The point I am trying to make is this;
If I fail to provide details of someone speeding in my car I will always be prosecuted.
If a scum bag robber does not tell the police who is accomplaice is, he won't get prosecuted.
It may not be against my human rights, but it is unfair.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Speed Cameras/Human Rights
Orgasminator
Just a stealth tax in my opinion, raises millions for more cameras and more tax! 
Quote by browning
The point I am trying to make is this;
If I fail to provide details of someone speeding in my car I will always be prosecuted.
If a scum bag robber does not tell the police who is accomplaice is, he won't get may not be against my human rights, but it is unfair.
so they're just going to let him go for not telling on!
Quote by browning
If I fail to provide details of someone speeding in my car I will always be prosecuted.
If a scum bag robber does not tell the police who is accomplaice is, he won't get prosecuted.
I wouldn't say that you had to privide details of who was speeding in your car, but details of who you entrusted your car to, confirming that you were not driving the car at the time....... it's up to the person trusted with the car to confirm or deny that they were driving.
A scumbag robber is already taking the rap for his offence, a separate case not the one for his accomplaice.
Very simple solution,
If there is any doubt as to who was driving, wether from evidence (bad photo) or from the occupants unwillingness to admit to it, apply the penalty to the car. Clamp it and the release fee is the original fine, after all at the end of the day you cannot deny it's your car on the picture. So the car was definitely there at the time of the offence, therefore either the owner pays up and cops for the points, they get the person driving to or the car remains clamped. Obviously if the car was stolen or sold to someone else at the time of the offence its a different thing, however to counteract these claims if found to be false there are the wasting police time laws or the failing to register a vehicle laws.
The 'it wasnt me driving guv' is a well known dodge for people who with another speeding fine will lose thier license, Its simply a 'get out of jail free card' (not literally) It is time people started to take responsibility for their own actions.
This is of course my opinion, I have sped in the past and will probably do it again, however if i was caught it would be 'its a fair cop guv'
If there is any doubt as to who was driving, wether from evidence (bad photo) or from the occupants unwillingness to admit to it, apply the penalty to the car. Clamp it and the release fee is the original fine, after all at the end of the day you cannot deny it's your car on the picture. So the car was definitely there at the time of the offence, therefore either the owner pays up and cops for the points, they get the person driving to or the car remains clamped. Obviously if the car was stolen or sold to someone else at the time of the offence its a different thing, however to counteract these claims if found to be false there are the wasting police time laws or the failing to register a vehicle laws.
The 'it wasnt me driving guv' is a well known dodge for people who with another speeding fine will lose thier license, Its simply a 'get out of jail free card' (not literally) It is time people started to take responsibility for their own actions.
This is of course my opinion, I have sped in the past and will probably do it again, however if i was caught it would be 'its a fair cop guv'
Quote by browning
The point I am trying to make is this;
If I fail to provide details of someone speeding in my car I will always be prosecuted.
If a scum bag robber does not tell the police who is accomplaice is, he won't get prosecuted.
It may not be against my human rights, but it is unfair.
Thats probably because you are responsible for your car. a robber is not responsible for his accomplaice these are pretty much common sense answers so i'm failing to get the point your making, sorry but why should us as taxpayers have to foot the bill for a case to go to the court of human rights for something as silly as a speeding fine. its nothing to do with human rights and the owner does have the right to silence but if he won't name the driver to prove his innocence then he should be prosecuted himself as he is responsible for the said vehicle. It’s so silly its unbelievable all for a speeding fine, the courts should just charge them both with perverting the course of justice. This isn’t a case of rights it’s a case of wrongs as a law was broken so they should just own up and take the punishment rather than wasting taxpayers money.
browning: if this wasn't just about a speeding fine and there was a hit and run as well would your argument still be the same?
FUn, if was a hit and run, then I would tell the police who the driver was, it's a hard subject and very emotive. If your friend nicked a mars bar from a sweet shop, would you tell the police, if your friend burgaled a house would you tell the police.
I suppose it's what makes us interesting-we all have different opinions.
I suppose it's what makes us interesting-we all have different opinions.
Quote by browning
FUn, if was a hit and run, then I would tell the police who the driver was, it's a hard subject and very emotive. If your friend nicked a mars bar from a sweet shop, would you tell the police, yes if the police asked me if your friend burgaled a house would you tell the if the police asked me
I suppose it's what makes us interesting-we all have different opinions.
If the police ask me who was driving my car when it was caught on camera speeding then I would tell them. If the police turned up with cctv footage of a mate climbing into a house and back out making off with the contents and asked me if I could identify the burglar and I could then I would. I personally wouldn't tell a barefaced lie to a copper, perhaps I'm too honest though
Quote by browning
FUn, if was a hit and run, then I would tell the police who the driver was, it's a hard subject and very emotive. If your friend nicked a mars bar from a sweet shop, would you tell the police, if your friend burgaled a house would you tell the police.
I suppose it's what makes us interesting-we all have different opinions.
Would I tell the police if my friend stole a mars bar from a shop? NO would I tell the police if my friend stole a mars bar from a shop while driving my car and I was being blamed for it then YES. As for the house breaking bit no friend of mine would do that and if they did I can safely say they wouldn’t be my friend, but that’s another matter. I still fail to see your defence on this one you said if it was a hit and run then you would tell them who was driving, so what you are you trying to say is that its then ok to tell on a friend if it’s a serious crime? You can correct me if I’m wrong but if your main objective in this is loyalty then it won’t make a difference what crime has been committed by your friend, and I still don’t see what any of this has to do with a speeding fine either, as a speeding fine won’t give either a criminal record. They should just own up, pay up and shut up end of.
ive read all of this thread but still cant see the issue?
you own a car , your the registered keeper then i feel its your duty to ensure the person who you have allowed to drive it is insured and responsible. If they were not and will not admit to a driving offence then you have twatish mates and should take the rap for the offense lol
all the arguments about what the revenue from speed cameras is used for is pointless, fact is if you dont want to contribute then dont speed
xx fem xxx
you own a car , your the registered keeper then i feel its your duty to ensure the person who you have allowed to drive it is insured and responsible. If they were not and will not admit to a driving offence then you have twatish mates and should take the rap for the offense lol
all the arguments about what the revenue from speed cameras is used for is pointless, fact is if you dont want to contribute then dont speed
xx fem xxx
Quote by fem_4_taboo
ive read all of this thread but still cant see the issue?
you own a car , your the registered keeper then i feel its your duty to ensure the person who you have allowed to drive it is insured and responsible. If they were not and will not admit to a driving offence then you have twatish mates and should take the rap for the offense lol
all the arguments about what the revenue from speed cameras is used for is pointless, fact is if you dont want to contribute then dont speed
xx fem xxx
quality post ...........
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Master of Sex
If you get flashed, they have to let you have a letter in the post to you in a set time, if it falls out that time frame, then they cannot pursue it, you can challenge it. If they send you a letter within the time peeps should ask for copies of;
1 The Primary evidence ie the picture of the veh going through the camera, in a lot of cases they dont have this, or they have lost the the pictures AFTER THE LETTER HAS GONE OUT.
2 The Secondary evidence, this is the Physical calculation that they have to do by law to verify the camera is right, because of the no of hits, many times this is not possible, and it is only done in 1 in 3 cases, requesting this evidence should help in not getting any points.
These things are a bloody nuisance, and are only there to make money, only 20% of accidents are caused by speeding cars.
1 The Primary evidence ie the picture of the veh going through the camera, in a lot of cases they dont have this, or they have lost the the pictures AFTER THE LETTER HAS GONE OUT.
2 The Secondary evidence, this is the Physical calculation that they have to do by law to verify the camera is right, because of the no of hits, many times this is not possible, and it is only done in 1 in 3 cases, requesting this evidence should help in not getting any points.
These things are a bloody nuisance, and are only there to make money, only 20% of accidents are caused by speeding cars.
Quote by GnV
what is someone bangs your car, say in asda carpark and drives off, would you expect them to have the right to silence under their human rights by not saying who the driver was
Private property, so the issue doesn't arise
off course it does , failure to stop at the scene of an accident, follow up enquiries to determine who the driver was
Quote by Kiss
These things are a bloody nuisance, and are only there to make money, only 20% of accidents are caused by speeding cars.
I thought they would only be a nuisance to people who broke the law by speeding?
No quite so Kiss.. they cause a bottle-neck as drivers suddenly slow down to below the legal limit and their attention span is diverted to looking through the mirror to see if they have activated the camera. In the event that the traffic ahead has stopped or slowed even more than expected, during those vital seconds of forward inattention, they ram the car in front up the backside.
Quote by GnV
These things are a bloody nuisance, and are only there to make money, only 20% of accidents are caused by speeding cars.
I thought they would only be a nuisance to people who broke the law by speeding?
No quite so Kiss.. they cause a bottle-neck as drivers suddenly slow down to below the legal limit and their attention span is diverted to looking through the mirror to see if they have activated the camera. In the event that the traffic ahead has stopped or slowed even more than expected, during those vital seconds of forward inattention, they ram the car in front up the backside.
Ahhh but in an ideal world people wouldn't need to slow down suddenly were they not breaking the limit.
Shame we don't live in one.
Sex God
Quote by garyishere
what is someone bangs your car, say in asda carpark and drives off, would you expect them to have the right to silence under their human rights by not saying who the driver was
Private property, so the issue doesn't arise
off course it does , failure to stop at the scene of an accident, follow up enquiries to determine who the driver was
No it doesn't, the law only relates to the public highway not private land like a supermarket carpark............... That becomes a civil matter that very few insurance companies ever bother to follow up on, prefering instead to just pay out for your damage, even though someone else was responsible for the damage.
M
Ok I admit it; I haven’t read the whole thread. I have no idea if this has already been mentioned, but scanning through the last few pages it looks as if everyone is making one major assumption, that is that the person receiving the summons knows who was driving at the time. If you are a couple who regularly share a car and you get a letter through the post asking who was driving at a particular time when an offence took place what would you do if you genuinely couldn’t ascertain who was driving at the time.
From personal experience, Fire as the registered keeper receives notification. 6 miles an hour over limit at temporary lights. We were unable to remember who was driving so asked for the photo. The photo arrives but it’s at night and taken from the back so impossible to see who was driving. She goes to court and explains the situation; however under the law she must say who was driving, and make a plea, guilty or not guilty. Now remember she is under oath at this point. She must under the law say who was driving but can’t. If she pleads not guilty she must name me as the driver, so she is lying under oath in court a much greater offence under the law than the driving offence in the first place. If she pleads guilty she is lying under oath in court etc.
Anyone who thinks small changes like this don’t matter isn’t looking deep enough.
From personal experience, Fire as the registered keeper receives notification. 6 miles an hour over limit at temporary lights. We were unable to remember who was driving so asked for the photo. The photo arrives but it’s at night and taken from the back so impossible to see who was driving. She goes to court and explains the situation; however under the law she must say who was driving, and make a plea, guilty or not guilty. Now remember she is under oath at this point. She must under the law say who was driving but can’t. If she pleads not guilty she must name me as the driver, so she is lying under oath in court a much greater offence under the law than the driving offence in the first place. If she pleads guilty she is lying under oath in court etc.
Anyone who thinks small changes like this don’t matter isn’t looking deep enough.
Quote by Stormwalker
From personal experience, Fire as the registered keeper receives notification. 6 miles an hour over limit at temporary lights. We were unable to remember who was driving so asked for the photo. The photo arrives but it’s at night and taken from the back so impossible to see who was driving. She goes to court and explains the situation; however under the law she must say who was driving, and make a plea, guilty or not guilty. Now remember she is under oath at this point. She must under the law say who was driving but can’t. If she pleads not guilty she must name me as the driver, so she is lying under oath in court a much greater offence under the law than the driving offence in the first place. If she pleads guilty she is lying under oath in court etc.
Anyone who thinks small changes like this don’t matter isn’t looking deep enough.
That ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ is by far the best "argument" I've seen put across.
And possiblythe only acceptable reason for being genuinely unable to answer the question in the first place.
:thumbup:
Quote by MandH
what is someone bangs your car, say in asda carpark and drives off, would you expect them to have the right to silence under their human rights by not saying who the driver was
Private property, so the issue doesn't arise
off course it does , failure to stop at the scene of an accident, follow up enquiries to determine who the driver was
No it doesn't, the law only relates to the public highway not private land like a supermarket carpark............... That becomes a civil matter that very few insurance companies ever bother to follow up on, prefering instead to just pay out for your damage, even though someone else was responsible for the damage.
M
i have been involved in 2 incidents that have happened on private land,one being my fault
,on both occasions the insurance companies have delt with them like they were on any other public highwayfil
I wish people would stop prattling-on about "children killed in 30 limits by speeding drivers"....less than 1% of child road deaths occur in 30 limits.
And nobody dresses lies and falsehoods better than the police...
And nobody dresses lies and falsehoods better than the police...
'We're here to save lives." No one can use Bath station without seeing this slogan blazoned everywhere over the floors, advertising something called the Avon & Somerset Safety Camera Partnership. A year ago I reported here on attending one of its "Speed Camera Workshops". The message dinned into us for three hours was that "speed" is responsible for a third of all traffic accidents; that the definition of "speeding" is breaking a speed limit; and that, therefore, by stopping drivers speeding, speed cameras were saving large numbers of lives.
Fortunately, thanks to a detailed brief from Paul Smith, the road safety expert who runs , I was able to show how every single statistic used to support this case was wrong. And now the Department for Transport (DfT) has finally published new figures that support Mr Smith, and show that the number of accidents involving motorists breaking a speed limit is only 5 per cent.
Mr Smith's general point is that, for 30 years, Britain enjoyed the safest roads in Europe, with road accident figures in continuous decline. Only in 1994 did that rate of decline markedly diminish, when the government put speed cameras at the centre of its road safety policy. This, he argues, was a disastrous misjudgment, only justified by massaging the statistics, which the DfT has at last done something to rectify.
But telling the truth is not a habit the DfT will take to readily. The same report also boasted that the UK is well on course to meet its target of a 40 per cent drop in serious accidents by 2010. What the DfT didn't tell us was that this target was set by the EU – now moving rapidly to take control of road safety policy – and that actual accident figures, as reported by hospitals, show no drop at all. In other words, the DfT is now telling lies not just to fool the rest of us but the EU as well.
Sex God
My human right?
To step into the road and get to the other side.
so yes I am in favour of them. If anyone speeds bad luck. If you are with someone in the pic you should not have been with bad luck. Speed kills.
Then again some limits are a bit to low, but on the whole........
To step into the road and get to the other side.
so yes I am in favour of them. If anyone speeds bad luck. If you are with someone in the pic you should not have been with bad luck. Speed kills.Then again some limits are a bit to low, but on the whole........
Quote by dambuster
From personal experience, Fire as the registered keeper receives notification. 6 miles an hour over limit at temporary lights. We were unable to remember who was driving so asked for the photo. The photo arrives but it’s at night and taken from the back so impossible to see who was driving. She goes to court and explains the situation; however under the law she must say who was driving, and make a plea, guilty or not guilty. Now remember she is under oath at this point. She must under the law say who was driving but can’t. If she pleads not guilty she must name me as the driver, so she is lying under oath in court a much greater offence under the law than the driving offence in the first place. If she pleads guilty she is lying under oath in court etc.
Anyone who thinks small changes like this don’t matter isn’t looking deep enough.
That ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ is by far the best "argument" I've seen put across.
And possiblythe only acceptable reason for being genuinely unable to answer the question in the first place.
:thumbup:
Thats true but if that was the case in this particular incident i would agree, but they aren't disputing who was driving, they were refusing (at the time) to name any drivers who have driven or drive the vehicle, as any lawyer will tell you an alibi is the most inportant part of any defence and its up to the individual to know exactly what they were doing at the time of the offense, yes we know its not possible to remember everything we've done and at what times and i'm not insisting we should, i'm merely stating thats how the law works.
but just to add they now know who the two persons are that may have been driving the vehicle and have been forced to both give statements as failing to do so would penalise themselves further, so both have been charged with speeding on the grounds of their statements, so how can 2 people be charged with 1 offense? it's interesting now
Sex God
Why don't they just turn the camera's round so they flash the front of the car,instead of the back....in doing so they can also flash the driver aswell....thus stopping people refusing to say who was driving....just a thought........
Quote by creampie123
Why don't they just turn the camera's round so they flash the front of the car,instead of the back....in doing so they can also flash the driver aswell....thus stopping people refusing to say who was driving....just a thought........
Because the cowards prefer to shoot you in the back
Sex God
Quote by Stormwalker
Ok I admit it; I haven’t read the whole thread. I have no idea if this has already been mentioned, but scanning through the last few pages it looks as if everyone is making one major assumption, that is that the person receiving the summons knows who was driving at the time. If you are a couple who regularly share a car and you get a letter through the post asking who was driving at a particular time when an offence took place what would you do if you genuinely couldn’t ascertain who was driving at the time.
From personal experience, Fire as the registered keeper receives notification. 6 miles an hour over limit at temporary lights. We were unable to remember who was driving so asked for the photo. The photo arrives but it’s at night and taken from the back so impossible to see who was driving. She goes to court and explains the situation; however under the law she must say who was driving, and make a plea, guilty or not guilty. Now remember she is under oath at this point. She must under the law say who was driving but can’t. If she pleads not guilty she must name me as the driver, so she is lying under oath in court a much greater offence under the law than the driving offence in the first place. If she pleads guilty she is lying under oath in court etc.
Anyone who thinks small changes like this don’t matter isn’t looking deep enough.
okay... can i then play devils advocate.......
if there is was a system where you could then name the possible drivers to that vehicle if people cant remember, and with the consent of all the drivers involved, would it then be possible to share the points and share the fine???? a sort of collective responsability
i am just thinking off the top of my head......
this would work for private vehicles... for business vehicles could a register be set up maybe the onus should be on the business's to pay the fines, to stop collective points sharing...
or maybe for the purposes of insuring cars, could they not calculate costs based on the points of a car recieved as well as the points of an indivudal????
since i don't drive maybe they already do.....
sean xxxxx
Sorry Sean, but I'd argue very strongly on that one.
I don't mind standing up and taking it on the chin, but only for me or mine.
I've been in the position more than once, of "collective punishments" and the thing I found it fostered more than the intended "team building" or "internal policing" was resentment and internal conflict.
About the speed camera law; would have to say that it just simply doesn't work in all cases. And it's the technology that lets it down.
If the "authority" is unable to show that I was speeding, then they should not be able to prosecute me. In this case the "authority" being the camera. If the technology isn't up to it, then it shouldn't be allowed to be solely relied upon.
I'm a very firm believer that those accusing me should and do bear the burden of proof. Without assistance from me. I've been in the situation of needing alibis, but been unable to provide one. We never know when we'll need one, so I find it acceptable to say "I don't have one, because I didn't know that 2 months/weeks/years later I would need one"
However . . . . . . . .
If I know that someone has committed an offence (any offence) I think it is entirely reasonable that I am forced, by law, if neccessary, to say so. They should not be forced to do so, but other people should be.
And that's pretty much the way I see that it does all work. Apart from in the case of the speed/traffic camera scenario.
I think it's actually ludicrous that I should have to keep a record of who drives my private car, with a view to being held responsible for their actions.
I'm not saying I shouldn't or wouldn't want to answer the question honestly, but I am saying that I shouldn't be prosecuted because I genuinely can't.
As it stands at the moment HLB and I have a car each. If we had one car between us, it would be almost impossible to say who was driving at a specific point in time, on a specific road, up to a fortnight ago. As an example - At the traffic lights near home we turn either left or right to go to either the local small Tesco, or the larger Tesco and city/town centre. Both are open 24 hours. In this day and age the distance to each is viewed as "local" so we "nip" to one of them quite often. By car. My point - to get to either we drive past 2 cameras or
3.
Step it up a little
Should I keep a record of who I've lent my hammer to, in case they hit someone over the head with it ? And if I don't, should I be prosecuted for not knowing who had my hammer at the time ?
Over the top analogy ? So is using the Human rights argument. IMHO
I think many people fighting the battle against cameras on a human rights front, have lost the important concept of "do the right thing"
I don't mind standing up and taking it on the chin, but only for me or mine.
I've been in the position more than once, of "collective punishments" and the thing I found it fostered more than the intended "team building" or "internal policing" was resentment and internal conflict.
About the speed camera law; would have to say that it just simply doesn't work in all cases. And it's the technology that lets it down.
If the "authority" is unable to show that I was speeding, then they should not be able to prosecute me. In this case the "authority" being the camera. If the technology isn't up to it, then it shouldn't be allowed to be solely relied upon.
I'm a very firm believer that those accusing me should and do bear the burden of proof. Without assistance from me. I've been in the situation of needing alibis, but been unable to provide one. We never know when we'll need one, so I find it acceptable to say "I don't have one, because I didn't know that 2 months/weeks/years later I would need one"
However . . . . . . . .
If I know that someone has committed an offence (any offence) I think it is entirely reasonable that I am forced, by law, if neccessary, to say so. They should not be forced to do so, but other people should be.
And that's pretty much the way I see that it does all work. Apart from in the case of the speed/traffic camera scenario.
I think it's actually ludicrous that I should have to keep a record of who drives my private car, with a view to being held responsible for their actions.
I'm not saying I shouldn't or wouldn't want to answer the question honestly, but I am saying that I shouldn't be prosecuted because I genuinely can't.
As it stands at the moment HLB and I have a car each. If we had one car between us, it would be almost impossible to say who was driving at a specific point in time, on a specific road, up to a fortnight ago. As an example - At the traffic lights near home we turn either left or right to go to either the local small Tesco, or the larger Tesco and city/town centre. Both are open 24 hours. In this day and age the distance to each is viewed as "local" so we "nip" to one of them quite often. By car. My point - to get to either we drive past 2 cameras or
3.
Step it up a little
Should I keep a record of who I've lent my hammer to, in case they hit someone over the head with it ? And if I don't, should I be prosecuted for not knowing who had my hammer at the time ?
Over the top analogy ? So is using the Human rights argument. IMHO
I think many people fighting the battle against cameras on a human rights front, have lost the important concept of "do the right thing"
