering the DVLA database.

 

you been watching five? lol

 

no why??

 

Warren, you need to re-read it. These are the most important parts in sequence, for the most common reason a driver would get stopped:

It's as I said. If a driver cannot produce evidence of a licence at the roadside, either by production of the licence, or by giving a verifiable name and date of birth, then he/she commits an offence. Production of the licence within seven days nullifies the offence, so no prosecution is carried out.

At the time of being stopped, there's usually the line "If you fail to produce your licence within seven days from midnight tonight, then you will be reported for the offence of driving otherwise in accordance with a licence"

 

so if you give name and date of birth so they can check database then theres no good reason for a producer other than to inconvenience you??

 

Pretty much. its like the Section 5 bullshit they've come up with, basicly meaning they can harass the fuck out of you all they like, but if you get sarcy or anything back, they can book you, just to fuck up your day!!

 

it all seems totally pointless in this day and age with databases.

you can have all the paperwork you want but if the database says no, then they take your car.

so clearly the paperwork is worthless so whats the fucking point???

 

But the database is run by the DVLA, who are complete numpties. It's sound advice to carry the plastic part of your licence with you, please note, I said with you, not left in the car.

A couple of times the DVLA has had no record of someone's licence, and their car has been taken away. Granted, they get the costs reimbursed, but it's a lot of hassle.

 

It might not be obvious to the casual bystander, but it's still very useful when investigating collisions. It's also useful, because unsuprisingly, not everyone tells the truth and it often turns out there's other stuff that comes to light when the documents actually get produced.

As for that "Section 5 bullshit" - used generally for swearing in public. Simple answer here - don't behave like a moron in public, and the police won't have any need to talk to you. It's not hard now, is it?

 

im glad you said it

 

my mum got pulled over a few years back and when she give her details that said on the system shes been dead 4 years lol she couldnt believe it. it took over a year to get it all sorted in the end it was a clerical error by dvla.

 

Another way around the issue is to say something like 'i am not driving, i am exercsing my common law right to travel and to enjoy my property', but that's likely to turn into a very very long conversation

 

I just think the documents are totally pointless. as far as the police are concerned for a road stop the database takes precedence. Its a commonly known tactic for criminals to keep a certificate, cancel insurance, keep a license declared lost so theyve got what looks like a valid license etc. So the police hold NO weight on the docs. So whats the point in them????

especially from a driver point of view. if the police find anything wrong on the database then you WILL loose your car unless its insurance and phoning the company confirms your story.

 

they still need photographic ID of some sort to prove who you are, hence the producers in most cases

 

a solution that could be solved with a national ID card that holds EVERYTHING. DVLA ref no, nat insurance number, NHS number, home address etc. then do away with everything else. officer just then scans the barcode/stripe (or types in number if card is damaged) and it links to dvla database for ins, license, mot, tax.

could save loads of money.

or giving police cars a decent computer like yanks and most of europe has had for 20 years. all they do then is put in your name and bring it up on screen including a nice photo.

Its only because this country trys to be modern and fails miserably while still keeping the old methods which arent trusted because the modern electronic stuff is supposed to work so gets stuck in a situation thats worse than before.

The idea of electronic databases is to reduce time spent, reduce mistakes and reduce needless paperwork. So far its done none of that

 

but the ID card idea, if the government issused them for free there would be no problem, but as they were going to cost the best part of £100, no fucker is going to bother with them!

even the very wealthy i imagine would tell them to GFTS!

i for one would, and im far from wealthy lol

 

was something on five intercepters said to young lad you should always carry your licence!

 

although if they are saving money on paper licence, paper insurance and MoT, inefficient multiple DVLA databases etc and replacing it with one decent database then they will be saving loads of money and have NO need to charge £100 quid for one!!!
oh ok

 

I have not been asked for photographic ID and I still have the old paper license.

 

Many moons ago we issued HORT1 which was commonly known as the seven day producer, I believe now they have amalgamated pads which include the VDRS (Vehicle defect retification scheme) and possibly Pace search info. A serving officer would know, Im well out of touch now In those days the PNC system didnt have access to insurance databases like they do now so it might of all changed entirely.
I always carry my photocard part but not the paper part, mainly for ID purposes only.

 

I stopped an elderly gent once who still had a red book licence, I thought he was pulling my leg until a check revealed it was legit.

 

We've still got HORT1's which can be used in isolation, but most vehicle forms have that same information included in them to prevent duplication.

The terminals in the cars are fantastic bits of kit, but they're only as good as the information added to them, that's why requiring documents is still a useful tool. That piece of legislation will never go away.

Furthermore, there is no requirement for photographic ID, but it goes a long way to helping clear things up at the roadside - a passport and driving licence have a lot of information that can be verified.

 

What's the big deal though? Surely it's extremely simple to carry it about? It's the same size as a credit/debit card, and I'm sure (unless you're one of those 'cash in the mattress' weirdos) that you could just put it in your wallet like the rest of us.

I've also never heard of anyone being 'done' as long as they produce within seven days.

So not really sure why you're so pissed about it???

 

but if you dont have any docs at all on you, then you need to prove who you are in most cases

 

i got told if you got it on you dont produce it anyway.

 

sorry but u gotta laugh at that!

 

been there, done that, went to court and showed them my license and they said "thank you very much, naughty naughty policeman for not believing you" and that was that

no reimbursement of costs or anything

but if the database says no then you have to proof that you are who you say you are which is when they ask you to "accompany me to the station" and then don't give you a lift back when you prove you are who you said you were all along

 

I never carry the license with me, and I never had any photo id either.

I was just given a Horti and even at the station they don't ask for photo ID.